I am. For Hum. Nat. p 132 & Lev. c. 12 p. 53. & Object. 5. p. 97. the effects we ac­knowledge [Page 10] naturally, do include a Power of their producing, before they were produced; and that Power presupposeth something Existent that hath such Power: and the thing so existing with power to produce, if it were not eternal, must needs have been produced by somewhat before it, and that again by somewhat else before that, till we come to an eternal (that is to say, the First,) Power of all Powers, and [...]rst Cause of all Causes: and this is it which all men conceive by the name of God.

By this argument, unwary men may be, per­haps, deceived into a good opinion of your Philo­sophy; as if by the aids of it, you were no weak defender of natural Religion; but such as with due attention, search your Books, they cannot miss a Key, wherewith they may decypher those mysteri­ous words, and shew that in their true and pro­per meaning, they undermine Religion in stead of laying the ground-work of it. Des-Cartes in an Epi­stle to Father Mersennus Tom. 3. p. 419 Dat. 1641. makes mention, though with much neglect of your opinion concerning a Corporeal God, this it seems you had broached in a studied Letter, which passed through divers hands, about that time when All things Sacred be­gan to be most rudely invaded; to wit, the com­mencement of our Civil Wars. And in diver▪ Books since that time published, you have often insinuated, and sometimes directly asserted, that whatsoever existeth is material. Seing then, it is absurd to say, that Matter can create Matter; it followeth that the effects you speak of in your ar­gument, are not to be understood of the very Es­sences of bodies (which in your Book de Corpore [Page 11] De Corp. Part. 2. p. 84. you conceive to be neither generated nor de­stroyed) but of those various changes, which by motion are caused in nature: your sense then a­mounteth to this impious assertion; that in the chain of natural causes, subordinate to each other, that portion of matter which in one rank of causes and effects (for you admit De Corp. c. 26. p. 307 'Till at l [...]st we came to one or many eternal Cause or Causes. of an eternal cause or of causes) being it self eternally moved, Ibid. gave the first impulse to another body, which also mo­ved the neighboring Body, & so forward in many links of succession, 'till the motion arrived at any effect which we take notice of, is to be called God. In the like sense the Atheist Vaninus called nature, Tit. lib. [...]. C. V. De Admiran­dis naturoe R [...]ginae Deae (que) mortalium. the Queen and Goddesse of Mortals; being (as saith a learned Writer) D. Win­det de vitā funct. Sta­t [...]. p. 13. a sottish Priest of the said Goddess, and also a most infamous sacrifice.

This principle, that God is not incor­poreal, is H. Con­sid. p. 32. the doctrin which I have sometimes written, and when occasion serves, maintain; I say, therefore, that Leviath; part. 4. ch. 46. p. 37▪ the world (I mean not the Earth only, that denominates the lovers of it world­ly men, but the Universe, that is, the whole Mass of all things that are) is corporeal, that is to say, bo­dy; and hath the dimensions of magnitude, namely, length, breadth and depth, also every part of body is likewise body, and hath the like dimensions; & consequently every part of the universe is body, & that which is not body, is no part of the [...]niverse: and because the universe i [...] all, that which is no part of it is nothing; and consequently no where nor do's it follow from hence, that Spirits are no­thing; for they have dimensions, and are therefore really bodies; though that name in common speech [Page 12] be given to such bodies only, as are visible or pal­pable; that is, that have some degree of opacity. But for Spirits they call them incorporeal; which is a name of more honor, and may therefore with more piety be attributed to God himself; in whom we consider not what attribute expresseth best his nature, which is incomprehensible, but what best expresseth our desire to honor him.

If every part of body be body, not only [...]s to us, but in it self; there seemeth to be such an inexhaustibleness in the least atome, as will ren­der it, as infinite as the whole Mass of the remaining Matter, neither do I apprehend how there can ever be made a true beginning of the Theory of Nature; if after the utmost resolution of matter, it be impossible to descend to the very root of Bo­dies: which Root I would name, a Physical Mo­nad, if you would not use your standing weapons of reproach, Lev. p. 4.11, 19, 39, 371. lib. & [...]c. p. 5. six Less. p. 56. Jargon; nonsense; absurd and in­significant speech. But I will pursue this perplex­ing Argument no further, because we must not loose sight of our main Subject, touching the Cor­poreity of God; which is affirmed by you in this place, without the least offer of a Reason; which in good earnest were a very vain attempt, for if All be matter; seeing God is infinite and every where Lev. part. 2. p. 190. & Hum. Nat. p. 134 and Body cannot be at the same time in the same space with body, D. Corp. part 2. p. 78, 79. (both which by you are also granted) then by the name of God we must understand the universe. Then Iupiter est quod­cun (que), vides quoc [...]n (que) mov [...]s. what­soever we see, or whatsoever we move towards, the same is Jupiter, and such an opinion if it once break in upon our belief, it will make a way there, [Page] by which a million of absurdities may follow af­ter it, and that I may not seem to deceive by a ge­neral assertion, I will here repeat a few of them. It will follow thence, that All the actions of God proceed by unavoidable compulsion, from the me­chanic Laws of moving and moved Matter. That some parts of the Deity perceive, what others do not, there being in divers bodies, divers Re-actions, in which you place the nature of conception Lev. p. 3. &c. &. part. 4. p. 352. &c. in organized matter; and must also allow the same in that which hath neither brain nor heart, if you will admit of perception every where, in Your Deity. That if any parts of matter be perfectly at rest, then such parts of the Deity, (suppose of Gold, Lead, or Marble) are without understand­ing, and thus in opposition to the Sovereign God, whose being and knowledge are no where exclu­ded, you have set up a Baal of your own, of which one part is asleep, in the depth of Rest; and the other is in a journey hurried by motion. It will also follow from this principle of yours, that Idolatry which you somwhere Lev. part. 4. p. 359. to 366. condemn as sinful, is no crime; it being no other than an amicable officious­ness in one part of the Deity towards the other, if the Universe be God; and here a saying of A­thenagoras Athenag. Leg. pro Christian. p. 14. [...] comes in fit time into my mind; and it is to this effect. If God and Matter be the same thing under differing appellations; we are impi­ous if we deny to Stones and Trees, to Gold and Silver divine honor. Lastly, if the Universe be God, then Cain, and Cham, and Pharaoh, and Herod, and Pila [...]e, and Iuda, and (that I may say it with sufficient emphasis) the Teacher also of this doctrin is part of the Deity.

This H. con­sid. p. 62.63. is all error and railing, that is, stinking wine, such as a Jade lets fly, when he is too hard girt upon a full Belly.

This nasty metaphor is widely misplaced, whilst instead of saying that I am hard girt, you should have confess'd your self (for that's the truth) to have been galled to the quick. For my self, [...] was not intemperate in my passion, but zelous in the truth: but your language is both foul and unjust▪ and (to allude further to the beast you speak of) you therefore boggle and foam, because of a sud­den there is too much Light let in upon you, but laying aside this reviling humor, which is common▪ not with ingenious Phylosophers, but with people of poor and evil education; let me with calmness be informed of those Reasons, upon which you so confidently support your self in maintaining the materiality of God.

Before I repeat my Reasons, I wil [...] let you understand that I have expresly taught i [...] My Leviathan, Lev. p [...]rt. 2. p. that those Phylosophers, who said the World, or the Soul of the World wa [...] God, speak unworthily of him; and denied his Existence: for by God is understood the Cause of the World; and to say that the World is God, is to to say, there is no cause of it, that is, no God.

In this you are at agreement with me, but seem to contradict your self, for here you deny that the World is God, and elsewhere you defend it most pertinaciously, that All is Body, which [...] it be, then as hath been said) the whole is God, if he [Page 15] existeth; seeing nothing that is, can give bounds unto his in [...]inite nature, and Body can be a neigh­bour to Body, but not an Inhabitant. In some places you write down, and in others you dash out your fancy of a corporeal God: you have said, that whatsoever is, is Body; you have also written, Ibid. that to attribute to God, parts or totality, is not honour, because they are attri­butes only of things finite: and now methinks you should not be so impatient of contradiction from others, seeing you swallow it without strain­ing in your own Books. But from this diversion, please to return unto those promised Reasons, wherewith you are wont to manage this Argument of the materiality of our Creator.

In this I will comply with you; and my care F.B. Ep. to Hum­na [...]. it is, and labour, to satisfie the judgement and reason of mankind.

And first, H. Con­sid. p. 32, 33. what kind of attribute, I pray you, is immaterial or incorporeal substance▪ Where do you find it in the Scripture? Whence came it hither, but from Plato and Aristotle, Hea­thens, who mistook those thin inhabitants of the brain they see in sleep, for so many incorporeal men; and yet allow them motion, which is pro­per only to things corporeal? Do you think it an honour to God to be one of these? And would you learn Christianity from Plato and Aristotle? But seeing there is no such word in the Scripture, how will you warrant it from natural reason? Neither Plato nor Aristotle did ever write of, or mention an incorporeal spirit; for they could not conceive how a spirit, which in their language was [...], [Page 16] (in ours, a wind) could be incorporeal.

In this first Endeavour (for a Reason I cannot style it) there are many things which ap­pear to me absurd. You tell us that the Attribute of Incorporeal was borrowed from the Heathens, Plato and Aristotle; and yet almost in the same breath, you say, that neither of them did ever write of, or mention an incorporeal spirit. You reproach us, as learning Christianity (in stead of which you ought to have used the more proper term of Natural Theology) from such Heathens; and thereby you seem to herd with that ignorant multitude, who of late decry'd all humane Learn­ing, upon pretence that it was heathenish and pro­phane, as if the Pearl of Wisdome and Reason were so besmear'd by the usage of the Heathens, as to be rendred unfit for the touch and service of a Christian Philosopher. You again are too too much in their humour, whilest you require expres [...] mention of a term in holy Scripture, and upon the supposed silence of it, reject the notion which may be delivered in another form of words. And moreover, when you say that Plato and Aristotle could not conceive a spirit, by reason that with them it signified a wind, to be incorporeal; therein also you ought not to have used such confi­dence in your assertion: for if wind be motion, and motion be so unglued and loose, as to pass from Body to Body, I know not whether the n [...]me of wind may not more promote, than obstru [...]t the apprehension of an incorporeal Being. We are informed by Sextus Empiricus, S [...]xr. Emp. Pyr. upp. l. 3. c. 17. p. 13 [...]. that some of the Antients contended expresly for the incor­poreity [Page 17] of motion. I mean by motion, that force so little yet understood, which is the cause of the translation of bodies, and not, as you somewhere De Corp. pa [...]t. 2. c. 8. p. 79. speak, the relinquishing of one place, and acquiring another.

But leaving this subtiler Consideration, I will proceed to shew, that neither the Scripture, nor the School of Plato, or Aristotle, is wholly unac­quainted with the Doctrine of an incorporeal spi­rit. Concerning the holy Scripture, it saith, that God created all things, and filleth all things, and therefore it teacheth that he is immaterial. And for the very term, we may perhaps meet with it in the words of our blessed Lord Luke 24 39. who appearing to the doubting and amazed Disciples, encouraged and confirmed their faith, by saying to them, Lay hold of me, handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal Daemon: you will now tell me, that I follow not the true Copy of the New Testament, in the translation of this produ­ced Text. I defend my self, by answering, that I follow holy Ignatius, who in his undoubted Epi­stle to those of Smyrna Ign. Ep. ed. Vess. p. 3. cited both by Euse­bius and St. Hierome, bringeth in our Lord using these words, [...]. This excellent person who saw our Lord after his resurrection, did ei­ther cite the words exactly He pre­f [...]c [...]th to th [...]m by [...], he said unto them, not adding, to this pur­pose, or else, which also strengtheneth my cause, he e [...]press'd the sence of them, according as it was received in the incorruptest Age of the Christian Church.

Concerning the Philosophy of Plato, in relation to the Question which lay before us, there is no­thing more received, than that he affirmed the [Page 18] most celestial parts of matter, neither to be God, or Angel, or spirit of man, but to be [...], (as is the phrase of Hierocles) the spiritu­al Chariots of prae-existing Angels, or of departed minds. In the beginning of the Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, Iustin Martyr J [...]st. M [...]r [...]. op. p 219. [...], &c. at large, rela­ting his small proficiency under the Tutorage of a Stoick, a Peripatetick, and a Pythagorean, adds also, that he adjoyn'd himself at last to a Platonist of great fame; that he improved daily by his in­struction; that he was extreamly pleas'd, amongst other parts of science, by him taught, with the notion of incorporeal beings: and if I well remem­ber, the great admirer of Plato, Psellus, has call'd the Soul an immaterial and incorporeal fire. [...]. And touching Plato himself, I am sure that I have read this Maxime in his Politicus, Plat. Pol. Ed. Fir. p. 182. [...]. Soc [...]. [...]. that incorporeal Beings, which are of all others the most glorious and great, are only conspicuous to the faculty of Reason, which though it be there said by Hospes, yet it is approved of by Plato him­self, under the name of Socrates, who reply'd, that he had excellently spoken. Neither will I pass by the testimony of Aristotle, who by his se­parate Intelligences, meaneth (saith Ben Mai­mon) More Nerochim, part. 2. c. 6. p. 200. the same with those, who maintain the existence of incorporeal Angels. And con­cerning the rational soul, he teacheth, Arist de An. l. 2. c. 1. that it is separable from the body, because it is not the Entelech of any body, having a while before en­quired whether it be endued with any peculiar fun­ction, not arising from this compounded estate. He also Ar. de Coelo. [...] denieth, that motion can arise from a body.

It is manifest by your thick quota­tions, that you are much in love with Authority; to that therefore in the second place I will refer you. Know then Mr. H. Cons. p. 37. that whatsoever can be inferr'd from the denying of incorporeal substan­ces, makes Tertullian, one of the antientest of the Fathers, and most of the Doctors of the Greek Church, as much Atheists, as my self.

You have not, by this means, advanc'd your hopes of victory; for I shall make it evident, that the Forces in whose numbers you trust, are falsly muster'd. The Fathers of the Greek Church believe in the same sence with the Doctors of our own, that God is a Spirit: for Ignatius, and Iustin Martyr, you have heard already on what side they stand.

Athenagoras, in his Embassie, in behalf of the Christians, to M. Aurelius Antoninus, and L. Aurelius Commodus, discourseth to this purpose. Athen. Leg. p. 5. [...], &c. The Athenians did most justly condemn Dia­goras for sacrilegious impiety, who rather than his Coleworts should remain unboyl [...]d, would cut in pieces the Statue of Hercules, who also did expres­ly affirm that there was no God at all. But as for us, who separate God from matter, and teach that God is one thing, and matter another, the reproach of Atheism is most unreasonably and in­juriously charg'd upon our Creed. The same A­thenagoras, in a few Pages after this discourse Ath. p. 9. [...]. again professeth, not as his private opinion, but as the faith of the Christians of that Age, that God admitteth not of any division, neither con­sisteth of any parts. Then for Theophilu [...], the Pa­triarch [Page 20] of Antioch, who likewise writeth, not as a private man, but as a common Apologist for the Christians; he tells Antolycus the Heathen Theoph. Antioch. l 2 p 81. that God is every where, and that every thing is in God. Had he believed God to have been a Body, he would not have placed all other Beings in his boundless Essence, unless we shall take the boldness to accuse the holy Patriarch of that fault, which Des-Cartes imagined he had espied in your self, of failing Obj. & Resp. 3. p. 103. R [...]p. ad Obj. 12. M [...]ro [...] (que) m [...] nullam ha­cte [...]s re­ctam [...]lla­tionem in [...]is objecti­oui [...]us in­venisse. whatsoever the Premisses be, in the Illations deduced from them. If we consult Tatianus, in his Oration contra Graecos, we shall likewise obtain his suffrage Tat. As­syr. p. 162. [...]. for the immateri­ality of the first cause. There are, said Tatianus, who do maintain that God is a Body; I am not of the same belief with them, for my perswasion is, that he is incorporeal. E [...]sebius may be produc'd in the same place Eus dem. Evang. l. 3. p. 69. [...], &c. both against your self, touching the materiality, and against Idolater [...], touching the worship of Angels; for thus he speaks, We have learn't to honour the incorporeal powers, according to the degree of their dignity, ascribing divine honour to God alone. St. Atha­nasius tells the Followers of Sabellius, that it is a very childish and foolish conceit, by the eye, or by the circumscription of place, to comprehend that which is incorporeal Ath. cont. Sab. gr [...]g. tom. 1. p. 660. [...], &c. [...], &c. understanding this speech of the infinite Majesty of Almighty God. St. Chrysostome in the same place affirmeth, God and the soul of man, to be incorporeal. Ap. Sandit interp. Parad. in [...] c. 4.2 [...]. p. 197. I might here subjoyn in favour of the common opi­nion, St. Iren [...]eus, I [...]en. l. 3. c. 23. p. 290. St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazian­zen, St. Gregory Nyssen ▪ St. Epiphanius, and a [Page 21] long order of others, if it were not a needless la­bour, and would not look more like o [...]tentation, than necessary defence of truth.

Some indeed of the Antients believed Angels not to be wholly incorporeal; and St. Hierome placeth it amongst the Errors of Origen, that he ascribed to Angels, bodies of Air: they taught not, that Body was their sole essence, but their cloathing. So that to speak after your own man­ner Lib. & Nec. p. 6. I observe a great part of those Forces, by the strength of which you contend against in­corporeal substances, to look and march another way.

Tertullian however is on my side; for he Mr. H. Consid. p. 37, 38. in his Treatise de Carne Christi, sayes plainly, Omne quod est, corpus est sui generis; ni hil est incorporale, [...]isi quod non est. That is to say, Whatsoever is any thing, is a body of its kind; nothing is incorporeal, but that which has no be­ing. There are many other places in him to the same purpose; for that doctrine served his turn to confute the heresie of them that held, that Christ had no body, but was a Ghost: also of the soul he speaks as of an invisible body. You see what fellows in Atheism you joyn with me.

Some perhaps might here reply, that Tertullian was a single witness, and that his testi­mony might appear invalid, because he was con­demned of old, as an Heretick for this very Do­ctrine; because he was a man of a various Creed; because he was better skilled in the Laws of the Ro­man Empire, than in those of nature; at least [Page 22] that he attended not to the phylosophick conse­quence of his opinion; lastly, because to avoid his adversaries, he ran too nigh the other extreme, and would have used different weapons in another controversie. But it will be more agreeable to the reverence which we owe to that very antient and learned Writer, to explain one place in him by another, than rudely to accuse him. It is there­fore to be noted, that Tertullian sometimes called the passive matter by the name of body, and sometimes by body understood the meer substance, being, or essence of things. In the first sence, are those words to be expounded, which we find in his Book de Animâ. Te [...]tul. de An. c. 7. p. 268. In quantum omne corpo­rale, passibile est, in tantum quod passibile est, cor­porale est. Now it is not to be imagined, that in this meaning of the word Corpus, a body should be attributed to the impassible Nature of God, by a man who devoutly adored his Perfections. For the second sence, I will alledge the explication which he himself hath made, in his Book against Hermogenes Tert. advers Herm. c. 35 p. 246. the Phylosopher and Painter, who being perhaps debauched by his very profes­sion, which chiefly imploy'd his fancie, affirmed that matter was co-eternal with God. Nisi fallor enim, omnis res aut corporalis aut incorporalis sit ne­cesse est: ut concedam interim aliquid incorporale de substantiis dun [...]axat, cum ipsa substantia corpus sit rei cujus (que) And in the very words which Us [...]er in those, now cited by you, and craftily conceal'd, it is apparent that by body, Tertullian meant on­ly essence, and not impenetrable matter. The words are these, Quum autem sit, habeat necesse est aliquid, per quod est: Si habet aliquid per quod [Page 23] est, hoc erit corpus ejus. Omne quod est corpus, est sui generis.

Of Authority enough, let us consult natural Reason, by attending to which I maintain, Hum. Nat. p. 1 [...]8. that Incorporeal Body, is not a name but an absurdity of speech▪ Spirits Hum. Nat. p. 135 su­pernatural commonly signifysie some substance without dimension; which two words do flatly contradict one another. I say, again, Lev. c. 4. p 17. an Incor­poreal Body or (which is all one) an incorporeal sub [...]tance, is a name made up of two names, which have significations contradictory and inconsistent, for Obj [...]ct. 9 p. 100. Subst [...]ntia est materia subjecta accid [...]nli­bus, & mu­tationibus. a substance is matter, subject to accidents and alterations. If a man Lev. c 5. p. 19. should talk to me of a round Quadrangle; or accidents of Bread in Cheese, or immaterial substances; — I should not say he were in an error, but that his words were without meaning; that is to say, absurd. Though men may Lev. c. 12 p. 53. put together words of con­tradictory signification, as spirit and incorporeal, yet they can never have the imagination of any thing answering to them. Substance incorporeal Lev. c. 34. p. 207. are words, which when they are joyned to­gether destroy one another. I say again, Lev. c. 34. p. 214. that to men that understand the signification of these words, substance and incorporeal, as incorporeal is taken, not for subtil body, but for not body, they imply a contradiction.

This unbacked confidence in an argu­ment of such moment, provokes me to tell you, that you are as notorious in repeating, as those Priests whom men of your perswasion are wont to [Page 24] flout at, whilst they should rather have regard to the dulness of their common Audience: as also, that if all things twice said, or elsewhere written by you were picked out; your Great Leviathan would shrink to a little Scallop.

But to reason with you in your own way, I de­ny it, once and again, that the speech, Incorporeal Substance, either is or implies a contradiction, there's a bare Nay, of as good strength, as your naked affirmation, you have somewhere promised Hum. Na [...] p. 2. [...] [...] to endeavor as much as you could, to avoid too happy concluding: but here you are so hasty, as to leap over all proper premises into such a con­clusion, as is made only by a stiff and presumptu­ous will. But I will be content to answer also, that we forsake the usage of speech, when we con­found the names of Body and Substance. The Lo­gicians, who are at variance in other matters, consent in this, that a Substance is either material, or immaterial. If you resolve to fix a sence to the word, Substance, which hitherto all Custome (which is th [...] Interpreter of Speech) ha's determin'd ag [...]inst; you usurp too great Au­thority. M. Pomponius Marcellus fear'd not to tell Tiberius the Emperor, who had us [...]d a word not truly Latin, in one of his Edicts; that S [...]et [...]n. de [...] G [...]amm [...]. p. 23. in M. [...] M. Tis eni [...] Caesar [...] Ve [...] ­bis seem [...]th t [...] be [...]er [...]ding. it was in his Power to make Men, but not to make Words free of the City.

Do you understand M [...]. H. [...]o [...]s p 33. the con­nexion of Substance and Incorporeal? If you do, explain it in English; for the words are Latine. It is something, you'l say, that being without Body stands under — stands under what? will you say [Page 25] under accidents? almost all the Fathers of the Church will be against you; and then you are an Atheist.

By avoiding the word, Substance, by which (in despight of general use) you will mean Body, your cavil vanisheth: for if we should use the terms of, [...], Being, or Essence; affirming that God is a Being which neither is, nor ha's a Body, you will be of a very quick and sagacious Nose to smell out a contradiction in words so put together. For to Be, and to be without Body, are not terms which destroy each other. It might then be inferred, that all moral virtues and all Phy­sical notions were names and nothing else. But I will admit of the word, Substance, and (which may seem a concession with advantage) of the word, Matter, too, without any real prejudice to this Cause, for by Substance is frequently under­ [...]ood (as Des-Cartes himself, Resp. ter­tiae p. 94. Sub ratione substantiae vele [...]iam si lubet, sub ratione ma­teriae nem­pe Meta­physicae. who favour [...]d not the abuse of words ha's phras [...]d it) Metaphysic-Matter. That Matter is the subject about which our mind is conversant, whither it be a feigned notion, a name, a privation, or negation; for as Plato ha [...]s observed, the Art of Reasoning, handles, [...], Matters, which are not real, af­ter the manner of Reals; and Aristotle (whom you are wont to cite when he may serve your oc­casion) divideth Ar. [...]. 8. M [...]t c. 6. [...]. matter into intelligible and sensible; not meaning, as is manifest from his con­text, such matter as is composed of imperceptible parts, but such as I now describ'd. Cicero [...]nver. Or. 8 l. 3. p. 203. likewise calleth Indoles by the name of Matter.

But substance (you say) being construed aright, [Page 26] doth signifie something that standeth under, under what, when ascrib'd to God? that's your smart question, it soundeth hastily to answer under Ac­cidents, which are for the most part appurtenan­ces to Body. But if I say, under Attributes (see­ing the Anti-Remonstrants have of late allowed it for good Doctrin, that the Decrees of God are not the very essence of God;) Vide A [...] ­min Ex. Thes. Gom. p. 159. & Goma [...]. Tom. 3. Disp. 9. I am not for such an answer, so nigh the borders of Atheism (you should have said of Heresie) as you by your false prospective are ready to espie me. But to take away all occasion of further cavil about this name, Incorporeal Substance; I will at last referr you to the Law, towards which you pretend the profoundest reverence, submitting your very words at the Foot-stool of such Authority. If then a Substance signifieth Body; and every thing that is, be body; then is the first Article of the nine and thirty (which ha's as much validitie in Law, as the Kings Broad-Seal can give it, which I know you judge sufficient) an heap of absurd and inconsistent words, for, in that Article we are taught that there is but one Living and true God, Everlasting, without Body, Parts or Passions.

To those Doctrins of the Church, which are made Law by the Kings Authority, I owe reverence; and have alwaies a will to pay it, in pursuance of which will, I have taught in my Le­viathan, Lev. part. 2. p. 190. and you your self a while since took notice of it, that to attribute Totality or parts to God, is not to honor him; you may likewise un­derstand, that my opinion concerning God, sayes nothing of him, but that he is. Forasmuch Hum. Nat. p. 132. as [Page 27] God Almighty is Incomprehensible, it followeth, that we can have no conception or Image of the Deity, and consequently all his Attributes signifie our inability and defect of power to conceive any thing concerning his Nature, and not any con­ception o [...] the same, excepting only this, that there is a God. The Nature, I say, of God Lev. c. 34 p. 208. is incomprehensible; that is to say, we understand nothing of what he is, but only that he is; and therefore the Attributes we give him, are not to tell one another what he is, nor to signifie our opi­nion of his Nature, but our desire to honor him with such Names, as we conceive most honorable amongst our selves. S. Lev. p. 53. & p. 371. & Hum. Nat. p. 134 & H. cons. p. 31.

To this last effort of yours, there are divers things to be replyed; and in the first place, whereas you have said that to attribute parts to God, is not to honor him; it follows then, that you, who would seem to mention his Nature with the highest degree of veneration, have notwith­standing a most unworthy conceit of him; seeing to call him Body, is to cast the reproach of having parts upon him. So that the character which Ci­cero gave of the Herd of Epicurus, will not be dis­agreeable to the followers of a Phylosopher whom you know very well; in words they affirm, but in truth they deny the Existence of God Verbi [...] quidem po­nunt rei [...]sa tollunt De­os..

Again, whilst in your opinion the Deity is so incomprehensible, that you understand not any thing of his Nature; but profess to honor him at adventures, by such tokens of esteem as are in use with men: or by such as imply our inability to con­ceive of him; the burthen of our holy Lord a­gainst [Page 28] the blind Zealots of Samaria, may be most justy taken up against you, who worship, you know not what? and to say that God is, and al­so that you apprehend not any attribute that pro­perly appertaineth to his nature, is only to pro­nounce of God, as of an indefinite Name: for such is naked Being, strip [...]d and devested o [...] all such at­tributes as are required to particularness or di­stinction of things. Tell me not [...]ow, Hum. Nat. p. 133. Obj. [...].p. 97. Lev. c. 11. p. 51. that though it be not possible for a man that is born blind, to have any imagination what kind of thing fire is, yet he cannot but know somewhat there is, that men call fire, because it warmeth him: for it is not to be concluded from that similitude, that all that will consider, may know that God is, though not what; he is for a Blind man warmed by the fire understandeth well, because he feeleth the true nature of it, which consisteth not in the colour or shining of i [...], but in that sensation which ariseth in him from his nerves touched by such of the more earthy parts of matter, as are put into vehemen agitation. That God is incomprehen­sible in some sense, is acknowledged by all, who will not arrogantly suppose their minds, as infinite as God, but to say [...]hat we know not any thing of God, because we have not an adequate concep­tion of him, is as absurd, as if a Navigator should affirm, that he knows nothing of the Sea, but that it is, because he cannot fathom the utmost depths of it. Maimonides, in the same place More Nev. c. 59. part. 1. p. 98 99. acknow­ledgeth God to be incomprehensible, yet sheweth that he is incorporeal; and that something is to be known of him, besides his bare existence, be­cause some men have better apprehensions con­cerning [Page 29] God than others, who are equal with them in knowing that he is, we pretend not by search­ing, to find out God; to find out the Almighty to perfection, but after some imperfect degree of knowledge to apprehend his Nature, if this be de­nyed to the mind of man, after the most sagacious ranging of it; and if the attributes, not only of in­corporeal and Omnipotent, but also of good, and just, and holy, and true, be not some real strokes of the divine Image, but only marks of ho­nor in the societies of men, then is it an impossi­ble undertaking (so far will it be from the rule of Religion) to labor to imitate Him we worship, then are those places to be blotted out of the holy Canon wherein 'tis written, That God is Love: that we must be holy, because God is holy: that it behoveth us to be merciful (for the quality of our virtue) as our Father, who is in Heaven is mer­ciful, than by affirming that God is good, or just, or holy, we cannot assure our selves, that we shall not by such speeches talk wickedly for God.

That Lib. nece [...]. p. 21. which men make a­mongst themselves here by Pacts and Covenants, and call by the name of Justice, and according whereunto men are accounted and termed right­ly just or unjust, is not that by which God Almigh­ties actions are to be measured or called just, no more than his Counsels are to be measured by hu­mane wisdome, that which he do's is made just by his doing of it, just I say, in him, though not al­wayes just in us.

Of eternal reasons of good and evil, we [Page 30] may discourse more pertinently, in our intended Disquisition touching the Law of Nature, and the obligation of humane Laws. Yet I cannot abstain from interposing here this short reply, that al­though the most incomprehensible God has not submitted all the Acts of his boundless wisdome to our narrow Judgements, yet for his Acts of justice and equity, he hath appealed to the reason of man­kind; which therefore is an universal and eternal standard, and not made a just and equal measure, by the meer seal and allowance of humane autho­rity. O Inhabitants of Ierusalem, and men of Iu­dah, judge I pray you (saith God Almighty) be­twixt me and my Vineyard! Isa. 5.3, 4. He also by the Prophet Ezekiel Ezek. 18.25, 29. maketh appeal to the facul­ties of mortal men, touching the equity of his di­spensations. Ye say the way of the Lord is not e­qual; hear now, O house of Israel! Is not my way equal? Are not your wayes unequal?

I am willing to dismiss this Argu­ment for a time, and to re-assume it, as you pro­pounded, in its more proper place. In the mean time, I will go on with my opinion, concerning the incomprehensible nature of God. It is Mr. H. Cons. p. 31. by all Christians confest, that God is incompre­hensible; that is to say, that there is nothing can arise in our fancy from the naming of him, to re­semble him, either in shape, colour, stature, or nature; there is no Idea of him. At Hobbii Obj. 5. p. 97 the venerable name of God, we have no Image or I­dea of God; and therefore we are forbidden to worship God by an Image, lest we seem to our selve [...] to conceive him, who is unconceivable. [Page 31] Christian Religion Obj. 11. p. 10 [...]. obligeth us to believe that God is unconceivable, that is, as I understand it, such a one of whom we have no Idea. And Reason teacheth, that because Lev. c. 3. p. 11. whatsoever we conceive, has been perceived first by sense, ei­ther all at once, or by parts, a man can have no thought representing any thing, not subject to sense.

If [...]od be a body, seeing man may have an image of extention, and of all the possi­ble figures, which may be made by the varieties of extention in matter, what hindreth that we may not have, in your gross way, an Image of God? But because he is an immaterial substance, we cannot indeed have any bodily resemblance of him; but there is in every man a power to have an Idea of him. For although it hath been said that there have been found whole Nations (as in the Western World in Brasil) who have liv'd without the least suspicion of an infinite Being, yet there is no Nation so very barbarous, wherein the Inhabitants have no faculty at all of exciting in them, this Idea of God. And here I cannot but reprehend it, as a very shamefull error, in a man who placeth truth in the right ordering of names, and pretendeth See Lev. c. 4. p. 15. to begin the sciences, by setling at first the significations of their words, to confound the names of Image and Idea, as if they were terms of equal importance. It is also an ar­gument of thickness of mind, of a soul not yet ad­vanced above the power of fancy, to say that no man hath, or can have any kind of conception without an Image, as if nothing were authentical­ly [Page 32] written upon the table of our minds, without a seal and sensible impression affixed to it. I con­ceive (said a very learned person) Ep. to R. before Phy­los. E [...]say. that case in this to be alike, as if whilest two men are looking at Iupiter, one with his naked eyes, the other, with a Telescope; the former should avow that Iupiter had no attendants, and that it were impossible he should have any. The reason why Mr. Hobbes denies immaterial Beings, whilest o­ther men apprehend them, is, for that he looks at them with his fancy: they, with their mind. By Idea, is understood, not meerly a corporeal si­militude, but any notion without imagery, and whatsoever occurreth in any perception: the ve­ry form of cogitation, whereby I become consci­ous to my self that I have perceived, is an Idea. And Plato, to whose School we owe chiefly this name of Idea, has expresly contended for a know­ledge, soaring above the ken of fancy, and taught us, that the greatest and most glorious objects have no Im [...]ge Plat. Po­ [...]. p. 1 [...]1. [...], &c. attending on their percepti­on. And Clemens Alexandrinus Cl [...]m. Al. Adm. ad G [...]nt p. 34 [...], &c. in his ad­monition to the Gentiles, told them, with refe­rence to their Idolatry, that the Christians had not any sensible image of sensible matter in their divine worship, but that they had an intelligible Idea of the only sovereign God. There is a great diffe­rence betwixt an object seen through a polished Chryst [...]l, and a piece of painted Glass; and there is a far greater difference betwixt the Idea of God in a perspicuous mind, and the notion of a God taken through the pictures of Imagination. When we consider that all perfections that are, or can be thought of, by man a second cause, are [Page 33] more eminently to be ascribed to the first; and when we further conceive, that it is much better to have wisdom, power, truth, justice, good­ness, than to want them, and that th [...]refore they are, in any being, so many perfections, and when we thence indefinitely extend those perfections by the utmost stretch of our minds, we form aright▪ though not by way of adequate comprehension, such a true and pure Idea of God, as is not disco­loured by corporeal phantasms. But because you move in the lower sphear of fancy, you must be satisfi'd in your own way, and be instructed through a corporeal image, or otherwise you will not admit of any Idea. The Iews of old were of that unreasonable temper, who although they had miracles wrought amongst them, exceeding great, great as their own unbelief▪ yet would not they be contented without a sign from Heaven, such as was that of the descent of Manna, to which that Nation had sometimes been more accustom'd. But if this should naturally be in others, as it seem­eth accidentally to be in you, the effect of poring upon points, and lines, and figures; to conceive nothing without a bodily image, Archimedes and Euclid should as soon by me be condemned to the flames, as Aretine, and any of the Histoires G [...] ­lantes.

But because you stick in this lower Form of Ima­gination, I will therefore attempt to take you out such a lesson, as is most agreeable to you in that ca­pacity.

Call to mind then, that you begin your na [...]ral Phylosophy De Corp. c. 7. p. [...]7. from a feigned annihilation of the World, though you dwell not upon the notion [Page 34] of empty space remaining, but straightway fill it with the phantasms of all such bodies, as before their supposed annihilation, you had perceived by your eyes, or any other instruments of sense. And I must note it by the way, that you except man only from this universal annihilation of things, and leave not God out of it, although his Idea implying necessary existence, the not retain­ing of him, be a contradiction. After this, you lay aside those phantasms, and De Corp. p. 68. grant a conception of boundless space. You likewise maintain that body and space are not the same; and you conceive, though you do not assert, a Vacuum.

No man De Co [...]p. ib. Sect 2. calls this phantasm, space, for being already filled, but because it may be filled; nor does any man think bodies carry their places away with them, but that the same space contains sometimes one, sometimes another body, which could not be, if space should alwayes accompany the body which is once in it.— Place Ib c. 8 p. 77. is immoveable; for seeing that which is mo­ved is understood to be carried from place to place, if place were moved, it would also be carried from place to place, so that one place must have another place, and that place another place▪ and so on in­finitely, which is ridiculous. And for the conceit of Vacuum, I say Ib. p. 79. Sect. 9. that though between two bodies there be put no other body, yet if there in­tercede any imagined space, which may receive a­nother body, then those bodies are not contigu­ous. I suppose also P. 83. Sect. 19. that a finite body, at rest, when all space besides is empty, will rest for ever.

Be it so. From hence it may be collect­ed, that you conceive of space, as of something without your mind, into which you suppose no notion can come but from some outward object. You conceive it as something, which doth exist be­twixt two bodies, and hindreth the contiguity of them: for bodies are not therefore separated, be­cause I so magine; but because t [...]ey are not conti­guous, I have an imagination of their distance, and of something interceding. Seeing also you must acknowledge, that this Vacuity may be con­ceived, greater or less, you cannot imagine [...]hat as a meer nothing, which is capable of such affecti­ons. You then by consequence (though in di­rect terms you will not grant it) conceive this space as a phantasm of something; yet not of bo­dy, seeing you have said, one body may relinquish and another possess the same immoveable space; whereby it follows, that you apprehend it as a phantasm o [...] such a Being, as has largeness and pene­tration appertaining to it. Extend then your con­ception of this space indefinitely; and remember that you conceive the world without any involuti­on of body in body, placed in it; and that it may remain in your imagination after you have by fi­ction destroy'd the visible world; and that the imagined space is such, as you cannot disimagine; and observe at last, whether you have not attained in your own way, to some competency of fancying an infinite immaterial Being. For my self I have been apt to think of space, as a phantasm of body, really existing; and because I conceive this bound­less extention, by you suppos'd an iniquity, as dull and unactive, and understand not how to deduce [Page 36] from it, or apply to it, the moral perfections which appertain to the Idea of God; I therefore suspend my sentence. But the Argument presseth yourself, who distinguish the conceptions of space and body, beyond the probability of a Rejoyn­der.

If you were much concerned for Authority, I would here suggest to you, that St. Paul affirms of God, that in him we live and move; and that it is said by Theophilus A [...]tiochenus, Ad Ant. l. 2 p. 81. [...]. as also by Tertullian (the Author whom you your self cele­brate, that God Te [...]t. adv. Prax. p. [...]03. a. &c. is the Place of all Beings But touching the particular explication of such say­ings, let every man abound in his own sence.

And now having spun out this first S [...]bject of our Discourse, (concerning the Immateriality of God) into such an undesigned length, I remem­ber no Conclusion less improper for the winding of it up (if it may stand with your good liking) than the Apostrophe of Arnobius, which may thus be rendred: Arn. l. 1. p. 17. ‘O thou greatest and chiefest Creator of invisible things! O thou invisible Di­vinity, never to be comprehended by the scanty compass of created minds! Thou art worthy, thou art truly worthy (if our unhallow'd mouths may presume to mention that transcen­dent worthiness) to receive from every under­standing nature, never-ceasing praise; to be pe­titioned throughout our lives, (too short alas for such devotion) with the humblest prostrati­ons; for thou art the First Cause, the Place and Space of Things, the foundation of the Universe, infinite, unbegotten, immortal, eternal, whom no corporeal Image can describe, no circumscrip­tion can determine.’

[Page 37]We have dwelt long on this first head; and it was necessary on my part to pursue it with such a copiousness: for if this foundation of the corporei­ty of all things had not been shaken, your super­structures would have become almost inexpugna­ble by Phylosophy. But this being rendred sandy and unsound, there will be the less work and strength required to the demolishing of those; and so in our proceeding, we may imitate (per­haps) the descent of heavy bodies, making the more hast, the further we go. I'm sure in our next Subject,

The holy Trinity; we cannot speak much, and well, it being a deep and revered mystery.

That Doctrine is entangled in words, whereby there is little said of it intelligi­bly. Hypostatical Lev. c. 5. p. 21. is a name that signifies nothing, but is taken up, and learned by rote from the canting Schoolmen. The Lev. c. 42 p. 268, 269 doctrine of the Trinity, as far as can be gathered directly from the Scripture, is in substance, this, that the God who is alwayes one and the same, was the person represented by Moses; the person represented by his Son incarnate; and the person represented by the Apostles. The true God Lev. c. 16. p. 82. may be perso­nated; as he was, First, by Moses, who governed the Israelites, (that were not his, but Gods peo­ple) not in his own name, with Hoc dicit Mo­ses, but in God [...] name, with Hoc dicit Dominus. Secondly, by the Son of man, his own Son, our blessed Saviour Jesus Christ, that came to reduce the Ie [...]s, and induce all Nations into the Kingdom of his Father; no [...] as of himself, but as sent from [Page 38] his Father. And thirdly, by the holy Ghost, or Comforter, speaking and working in the Apostles; which holy Ghost was a Comforter, that came not of himself, but was sent, and proceeded from them both. It is pl [...]in from Lev. p. 210 214 215. that he means not a person by the H. G. but zeal. The voice of God in a dream. Gifts; the power of God work­ing by cau­ses to us unknown. Moses and the Priests, Lev. c. 33 [...]. 204, 205 the Man Ch [...]ist, and the Apostles, and the Successors to Apostolical power, these three at several times did represent the person of God: Moses, and his Successors the High Priests, and Kings of Iudah, in the Old Testament; Christ himself, in the time he lived on earth; and the Apostles and their Suc­cesso [...]s from the day of Pentecost, to this day. God Lev. p. 266. is one person as represented by Moses, and a [...]o her person, as represented by his Son the Christ: for Person being a relative to Represent­er, it is consequent to plurality of representers, that there be a plurality of persons, though of one and the same substance.

You surprize me here with such an ex­plication of the Trinity, as has not been invented by any Heretick of the unluckiest wit, for these sixteen hundred years. And now I am guided af­ter the manner of the multitude, whose curiosity leads them to see the deformed births and mishapen effects of miscarrying nature, rather than to con­template the Master-pieces of the Creation: it is not so much the goodness, as the prodigiousness of this novel doctrine, which enticeth me to consider it. And in truth, this conception of a Trinity seems to me more a Monster, than the head of Cerberus, (that is, death) it self; which head would have been call'd four-fold, if the fourth part of the world (America) had been then disco­ver'd: [Page 39] but this conception, as will by and by ap­pear, may multiply it self an hundred fold, and be rather a Century, than a Trinity. There is also in it this inconvenience, that before the dayes of Moses, you must affirm one only natural person to have been in the divine nature.

There was but one from whence we may Lev. c. 42. p. 26 [...]. gather the reason, why those names, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 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, in ruling, or in directing under him. Our Savi­our Lev. [...]. 41 p. 266. both in teaching and reigning, repre­senteth (as Moses did) the person of God, which God, from that time forward, but not be­fore, is called the Father.

Where is now your will to pay a reve­rence to the Law, by whose Authority you are taught, in the first Article of the Church of Eng­land, that there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity. But you will say, that your Leviathan was published in those dayes Ann [...] 1650. when the King by your doctrine, was no King; when the Parliament having the supreme strength, had for that very reason, (the reason which you give, and I may consider in its assigned place) the sovereign Right, by which they preferred their own Ordinances, and the Constitutions of the Assembly, to the Canons and Articles of the Con­vocation. And indeed you have told us in that [Page 40] Book,‘Lev. p. 238. & H. Cons. p. [...]. that you submitted in all Questions▪ whereof the determination dependeth on the Scriptures, to the interpretation of the Bible, authorized by the Commonwealth, whose Subject you were:’that is to say, to the Annotations of the Assembly of Divines; wherein, no doubt, you might have read the Doctrine of an eternal Trinity asserted, seeing in their shortest Cate­chism, 'tis not omitted. But Law and Scripture (like the servants of an hard and selfish Master) are used by you, whilest they have strength to serve your purpose; but when you cannot work your design by them, they are cast off with utter neglect.

But to proceed; you your self, together with the Law, have affirmed Jesus to be God-man; Lev. p. [...]61. c. 45. O [...] S [...]vi­ou [...] was a m [...]n, whom w [...] also be­lieve to be G [...]d im­m [...]r [...]al. and Arrius granted to him a duration before the world; and Eusebius, who had some favour for the Arrian Doctrine, supposeth him often to have appeared before, and under the times of the Law. And a very late Writer, who has not fear'd, in his Rhapsodie of Ecclesiastick Stories, Sandius in Enuel. H [...]st Ecc. l. 10. p. 229. to deny the Eternal God-head of Christ, hath yet maintained it to he very dangerous, to deny his Pre-existence. There were then (and it fol­lows from the sense of your own confession) at least two natural persons, of the Father and of Christ, before this world was founded.

Further, if every one, representing the Person of God, in ruling or directing under him, addeth a person to the God-head then may it be thence concluded, (as Enjedinus speaks G. Enj [...]d. cont. Trin. p. 2. in relation to Pope Alexander, who would infer three per­sons from the three Attributes of Fecit, dixit, be­nedixit, [Page 41] at the beginning of Genesis) that there are not only three, but six hundred. For all Ci­vil Powers are Representatives of the King of the Universe; and you your self affirm, that any Ci­vil Sovereign is Lieu-tenant of God, Lev. c. 1 [...] p. 89. and re­presenteth his person. To speak with propriety, Moses was rather a Mediator betwixt God and the People, who were under a Theocracy, and not a Sovereign on earth. And Saul, who was appointed them in the place of God, whom, in their unreasonable wishes, (out of an apish imita­tion of the Heathen Models) they had deposed, seems the first Person representing God among the Iews. It is also to be noted, that the Apostles were Representers, not strictly of Gods Person▪ but of Christ God-man, from whom they receiv­ed commission, in his name, to teach and baptize, after all power was given to him. Wherefore the Bishop of Rome has presumed to call himself, ra­ther falsly than improperly, the servant of the ser­vants of God, and Vicar of Christ. But if you are not willing to multiply Persons in the Godhead, by the number of Vicegerents, but chuse to un­derstand this three-fold representation of a three-fold state of People, under Moses, Christ, and the Apostles, (which yet is an evasion, not at all suggested by you) even by this artifice, you will not find a back door open, out of which you may escape. For besides that the Apostolical times are but the continuation of the state begun by Christ, and that the Reign of Christ at his second coming, will be a state perfectly new, we must remember, that there were two states before the dayes of Mo­ses; the one to be computed from Adam, who in [Page 42] most eminent manner represented God, being ap­pointed by him, Universal Monarch of the Earth: the other, from the Revelation made to Abraham who may be said the first person, with whom God made a formal Covenant, Sealed by the Rite of Circumcision, and by Promises guarded from vio­lation.

Again, whereas you have affirmed that the names of Father and Son, in the signification of the God-head, are never used in the Old-Testa­ment, therein you consulted not your Concor­dance. For seeing Christ is called the Son, in the second Psalm, the cor-relative Father is as direct­ly pointed out, as if the very name had in Capi­tal Letters been written down. Neither do I here create by my Fancy (as is the manner of such, who deal in Allegories of Scripture) a mystical sense; because the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews Hebr. 1 [...]5 ha's expounded the words of our blessed Lord, and not of David. Saint Matthew likewise ha's made the same interpretation: if Iustin Martyr was not deceived, either by his memory, or by oral Tradition, or a spurious Copy; for in stead of those words from Heaven, M [...]tth. 3 15 at the baptism of Jesus, This is my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; he ha's in two places, [...]ust. Matt. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 316. & p. 331. affirmed the voice to have been this, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Let us not labor any longer in Lev c. 32 p. 195. a particular sifting of such mysteries as are not comprehensible, nor fall under any rule of natu­ral Science For it is with the mysteries of our Religion, as with wholesome Pills for the sick, [Page 43] which swallowed whole, have the virtue to cure; but chewed, are for the most part cast up again without effect.

The danger, in my opinion, ariseth not from the mastication of the Physic, but from the indisposed Stomach and Palate of the Patient, to whose health Religion conduceth more, when it is relished by an uninfected Judgment, in the particular accounts of it; than when it is taken in the lump by an implicit faith which is a way a­greeable, not to grown men, but to children in un­derstanding, whom we cannot satisfie, and must not distast. But because you seem not willing to in­trude further into this mystery of the God-head, considered in its self and persons, (which yet, as you would make it, is no more a mystery, than if his Majesty should be called one Sovereign with three persons, being represented by three succes­sive Lord Lieutenants of Ireland;) let us descend to the consideration of the Godhead in its out­ward works; in which perhaps we may have surer footing; seeing Phylosophers, unassisted by Reve­lation have discoursed much upon

Our third Head, the Creation of the World.

The questions about the magni­tude of the World De Corp. c. 26. p. 306, 307. Sect. 1. (whether it be finite or infi­nite) or concerning its duration, (whether it had a beginning, or be eternal,) are not to be deter­mined by Phylosophers. Whatsoever we know, that are men, we learn it from our phantasms; and of infinite (whether magnitude or time) there is [Page 44] no phantasm at all; so that it is impossible either for a man or any other creature, to have any con­ception of infinite.

You prove not here, that a man can have no conception, but only that he can have no image of an infinite Cause: whereas it ha's been al­ready shewn, & may hereafter be ev [...]ced from the immateriality of Mans Soul, that all conception [...] and Ideas, are not phantasms, or arise not from them. But whilst you plead the difficulty of con­ceiving an eternal being in reference to the Crea­tion, you elsewhere De Corp. c. 8. p. 84 Sect. [...]0. admit of an Idea, diffi­cult enough▪ for you can feign in your mind that a point may swell to a great figure, such as that of Man (and this you say O [...]j. 10. p. [...]01. is the only Ide [...] which we have at the naming of Creator) and that such a figure may again contract it self into the narrowness of a point, hereby you admit of a na­tural phantasm of Creation out of nothing, as al­so of re-annihilation; for all the supposed points besides that first, which is just commensurate to so much space, can neither arise out of that one, nor shrink into it, and wherea [...] you add that you cannot comprehend in your mind, how this may po [...]ibly be done in nature, De Corp. p. 84. ib. of which before you pranted a phantasm which ariseth from real impulse, if all be Body, it is as much, as if you had said, you can, and you cannot comprehend it. And I cannot but here admire it in a man who pre­tends to a consistency with himself, that you should allow the above said phantasm▪ and yet reprehend it as principle void of sense, Enis. Ded. before six Less. p. 3. and which a man at the first hearing, whether Geometrician or not [Page 45] Geometriciam must abhorr; (the which notwith­standing the learned Lord Bacon did embrace) that the same Body without adding to it, or taking from it, is sometimes greater and sometimes lesse. But to return to the conception of an eternal Cause, though it be not possible to have an Image of God, yet it is easie by the help of Reason, from the Images of things we see, to climb by degrees above the visible World, to the eternal Creator of it. Curiosity or love of the knowledge of Causes, doe's draw a man (as you will grant) Lev. c. 11. p. 51. from consideration of the effect to seek the Cause; and again the cause of that Cause, till of necessity he must come to this thought at last, that there is some cause, whereof there is no former cause, but is Eternal, and is called God.

Though De Corp. c 26. p. 307 a man may from some effect proceed to the immediate cause there­of, and from that to a more remote Cause, and so as­cend continually by right ratiocination from cause to Cause; yet he will not be able to proceed eter­nally; but wearied will at last give over, without knowing, whether it were possible for him to pro­ceed to an end, or not.

We are not, as you imagine, wearied in this assent of our Reason, upon the several roundles of second causes to that which is eternal. for we passe not through every single cause and effect; but like those who search their pedigree no further, than their great great Grand-Father, yet say, they at first sprung from Adam; we view some more immediate causes and effects, and con­sider that there is the like reason of dependency, [Page 46] in the rest and thence as it were, leap forward unto the top of this Iacob's Ladder, and arrive a [...] the acknowledgment of an eternal, immovable Mover.

Though from this, that nothing can move it self, De Corp. c. 26 p. 307 it may rightly be inferred that there was some first eternal Movent; yet [...] can never be inferred (though some use to make such inference) that that Movent was eternally immoveable, but rather eternally moved: for as it is true that nothing is moved by it self, so is a [...] true also, that nothing is moved, but by that which is already moved.

Here you proceed not with such con­sistence and scrupulous ratiocination as becometh a Phylosopher: for if nothing be moved by it self, then to say an eternal Mover is moved, is to say, that that Eternal is not Eternal: for there is some­thing presupposed to give it motion, and another thing foregoing and causing that motion, and so on, in infinitum. Yet you acknowledge in your Book Hum. Nat. p. 13. Lev. c. 12. [...]3. a first Power of all Powers: but at the present, your reasoning is connected with your be­loved notion o [...] a corporeal Universe. For Matter can never move, but by that which is moved, and so forward, not to an eternal Cause, but in an end­less Circle, which yet in some part must have had a beginning, for here the question will return; how came the sluggish Matter, which cannot help it self, to have motion at first imparted to it? if there were not an eternal incorporeal self-moving mind; wherefore you are, again, involved in the [Page 47] condemnation of the Epicureans, of whom Cicero, in his first De Finibus Cum i [...] rerum na­turâ duo sint quae­renda, u­num, quae materia sit ex quâ quae (que) res efficiatur; alterum, quoe vis sit, quae quid (que) efficiat; de materi [...] disserue­runt Epicu­rei; vim & causa [...] efficiendi reliquerunt ha's left this pertinent observation. There being two things to be in­quired after in the nature of things, the one, what the Matter is out of which every thing is made; the other, what is the force or motion which doth every thing: the Epicureans have reasoned con­cerning Matter, but the efficient Power is a part of Phylosophy which they have left untilled. So little of Reason in this Article of the Creation, is on the side of some men, who would monopolize that honorable name.

Natural Reason is not so much concerned in this question, because De Corp. p. 307. so much cannot be known, as may be sought, the question about the beginning of the World is to be deter­mined by those that are lawfully authorized to or­der the worship of God, for as Almighty God when he had brought his People into Iudaea, al­lowed the Priests the First-Fruits reserved to him­self; so when he had delivered up the World to the disputations of men, it was his pleasure that all opi­nions concerning the nature of infinite and eter­nal, known only to himself, should (as the First-Fruits of wisdom) be judged by those, whose mi­nistry they meant to use in the ordering of Religi­on. I cannot therefore commend those that boast they have demonstrated by reasons drawn from natural things, that the World had a begin­ning.

Where find you the Supreme Civil Ma­gistrate (for him you mean) to be constituted a [Page 48] Judge of true and false? then would the Truth be as inconstant, as the Opinions of those Powers; who being thronged with employments, have of all men, the least room left for speculation.

The Great Turk, who ha's made the Al­caron to be Law, ha's there affirmed, that two verses in Surata Vaccae, [...]p Hot­ting Bib [...]i-O [...]ient. p. 10 [...], 109. were made by God Almighty, two thousand years before the World was framed and written by his Finger; and all Christian Princes, who determine the Bible to be the Word of God, have thereby determin'd, that such Stories are absurd Fables. If you had so stated the Power of Princes, as to have ascribed a right to them, not (as you now have done) of determining questions (that is, of resolving them into true nega­tions or affirmations) but of restraining the tongues or pens of men, from venting what they esteem inconvenient for Society; I know few men of my Order, who would with any vehemence have be­come your opposers, provided alwaies that this Power be meant of such Opinions, as subvert not natural or Christian Religion: for it is as necessary at all times to professe such Articles, as it is to make profession that we are not Atheists; the necessity of which may hereafter be proved.

I have so done, as you require, I should; for in my Letter to Dr. Wallis, H. Con­sid. p. 36. since his Majesties return, I have upon second thoughts restrained the decision of Authority to the pub­lication and not the inward belief of Doctrin [...]. I say, there that these opinions about the Creation, are to be judged by those to whom God ha's com­mitted the ordering of Religion; that is, to the Su­preme [Page 49] Governors of the Church; that is, in Eng­land to the King. By his Authority, I say, it ought to be decided, (not what men shall think, but) what they shall say in those questions.

In this question of the Creation, you seem too bountiful to Authority; seeing by your own concession, the affirmative is a point so very fundamental, that all natural Religion, if that be taken away, will fall to the ground; for in the E­pistle before mentioned, H. Cons. p. 34. you doubt not to af­firm, that, as for arguments from natural reason, no man ha's hitherto brought any one, except the Creation, to prove a Deity, that had not made it more doubtful to many men, than it was before. Wherefore it follows that whilst you attribute un­to the Civil Magistrate a Right of binding men, if he shall so please, to profess this falshood, that the World had no beginning; you also ascribe unto the same Magistrate, a Right of banishing the Pro­fession of a Deity out of his Dominions.

Why do you H. Cons. p. 36. stile the King by the name of Magistrate? Do you find Magi­gistrate to signifie any where the person that hath the Sovereign Power, and not every where the Sovereigns Officers?

Although you are here guilty of an ex­cursion, yet I am content to follow you, not being ignorant how soon you are out of breath in pur­suing any Game started in Philology; And first, I will grant it to you, that if we have regard to the nicest application of the Word, at some times [Page 50] amongst the Romans, it will not so elegantly a­gree to the Supreme Power. For in the fourth Book of Cicero (or rather Cornificius) ad Heren­nium, P. 2 9. Sect. 35. Senatus of [...]icium est, consilio Ci­vitatem ju­vare, Magi­stratus of­ficium est, operâ & diligentiâ consequi voluntatem Senatus. the Magistrate is said to be imployed in the execution of such Decrees, as were made Law by the Senate: And I have read in Varro, De Lin­guâ Lat. l. 4. p. 15. Sect. 14. that the Officers inferior to the Magister Po­puli or Dictator, and Magister Equitum, were by way of diminution call'd Magistratus; as from Albus, Albatus: and yet I am assured that Cicero sometimes us'd the Word Magistrate in such a sense as derogates not at all from the super-emi­nence of things; for in his third Book De Legi­bus Cic. l. 3. de Leg. p. 1 [...]04. we have this sentence; The Magistrate is a speaking Law, and the Law is a mute Magistrate, and a while after, citing the words of the old Ro­man Law, he stileth the Consuls, Magistrates, and the Office, Magistracy: and yet he sheweth, that the Consuls at first had Regal and Supreme Power.

But seeing Custome since the dayes of Cicero, ha's otherwise applyed divers words; and seeing that from a diverse administration of affairs, and from new inventions, and other causes, there have arisen new words also; those persons who will precisely speak, with Cicero and the old Romans (every of whose words and phrases, cannot be thought extant in the fragments now in our hands;) they rather betray their own affectation, than declare themselves Masters of Propriety of Language; whilst Castalio useth Iova, Tinctio, Genius, Sancte colatur; in stead of Iehovah, Bap­tismus, Angelus, Sanctificetur (which word by the favor of so great a Critic, is not avoided by Cic▪ Cicero himself) he seems to study rather niceness, [Page 51] than true cleanness of Latine. The word Magistrate is not forced, when it is used in expressing the Su­preme Power; for Magisterare in Festus De Verb fig. p. 308. is glossed by Regerè. Your own Champion Ter­ [...]ullian (who well knew how to speak, with the Laws) interprets Tert. adv. Hermog. p. 240. Sect. 19. [...] by Magistra­tus: and [...] denoteth sometimes so great a Power, that it is spoken of the very Prince Ephes. 2.2. see Rev. 1.5. of the Powers of the Air, that learned Person had in the above said place an Eye to the Government of the Athenians, which after the succession of Kings failed at the death of Codrus, was administred by Thirteen Magistrates called [...], of which the first was Medon. Cavil not now at the num­ber of these Rulers; for how many soever the per­sons are in such a Senate, the Supreme Authority Lev. p. 89 Man▪ or Assembly of m [...]n, having the Sovereign­ty. is but one.

If you require modern Authority, the Testimo­ny of Hugo Grotius is beyond just exception, for he acknowledgeth, that Summus Magistratus Hugo Grot. de Imp. sum Pot. circae sacra. p. 2. c. 1. is used commonly in denoting the Sovereign Power; although he approves not of it for exact Roman, and nice Latinity. Lastly, Magistrate is a word, in the sense in which I use it, used also in the Law of King and Church, with which we Englishmen are to speak, rather than with the Twelve Tables, or the Prince of Orators. Recall then to your mind the thirty seventh Article of the Faith pro­ [...]essed in England; that Article, though it con­sisteth in declaring the Power of the King, in af­fairs both Civil and Ecclesiastical, yet bears the Ti­de, Of the Civil Magistrate.

But I have busied my self too long in a nicety [...]f words, which improve the memory, but give [Page 52] not much advantage to the nobler faculty of rea­son. It is time then, that we look back upon our main Subject, the Creation of the World. If you have any further matter to deliver, in relation to that Subject, I am ready to attend to you and it.

Something I have to say, but there is little coherence of it, with our former discourse. I add however, (seeing you seem to have requi­red something more) that upon supposition of the Being of a God, it follows not that he created the World. V. de Obj. 5. p. 97 in conclus. Although it were Obj. 10. p 101. De Corp. c. 26. p. 307. Whether we suppose the World to be finite, or infinite, no absurdity w [...]ll fol­low. demonstra­ted, that a Being infinite, independent, omnipotent, did exist; yet could it not rightly be thence infer­red, that a Creator do's exist also. Unless a ma [...] should think, that because there is a Being, which we believe to have created all things, therefore the World was created by Him.

Seeing dependent nature is so far re­moved from a power of making, that it cannot so much as move it self, but will, if once moved, be without impediment in perpetual motion; and arre [...] alwayes, if once at rest, without fresh impulse fro [...] some neighboring body; we must of necessity have recourse to a Creator: and because we sup­pose already in the Idea of God, such infinit [...] [...]ower, as excludes the like power from all things else; it cannot but follow, that there being a World He was the Maker of it. Seeing by the Hypothe­sis, the impotent World exists, and an infinite po­wer also; who else can be imagined this Omnipo­tent Architect?

[Page 53]This absurd Assertion puts me in mind of Hera­clitus, who having denied that any of the Gods were Creators, subjoyned also, that neither had any man created the world; fearing (sayes Plu­tarch, in a dry jest) lest after he had overthrown the power of the Deities, we might suspect some mortal man had been the Author of such a Master­piece. The like consequence is natural from the attribute of divine wisdome, which being infinite, can appertain but to one Essence. If then the world be m [...]de in number, and weight, and mea­sure, it is demonstrable from thence, both that there is Mirab. Pecci. p. 8. Lauda­mus (que) tu [...]s, Aeterne G [...]ometer, A [...]tes. an eternal Geometer, as also that if such a one existeth, the world, which could not so frame it self, was his Artifice And doubtless, the disposition of the parts of the greater world, and even the oeconomy of the parts of the lesser, that of man, implying most wise designs, do ne­cessarily inferr (Gassendus himself Gass. in l 10 Diog. Laert. p. 696. confes­sing it) the Being of a Creator. We need not search further, than to some one particular Note in the situation of the heart, which is a kind of Box containing many wonders one within another. It is to be observed, D. Lower de Motu cordis. p. 2, 3. that in man, and in almost all such Animals as live of flesh, that the si­tuation of the heart is not in the center, but in the superior part of the Body, that it may the more readily convey to the head a due portion of bloud. For seeing that the trajection and distribution of the bloud, dependeth wholly upon the Systole of the heart, and that the liquor cast forth, does not so easily ascend, as it flows into vessels paralel or inferior; if the seat of the heart were more remo­ved from the head, the head would be rendred [Page 54] impotent for want of bloud, unless the heart were framed with a far greater strength, whereby it might, with more potent violence, force up its li­quor. But in such Animals, whose neck is extend­ed by nature, as it were, on purpose to meet their provisions, the heart is placed without any preju­dice, in the center; because the head being fre­quently pendulous, the bloud runs to it in a wide and daily supplyed Channel. Go now (that I may bespeak you in the way of Gassendus) Gass. ubi sup [...]à. I nunc, & dic [...]asu id sactum, quod non potuit sa­pientius si­eri. and applaud your wit, in saying that that was done by chance, which could not have been more wisely contrived.

In this Argument, I my self, in my Book de Homine, have not denied the frame of nature to argue design; and I have there spo­ken to this purpose.

Please to spare the Translation of the place, for there is (as I remember) a conceit in the words, which will be lost in English.

Mock on; I am not ashamed of the words; and they are these: De Ho [...]. c. 1 p 4. Ad sensus procedo: satis habens, si hujusmodi res attigero tan­tùm, planiùs autem tract andas aliis reliquero; qui si machinas omnes tum Generationis tum Nutritionis satis perspexerint, nec tamen eas à Mente aliqui conditas ordinatas (que) ad sua quas (que) officia viderine, ipsi profecto sine Mente esse censendi sunt.

Seeing thus much is acknowledged from you, in reference to the Body; how great may [Page 55] that conviction be (of the existence of a Creator) which ariseth from the consideration of Souls and Angels; whilest Thought is much more admirable than motion, and incorporeal spirit, than mat­ter.

Incorporeal Substance is Answ. to Pref. to Gondibert p. 87. a note which you shake too too often; and here, with much absurdity: For, to say, Lev. c. 34 p. 214. an An­gel or Spirit is an incorporeal substance, is to say, in effect, there is no Angel or Spirit at all. The Universe Lev c. 34 p. 207. being the aggregate of all bodies, there is no real part thereof that is not also body. The substance of invisible Agents Lev. c. 12 p. 53. is by some conceived, to be the same with that which appear­eth in a dream, or in a looking-glass, to them that are awake. But the opinion, that such Spirits were incorporeal, could never enter into the mind of any man by nature: However, that name will serve our purpose, for the Introduction of the

Fourth Head of our Discourse, The Nature of Angels.

To requite your Quibble; that Note of Incorporeal Angel ought not to have offended your purged [...]ars, seeing the old Philosophers thence derived the harmony of the celestial Orbs. But to be in good earnest; you seem, by denying Intelligencies or Incorporeal Angels, not only to contend with those despised Philosophers, but to encounter almost the whole world.

It is true, Hum. na [...]. c. 11. p. 13 [...] [...]39. that the Hea­thens, and all Nations of the World, have ac­knowledged that there be Spirits, which for the most part they hold to be Incorporeal; whereby it might be thought, that a man by natural reason may arrive, without the Scriptures, to the know­ledge of this, that Spirits are; but the erroneous col­lection thereof by the Heathens may proceed from the ignorance of the Causes of Ghosts and Phantasms, and such other apparitions: that is to say, Hum. nat. p. 138. Sect. 5. from the ignorance of what those things are, which are called Spectra, Images that appe [...]r in the dark to children, and such as have strong fears, and other strange imaginations.

By Lev. c 34 p. 211, 212 the name of Angel, is signified ge­nerally a Messenger; and most often, a Messen­ger of God; and by a Messenger of God, is sig­nified any thing that makes known his extraordina­ry presence; that is to say, the extraordinary ma­nifestation of his Power, especially by a Dream, or Vision.

That Angels are Spirits, is often repeated in Scripture; but by the name of Spirit, is signified both in Scripture, and vulgarly, both amongst Iews and Gentiles, sometimes thin bodies, as the Air, the Wind, the Spirits vital, and animal, of living Creatures; and sometimes the Images that rise in the fancy in Dreams and Visions, which are not real substances, nor last any longer, than the dream or vision they appear in; which Appariti­ons, though no real substances, but accidents of the brain; yet when God raiseth them supernatu­rally, to signifie his will, they are not unproperly termed Gods Messengers, that is to say, his An­gels.

[Page 57]And as the Gentiles did vulgarly conceive the i­magery of the brain, for things really subsistent without them, and not dependent on the fancy, and out of them framed their opinions of Daemons, good and evil; which because they seemed to subsist really, they called substances; and be­cause they could not feel them with their hands, incorporeal. So also the Iews upon the same ground, without any thing in the Old Testament that constrain'd them thereunto, had generally an opinion (except the Sect of the Sadducees) that those Apparitions (which it pleased God some­times to produce in the fancy of men, for his own service, and therefore called them his Angels) were substances not dependent on the fancy, but permanent Creatures of God; whereof those which they thought were good to them, they e­steemed the Angels of God, and those they thought would hurt them, they called evil Angels, or evil Spirits; such as was the Spirit of Python, and the Spirits of mad men, of Lunaticks and Epi­lepticks: for they esteemed such as were troubled with such diseases, Daemoniacks.

But if we consider the places of the Old Testa­ment, where Angels are mentioned, we shall find, that in most of them, there can nothing else be un­derstood by the word, Angel, but some Image, raised (supernaturally) in the fancy, to signifie the presence of God, in the execution of some su­pernatural work; and therefore in the rest, where their nature is not exprest, it may be understood in the same manner. Concerning Spirits, Hum. nat. p. 136. which some call incorporeal, and some corporeal, it is not possible, by natural means only, to come [Page 58] to knowledge of so much, as that there are such things.

Touching the incorporeal nature of An­gels, I will evince the necessity of it, by proving (when we come to examine the nature of mans Soul) that matter is not capable of Cogitation. At present, I will consider your two Assertion now delivered; that the existence of Angels, as permanent substances, is not to be collected from natural Reason; and that the Writings of the Old Testament speak not in favour of such Do­ctrine.

Concerning the first, it is wont to be said, that strange presages of mind, and warnings in dreams; wonderfull effects in men snatch'd away, and mountains and buildings removed and demolished, by power invisible; real apparitions to many men at once; predictions of Oracles; confessions and exploits of Wizards, and Witches, do by natural argumentation, prove the existence of Angels: as also that these are apt instruments, to beget ter­rour in the minds of wicked men, in order to their speedy reformation.

I know, that from fear Lev. c. 6. p. 26. of Power invisible, feigned by the mind, or imagin­ed from Tales publickly allowed, ariseth Religion; not allowed, Superstition.

If these be meer Tales, the publick al­lowance of them cannot make them to become Religion. For God, being infinitely powerfull and wise, refuseth to be served by the effects of [Page 59] solly and ignorance; neither standeth he in need of pious frauds and stratagems, wherewith to bring to pass his holy designs; for they are argu­ments of impotency in those who use them, and the truths of Religion appear most genuine, when there is due trial made of them, by exposing them to the light. But if these things which I have mention'd, be Tales and Fables, (all thoughts of which do often shake the higher Powers, who are said to feign them) then the faith, almost of man­kind, is call'd in question; and the most knowing persons are accused of eredulity or imposture. These Stories have not been meerly believed by children, and short sighted people, but by Socra­tes, Plotinus, Synesius, Dion, Iosephus, Pompo­natius, Cardan, and (his Transcriber) Caesar Vanine, and divers others, not ideots in Philoso­phy, nor yet some of them zealots in Religion. Cardan, a man who would speak liberally of him­self, not dissembling his very follies and vices, has, in his Life written by his own hand, Card. d [...] vitâ prop. c. 47 p. 262. spent an whole Chapter, in discoursing about his good Ge­nius; and therein he insisteth upon such eviden­ces, as made it manifest to him that his Imaginati­on did not impose upon him. He also foretold Thuan▪ ad Ann. 1576. p. 136. the year, and day of his death; which, be­cause some will not allow to have been done by skill, they have said, that by starving his body, he effected it, becoming a self-destroyer, to gain the reputation of a Prophet. If there may exist such Inhabitants of the air, (and there is nothing in nature, which doth hinder such Beings, more than it doth the existence of understanding crea­tures upon earth; and there is reason enough to [Page 60] perswade us that all Regions of the Universe are some way peopled) why should it then seem in­credible, that they sometimes bestow a Visit upon mortal men. Were all Body and Matter, the air, as well as earth might be folded into shapes, which think, and direct their motions at pleasure. Al­though some Stories are hatch [...]d in Chimney-cor­ners, or in the disturbed imaginations of fearfull people, and are told by such as love to hear them­selves talk, and to be believed, and are of easie confutation; it followeth not thence, (though it be the common reason) that all are fables. Then, as is usually said, all Histories would be condemn­ed, because there is such a vast crowd of Roman­ces, which multiply with the number of idle and sensual persons; and your Thucydides would fall into the dis-repute of Amadis de Gaule. I could tell of one, who wearing good Cloathes, and de­nying the existence of real Wizards and Witches before vulgar Judges, and by staying in his Cham­ber from Church, procured, amongst the people, the esteem due to a man of a shrewd head-piece, and one that saw behind the Curtain; though I am well confirmed, that his ignorance was the Mo­ther, and his laziness the Nurse of his in-devo­tion.

Necromancy, Witch-craft, charming, and conjuring, (the Liturgy Lev. p. 54. of Witches) is but L [...]v. c. 12. p. 56. juggling, and confederate knavery. The Priests Ibid more at la [...]ge. at Delphi, Delos, Ammon, were Impostors; the Leaves of the Sy­bils, (the Fragments of which seem to be the in­vention of later times) and the Prophesies of No­stradamus, [Page 61] are from the same Forge.

For the Sybils, the learned D. Blondel has not ineffectually cast away his studies, in rela­tion to my self. Concerning Oracles, although I underst [...]nd by divers Authors, and particularly by your Thucydides, See Thu­cyd. p. 68, 77, 82, 113, &c. that they gave some An­swers dubious, and others false, and divers true, but such as a prudent man might have return'd, out of deep insight into civil affairs; yet, with­out a suspicion of antient Historians, too unchari­table, I cannot prevail upon my mind to think, that the Priests had no assistance from Daemons. I know not what other judgement to make of the Answer, which the Pythia H [...]rod. Clio. p. 39. gave to Craesus; an instance, to which you cannot be a stranger. He enquir'd at Delphos, touching the proper means for the loosning the tongue of that beloved Son of his, who was apt for every thing, besides speech. The Pythia returned answer, that there was no great reason for his solicitousness about the dumbness of the Child, seeing when he should first speak, the hour would be unhappy to his Father. The event was agreeable to the prediction, his Son first crying out, when Sardis being taken, Craesus was ready to fall by the inglorious hand of a common Persian. I could, if you requir'd it, produce strange Instances, in times not so remote from our own; a good while after the coming of our Lord; notwithstanding that you have asserted, Lev. c. 12. p. 59. that in the planting of the Christian Religi­on, the Oracles ceased in all parts of the Roman Empire. Marcellinus would have un-deceiv [...]d you; and even Iulian the Apostate, who in his [Page 62] works, is frequent in the mention of present Ora­cles; and particularly, in an Epistle to Maximus the Cynic, Jul. A­p [...]st. op. p. 181. Epist. 38. (which being private, and to a Philosopher doth argue, that he wrote as he be­liev'd) He there tells Maximus, (who was brought into some danger under Constantius) that he had consulted the Gods concerning his e­state, being far distant from him, and solicitous for his welfare; and that he could not do it, in person, but by others, not be able to hear imme­diately, as he suspected, ill tidings of his Friend: as likewise, that the Oracle had return'd answer, that the Philosopher was in some trouble, but not pressed with such extremity, as giveth unnatural counsell.

Touching Michel Nostradamus, Physician in Ordinary to Henry the Second of France, I have read his Centuries, with very little edification. Yet, when I remember, that in sixty six, I be­held London in the Flames, I know not how to despise that Stanza of his, Cent. 2. p. 20 Quart. 51. Le sang du juste á Londres fera faute, Bruslez par foudres de vingt trois les [...]tx, &c. which, if it has not satisfied our reason, I'm sure it has astonished the imaginations of many. But whether he spake the words, and we contriv'd the sense, I leave under debate. But be these things as they will; this I am enough confirmed in, that such, as pub­lickly deny Witch-craft, are sawcy affronters of the Law, and therefore, for their opinion, which ra­ther establisheth irreligion, than subverts the faith, they ought to be chastiz'd from those Chairs of Justice, which they have reproachfully stain'd with the bloud of many innocent and mis-perswa­ded people.

As for Witches, Lev. c. 2▪ p. 7. I think not that their Witch-craft is any real power; but yet that they are justly punished for the belief they have, that they can do such mischief, joyned with their purpose to do it, if they can.

I have heard it elsewhere said, Dram. Poes. p. 4. that our Witches are justly hang'd, because they think themselves so; and suffer deservedly for believing they did mischief, because they mean it.

But methinks, that Law were to be accused of unreasonable severity, which should take away the life of those, knowingly and deliberately, who before they make confession of their inefficacious malice, are in no sort hurtfull to the Common­wealth, which is not concerned in our thoughts; and when they make confession, not of any evil practices, but of their delusions of distemper'd fancy, appear to be possessed with madness rather, than a Daemon, and ought rather to be provided for in Bedlam, than executed at Tyburn. But could we grant it to be a piece of [...]ustice; yet would that evasion be too thin to shelter those from the censure of the Law, who (as I think) do most insolently revile it, by denying all real confederacy with Daemons. For the Statute of King Iames, 1 Ja. c 12. whom you somewhere honour with the attribute of most wise, Lev. c. 19 p. 101. condemns to death only such Authors of Enchantment and Witch-craft, as are convicted of real effects: And it is not felony without Clergy, (though it be im­prisonment, with shame of the Pillory) to at­tempt to tell of stollen goods, or to destroy or hurt mans body by Conjuration. The Statute also [Page 64] mentioneth the making Covenants with some evil and wicked Spirit, as a practice granted and noto­rious.

But passing from the Law of our Sovereign, to that of Moses, let us

Secondly, Consider, Whether thereby you are not also condemned, in the Article of the perma­nent substances of Angels.

It is thought by learned men, that Moses and the Prophets had so conspicuously taught the Being of Angels, See Epis­cop. Iust. Th [...]ol. l 4. c. 2. p. 347. that the very Sadducees denied not ab­solutely the existence of such Spirits, but their natu­ral Being and duration, conceiving, by their appear­ing and disappearing on a sudden, that God had cre­ated them, upon account of some extraordinary Em­bassie, and the service being done, reduced them to their first nothing.

The Old Testament describes Angels by such Offices, of standing before the Throne of God, and ministring perpetually to the Favourites of God, See Dan. 7 10. Ps. 34 7. Ps. 68.17. Ps. 91.11, 12. comp. with Mat. 4.6. & Luk 4.10. as shew, at once, their unfancied ex­istence, and their permanency. It were a volu­minous labour, to write each Authority in the old Law; and it were also a superfluous one, seeing the bare instances of Lot and Abraham are so preg­nant with evidence, that no reason can overthrow it, though a boisterous impudence may turn it aside.

Why Lev. c. 34 p. 212. may not the Angels that appeared to Lot Gen. 19. — be understood of Images of men, supernaturally formed in the fan­cy? —That Lev c. 36 p. 227. to Abraham, was also of the same nature, an Apparition.

The Angels sent to Lot were not meer Phantasms, for the Texts seems as much an historical Relation, as any pas [...]age in the Acts and Monuments of Gods Church; the very History of the Passion scarce excepted. And in truth you have bidden very fair towards a phantastical Cross, by affirming our Saviour to have been Lev. c. 45. p. 354. tempted in a Vision. Were that true, it would be but a faint encourage­ment, which the Author to the Hebrews Heb 2.18. thought a sufficient motive to animate our hopes in the day of the spiritual battel; to con­sider with our selves that our Saviour imagi­ned himself to be tempted, and therefore will succour us that are really tempted. Scultetus In de­lic. Evang. was See Deut. 22▪8. betray'd into this error by his mistake of the Greek word rendred a Pinacle; having read, it seems, in Iosephus, that the Pi­nacles of the Temple were so very sharp, as not to sustain a bird without piercing its feet. Whereas [...], signified a Battlement of the Temple, a support easie and sufficient; on which Saint Iames the Just was placed, and thence by the violence of bloody men, was thrown down headlong. And for your self, you fell into this conceit, by being ignorant, or by not considering Lev. ib.—. No Mo [...]ntain high e­nough to shew him one whole Hemisphere that [...] doth often signifie, not the whole World, but the Land of Palestine, the whole glory of which might, as in a mapp be seen, in the places, at and about Ierusalem. But to return (if this be a digression from our business in hand) to the Instance of Lot. It is to be noted that not only Lot, but all his Family, and likewise divers of the impure [Page 66] Sodomites, at the same time, beheld the An­gels. There were also such effects, concomitant and remaining (such as were amongst the rest, Striving and Blindness) as do manifest that the Angels were real, and substantial Messengers. But if it shall be said, that this whole affair was acted, meerly in the scene of Imagination; it will thence follow, by a cons [...]quence bold and impure, as the very sin of Sodom, that God Al­mighty infus'd into the Sodomites such be­witching Images, as were proper to enkindle in them unnatural Lusts, and then condemn'd them to their darkness for pursuing such Fan­cies as were his own Off-spring.

The Angels that appear'd to Abraham, out-went the power of Fancy, feasting themselves upon real food, and not being entertain'd as at an Imaginary Banquet of Witches.

Now, for the New Testament, to collect the sev [...]ral places, were with Samson, to mul­tiply heaps upon heaps. That divers mention'd under the name of Daemoniacks, in the Scripture, were men disturbed by Melancholy, and pos­sess'd with the [...]alling-sickness, is not denied by me; and hath been publickly asserted Mr. Mede book 1. s. 37, 38, 39. fol. ▪ long since, by a very eminent Divine, but to conclude that all were such, is to do violence to the holy Text, and our own Reason in the interpretation of it; and thereby to render our selves as mad as the persons we discourse of. It soundeth untowardly to say, that Epilepsies and Phrensies s. Mat. 8 28, to 32. should beg leave of Christ to go into swine; and being cast out or cured, (that is annihilated, as such, by the change of [Page 67] figure and motion in the vessels, blood, and hu­mours) should after this, be able to enter into the herd, and to hurry them into swift de­struction.

Yet, of Possessions there may be room for scruple in many cases; and Galen mentions a Disease, under the horrid name of [...], as I have learnt from Peter Martyr, in his Discourse upon the Mela [...]choly of Saul. But touching the existence of Angels, there is no place left for the Sceptick, in the Gospel.

The Disciples Mat. 1 [...] ▪26; seeing our blessed Lord, when he walked upon the Sea, supposed him to be an Angel. They would not hereby mean a Phantasm, because he was seen by many of them at the same time, whose differing fan­cies and motions of brain, cannot be reasonably supposed in this juncture, to have conspir'd. And therefore I cannot commend that inter­pretation of Episcopius Episcop. Inst. Theol. p. 347., which he made upon a passage in St. Luke Luk. 24▪33, 34.; conceiving that Christ, surprizing the Disciples after his Resurrection, was judg'd, at first, by them a meer spectre, and not a spiritual essence; it be­ing utterly improbable that the same Spectre, or Phantasm should arise, at the same time, in the brains of all the eleven, without some out­ward object dispensing its influence to them all.

Go now, and say, that the Apostles were not men of so clear an apprehension, in this matter, as your self, being smutted with the dark doctrine - of Daemonologie amongst the Greeks. But what evasion is sufficient, when [Page 68] you read the History of the Deliverance of St. Peter? Concerning whom the Spirit of God affirmeth expresly Act. 12.9 And he went out and follo­wed him, and wist not that it was true which was done by the Angel; but thought he saw a visiou. that it was done, not in a Vision, but by the real efficacy of an Angel, commissioned by God.

Considering L [...]v. c. 34 p. 214. the significa­tion of the word Ang [...]l, in the Old Testament, and the nature of Dreams and Visions that happen to men by the ordinary way of nature; I was enclined to this opinion, that Angels were nothing but supernatural Apparitions of the fancy, raised by the special and extraordi­nary operation of God, thereby to make his presence and commandments known to Man­kind, and chiefly to his own People. But the many places of the New Testament, and ou [...] Saviours own words, and in such Texts, wherein is no suspition of corruption of the Scripture, have extorted from my feeble rea­son, an acknowledgment, and belief, that there be also Angels substantial, and perma­nent. But to believe they be in no place, that is to say, no where; that is to say, nothing; as they (though indirectly) say, that will have them incorporeal; cannot by Scripture be e­vinced. I add also [...]ev. p. 211 that concerning the Creation of Angels, there is nothing deliver­ed in the Scriptures.

The Scriptures affirm of Angels, that [Page 69] they are permanent Substances; they also make them inferior to God; and they ascribe to God the creating of all things, besides himself; and therefore, by apparent consequence, they af­firm of Angels, that they were created. If an express testimony be required, the Iews will tell you, that Moses (of whose secret Cabal they think themselves the chief) understood those words of his, especially of Angels, when he said of God, that In the Beginning he created the Heavens. But the words of St. Paul have seemed to me, of more easie and particular application. Christ (said Col. 1.15 16. that great Doctor of the Gentiles) is the Image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature; for by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be Thrones or Dominions, or Principalities or Powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him. These words must be interpreted of Men and Angels, from the importance of the phrase in other places of St. Paul Ephes. 1▪20, 21. comp. with Hebr. 1.3, 4, &c. to the end., and from the mention of pro­cured reconciliation or recapitulation which appertains not to the other parts of the upper or lower World Col. 1.20.

If any man here replieth, that because our Saviour took not hold of Angels, became not God incarnate to reduce them, and by his blood to soften and loose their Adamantine chains; it seems, therefore, absurd to apply this Text to those invisible Orders: he may be satish'd by taking notice of the proper signification of [...], in that verse; and this will be best done, by observing the agreement betwixt [Page 70] this Chapter, and the first to the Ephesians; of which Epistle this to the Colossians is said, by Crellius Crell. com. in Ep. ad Col. p. 528. and some others, to be a Compen­dious Rehearsal. The seventh verse of the first to the Ephesians, answereth to the fourteenth of the first to the Colossians; and the tenth of the first, to the sixteenth and twenti­eth of the other Gr [...]t. in 1. Ephes. 10. Certe ut pleraque Epi­stolae ad Coloss. cum bâc Epist. congruant, ita & l [...]cur iste (Col. 1.1 [...].) bu [...]c incem adferre & vicissim ab eo lucem mutuari videtur.. We are then to observe that [...], in the Epistle to the Colossians, is the same with [...], in that to the Ephesians. And Ireneus Iren. l. 1. c. 1. p. 16. citing that, amongst other Texts in the first to the Colossians, useth this second, and not that first Greek word, Now [...], signified first a summ of Money, and afterwards was applyed to any Collection. And we speak not impro­perly when we say, A general recapitulates his dispersed Soldiers into a Troop. So that here­by is set forth that Soveraignty over Men and Angels, which was acquired by the Death, Re­surrection and Ascension, of the Captain of our Salvation, to whom, as Head and Lord, the whole body of them is referred; and under whom they shall not contend as of old the Angels of Persia and Graecia are said to have done.

For Angels, be they permanent, created, substances, be they what they will; this I am sure of, that I have no Idea of them. When I think of an Angel, Object. 5. p. [...]7. sometimes the Image of Flame, sometimes of a beautiful Cu­pid [Page 71] with wings, comes into my fancy; which Image, I am confident, is not the similitude of an Angel; and therefore is not the Idea of it. But Credens. elegantly. believing that they are certain Creatures ministring to God, invisible and immate­rial; we Imponimus, elegantly. impose upon the thing believed or supposed the name of Angels; whilst in the mean time, the Idea under which I imagin an Angel, is com­pounded of the Ideas of visible things.

You here again are blindly fallen in­to the old mistake of an Idea for an Image. If we suppose an Angel to be an understanding Essence, either not united vitally to matter, or only to the purest Aether, and conceive it em­ployed in such offices as are in Scripture ascri­bed to it, we have a competent notion of it, and that is an Idea.

But of these invisible Powers above us, me­thinks we have spoken largely enough, consi­dering their nature, as also the season of the night; if we pursue our Subject much longer, the morning will break in and affright away the Ghosts we talk of.

So said the best of English Poets, in his Hymn. to Light Mr. Cow­l [...]y, p. 36, 37..

A Poet may talk of Ghosts; but I'm sorry you think that we have been se­riously discoursing about them; for then, it seems, we have talk'd about nothing. It is not well that we render spirits, by the word Ghosts Lev. c. 34 p. 210. which signifieth nothing, neither in hea­ven, nor earth, but the imaginary inhabitants of mans brain.

Gast, or Geast, whence Ghost is a good old English word, and signifieth the same with spirit; and I could produce Verstegan Versteg. Ant. & Prop. of the Anc. English Tongue, p. 220. to a­vouch it. The word is good, and the Poetry excellent; and since I am fallen upon it, I think it will not be amiss, if we unbend a lit­tle, and refresh and smooth our spirits with some Poetick numbers, and dismiss our severer Reasonings 'till the morrow. And now, it comes into my mind, that I have about me, your Verses o [...] the P [...]ak, which are most agree­able to the place and circumstances, in which we have been; and in r [...]peating which, I might be satisfi'd concerning some expressions, and particularly that of—(ninos sibi concolor Author Fallat).

For Mr. H. S [...]gmai. p. 14. my Verses of the Peak, they are as ill in my opinion, as I believe they are in any mans; and made long since— I will by no means hear them.

Then let us get on the other side of our Curtains, without any Epilogue at all; for I begin to be as heavy as if the Mines of this Shire had a powerful influence upon me. I would have been glad to have diverted the hu­mour a little with something pleasant, that we might have concluded, as the Italians advise, Con la bocca dolce. But I will force none of my humour upon you. Sir, I return you thanks for your Conversation; and I wish you, most heartily, a good night.

Sir, Concl [...]s. of Mr. H. of lib. & necess. p. 80 praying God to pros­per you, I take leave of you, and am your humble Servant.

Art. 5. Concerning the Soul of Man.

A Good morrow to you, Mr. Hobbes, I hope you slept well, since I parted from you, notwithstanding the heat of our Disputation.

Very well; as quietly as if I had been rocked by one of those good Genii, which we spake of, a little before we took our leaves.

I thank God, I slept so soundly, that the passed time is esteemed by me [...]ong, upon no other account, than that it hath kept me some hours, from debating such further mat­ters in Philosophy and Religion, as we at first propounded.

Let us then delay no longer, but enter immediately upon our second Con­ference.

I am ready to wait upon you, and setting aside the time of sleep as nothing, to connect this part of our life with that, wherein we were awake, conferring about Angels; and [Page 75] because we said as much as we intended upon that Subject, let us descend to the

Fifth Article, which concerns those Beings next in order, the Souls of Men; of them I would gladly hear your thoughts, seeing it is a matter which relates, so closely to the grea­test interest of man.

By the Soul, I mean Leviat: cap. 46. p. 373. Soul or Life. the Life of Man; and Life it self is but motion, Lev. p. 29 so that the Soul or Life Lev. p. 1. is but a motion of Limbs, the beginning whereof is in some principal part within.

By this means you will make of Man an excellent piece of Clock-work; which though you have been hammering out, more than thirty years, may methinks, (like the artificial man of Albertus Magnus) be broken in sunder in a moment. I know that you may set the wheels of your machin a going; but what is there within, that shall understand when it goes well or ill, or feel and number the repeated strokes? You mean surely, by your description the mechanism of the Body set on work, and not the Soul perceiving its operations.

Perception or Imagination Obj. 4. p. 96. depends (as I think) upon the motion of Cor­poreal Organs; and so the Mind will be nothing else but a motion in certain parts of an Organized Body.

If you can clearly and distinctly both explain and prove that which you have now proposed in gross, you shall then be esteemed that great Apollo, whom every one that has feigned any singular Hypothesis, does in the absence of good Neighbours, boast himself to be.

Before I undertake this, I will remove out of your way that prejudice which you may have against the notion of the Soul as consisting in Life, by proving most effectually to an Ecclesiastick, that the Scripture giveth countenance to my definition. The Soul Leviat. c. 44. pag. 339, 340. in Scripture signifieth always, either the life, or the living creature; and the Body and Soul jointly, the body alive. In the first day of the Creation, God said, Let the Waters pro­duce Reptile animae viventis; The creeping thing that hath in it a living soul: the English translate it, That hath life: And again, God created Whales, Et omnem animam viventem: which in the English is, Every living creature. And likewise of Man, God made him of the dust of the Earth, and breathed in his face the breath of life; Et factus est homo in ani­mam viventem; that is, And man was made a living creature. And after Noah came out of the Ark, God saith, He will no more smite, Omnem animam viventem; that is, Every living creature. And Deut. 12.23. Eat not the blood, for the blood is the soul; that is, the Life. From which places, if by Soul were meant a substance incorporeal, with an existence [Page 77] separated from the body, it might aswell be inferred of any other living Creatures, as of Man.—

To argue from one sense of an equi­vocal word to the universal acceptance of it, becomes not a man of ordinary parts. Nephesh, Soul (as well as Ruach, Spirit) is a word of various signification in the Old Testament; and in many places it denotes See Maimon. more, Nev. pa. 1. c. 41. pag. 59. will, lust, or pleasure. We read in the Psalmes Psalm 105.22. & Psal. 27 1 [...]. See Ier. 8.15. Iudg. 1.10.16, &c. this phrase—To bind his Princes Benaphscho, according to his soul, or, at his pleasure: And again, Deliver me not Benephesch, unto the soul, or will of mine Enemies. When the word is improperly attributed to God in Scripture, this usually is the sense of it. You would now esteem me absurd enough, if I went about to infer from hence, either that the essence of the Soul consisteth in Will and Pleasure, or that the Deity had a Soul, that is Life, that is Motion: The Soul being the spring of bodily life in man, it might by an easie Metonymie, be used (as in the recited places) in expressing Life. In that place where the Blood is call'd the Soul or Life; it was not the design of Moses to set forth Philosophically, the inward essence of a Beast; but to let the people understand, that the blood of a Beast, which was sprinkled upon the Altar, being an embleme of the life of Man forfeited through disobedience, and an instrument in expiation, they should abstain out of rever­ence, [Page 78] to that Mystery, from a rude quaffing and devouring of it.

But what answer have you in readiness to those places, where the Scripture speaks di­stinctly of Body and Soul?

Body and Soul is no more than Body and Life, or Body alive. In those places of the New Testament Lev. c. 44 p. 340., where it is said, that any man shall be cast body and soul into hell-fire; it is no more than body and life, that is to say, they shall be cast alive into the perpetual fire of Gehenna.

Your Gloss is extreamly wide of the unwrested meaning of the holy Text. For our Saviour Mat. 10.28. counselleth his Apostles not to fear them that can kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; making a manifest distinction thereby betwixt the Soul and the Life of the Body; for if the Soul were nothing but the Life of the body; it were in the power of every man to kill our Souls, unto whose sword and ma­lice our lives lay do open. And thus you see, in­stead of removing truth, which in me you call a prejudice, you have laid a stumbling block in the way, an occasion of falling into error.

But let us leave the explication of Scripture, in which you are for the greater part unhappy▪ and attempt the explication of the exalted mechanism of Living Man, wherein you have laboured so many years, and concerning which you have raised the expectations of many.

The cause of Sense Lev. p. 3 [...], is the external body, or object, which presseth the organ proper to each sense; either immediate­ly as in the Tast and Touch; or mediately as in Seeing, Hearing and Smelling; which pres­sure by the mediation of nerves, and other strings, and membranes of the body, continu­ed inwards to the brain and heart, causeth there a resistance, or counter-pressure, or en­deavour of the heart to deliver it self; which endeavour because outward, seemeth to be some matter without; and the seeming or fancy, is that which men call Sense.

You do not here at all surprize me, as if some new Philosophy (for the main, not heard of, in former ages) had, to your immortal re­nown, been first discover'd by you. For it has been said of old, that, All variety in bodies ari­seth from motion; and that Sensation is a per­ception of that manner in which impressing bodies affect us. For Aristotle Ar. de An. l. 3. c. 2. [...]. hath recited an ancient saying of Philosophers, who holding that Phanta [...]ms were not the things them­selves, but only in our Senses, express'd their opinion by asserting, that there was no black­ness, without Sight, nor without Taste. And Des-cartes in his Meteors, published in French together with his Method Dioptriques, and Geometry, as soon as I was born A Leyde, 1637. la Diopt. p. 5, &c. les Me­teor. Disc. prem. p. 161 162., explained the nature of Colours, light, and vision, other­wise than by intentional Species; and told us that by cold and heat, are to understood per­ceptions occasioned by the less or more vehe­ment [Page 80] touch of little bodies upon the capilla­ments of the nerves which serve in our organs to that purpose. Yet I am not tir'd in hearing such Hypotheses repeated or varied; please then to proceed, and if it liketh you, particu­larly in the explication of the nature of Vision, wherein the Doctrine of Phantasms is most concern'd.

In every great Hum. nat. p. 11, &c. agitation or concussion of the brain (as it happeneth from a stroke, especially if the stroke be upon the Eye) whereby the Optick-nerve suffereth any great violence, there appeareth before the Eyes a certain light, which light is nothing without but an apparition only; all that is real, being the concussion of motion of the parts of that nerve; from which experience we may conclude that apparition of light is really nothing but motion within—and image and colour is but an apparition to us of that motion, agitation, or alteration which the object worketh in the brain, or spirits, or some internal substance in the head.

This exposition of Light by the crou­ding of the parts, though it be not wholly to be rejected, yet may it (I think) be rendred suspicious for a time, by that which deserves, at least, the name of a puzzling Objection. Let us then suppose unto our selves, such a circum­ference as is surrounded with Eyes: for in every point of enlightned space, and at all times there may be Vision. I say then, that the [Page 81] part in the Center being equally crouded on all sides, no motion or pressure can be thence conveighed Diametrically, from Eye to Eye; which is against the Hypothesis mention'd. This Scruple concerneth also the Philosophy of Des-cartes; against whose Globuli, in Vision, there hath likewise of late, been this Excepti­on made. They have been supposed, in a right line, to move after the manner of Jack-wheels, the one from East to West moving the next from West to East: from whence it has been concluded that the motion being thus di­sturbed, the knowledg of the Object cannot distinctly be attained to by the endeavour of the last Globulus. But, to on it what he himself, hath written Meteor▪ c. 8. p. 28 [...]. to 285. concerning the Collateral Globuli; I observe, that the Globuli are so ex­actly turned, that they touch but in a point, in the right line of them, and that therefore, according to Mechanick Laws, the Motion from the first Globulus is conv [...]igh'd directly through the Center of the second, and so in succession, 'till it hath describ'd such a right line as is required in Vision, without other variation in the pressure, than out ward impe­diments shall occasion. But not to digress too much, or to conjure up such Objections as we cannot easily dismiss by Solution; let us at­tend to what is plain. And first, to speak more generally, to me it is plain, that all this while you have describ'd the Apparatus for Sensation, and not the inward Substance which hath a fa­culty to perceive that it has been variously pressed by Objects. Aristotle De A [...]. l. 3. c. 8. enquiring how [Page 82] the first principles of Knowledg should be I­mages; doth cut in sunde [...] rather than untie the knot, by saying, that in truth they are no [...] Phantasms, yet not without them. And Des­cartes, supposing Beasts without a Soul, does therefore, notwithstanding the curious work­manship of their Machin, not much in [...]erior unto Man's, deny that they have Perception; but only move, as the Dove of Archytas, or the Eagle of Regiomontanus. I enquire, then, not after the instruments of Sensation, but the Substance perceiving: Neither do I, yet, un­derstand, after all your words about it, what is properly sense?

Sense De corp. c. 25. pag. 292. is a Phantasm, made by the Re-action and endeavour outwards in the Organ of Sense, caused by an endeavour inwards from the Object, remaining for some time more or less.

There is not only excited in the Brain an apparence of the Object, but also a Per­ception of that Image or apparence; as all, who have their Senses, find by daily experi­ence. If Impressions were, not only Instru­ments, but acts of Sense; might we not strongly argue, that a Looking-glass saw, and a Lute heard?

But, to descend unto particulars; I will endeavour to make it evident, that neither Sense, nor Imagination, nor Memory, no [...] Reason, nor Will, can ever become the re­sults of moving and rebounding Matter▪ [Page 83] without the presence of an Immaterial Mind.

First, Sensation is not made, neither can it be, by the meer re-action of Matter. It would thence follow, Th [...]t every part of the World, being capable of moving and rebounding, is also, so often as there is this counter-pr [...]ssure sensible. Then the springs of all Engins. the Elastic air, resisted wind, and an echoed v [...]ice, are so many perceiving Essences; and it is an act, almost of as great unmercifulness though not of so great detriment to the Common­wealth [...] to knock a nail as a man on the head; for either nail or hammer would ex [...]reamly smart for't.

I know, De corp. p. [...]93. there have been Philosophers, and tho [...]e learned men, who have maintain'd that all Bodies are endued with Sense. Nor can I see how they can be refuted, if the nature of Sense be placed in Re-action only. And, though by the Re-action of Bodies inanimate a Phantasm might be made, it would nevertheless cease, as soon as ever the Object were removed. For, unless those Bo­dies had Organs, (as living Creatures have [...] fit for the retaining of such Motion as is made in [...]hem, their Sense would be such, as that they should never remember the same. And there­fore this hath nothing to do with that sense which is the Subject of my Discourse.

If this be good Doctrine; we must, [...]bove most persecuted M [...]n, pity the Hammer [Page 84] or Anvil of Vulc [...]n; they being, for the most pa [...]t▪ tormented by repeated Strokes. But let this ludicrous Argument give place to more sober Reasoning. Consider then, that Cor­poreal motion, in all things (as in water) a­ris [...]th not further in its effects than the Spring­head of its own causal Energy.

It is Lev. p. 3. confessed, that Motion produceth nothing but Motion.

Then the part counter-pressed, being still only moved, it doth not perceive either that, or how, it s [...]lf is moved, unless Motion be the perceiving of it self, and the appre­hending of M [...]tion, and of all the varieties of Motion; which is a phrase of greater insig­nificancy than any you have not [...]d amongst the Aristot [...]lians or School-Doctors In whatso­ever Matters we are at difference, I'm sure we are of the same judgment in this, That a Body at rest, Se [...] de Corp. p. 15▪ Lev. p. 4. will always be at rest, unless there be some other body, which by getting into its place, suffers it no longer to remain at rest. So that Matter, in its own nature, is thoroughly dull and stupid; and in receiving Motion it is meerly passive; for a Body, when moved, only suffers it self to be crouded from a first place to a second.

In that also, we differ not; for De Corp. c. 8. Art. 10. & also p. 150. de Corp. Motion is, by me defined, to be the conti­nual privation of one place and acquisition of another.

How then does passive Matter, by be­ing crouded more slowly or swiftly, containing in its own Idea only impenetrable extention, obtain an infused power, from that Motion, to perceive that it is crouded, and in what degree; and thereby also, to have an active Conc [...]ption of the Varieties in Nature?

But what av [...]ileth Rebounding to the very Act of Sense? [...]or to have Re-action is no more than for passive Matter to be thrust first for­ward, and then backward. And why then, may not the part which is crouded forward, perceive as well in proceeding [...]rom one term in a right line, as in receding from the other term? the difference not consisting in any Physical causality, but in relation, or respect to divers Terms? The purest parts of the Blood thrust forward to the spinal Marrow, have the same virtue imparted to them; as, when they are beaten backward towards the Retina, in relation to the Object of Sight; if we suppose their force unbroken and unal­tered. The difference is resp [...]ctive, as in the way which leads from Cambridge to London, the way is the same; and the Hackney coming to Cambridge, may be almost, as well imagined to be wiser, when he is whipped and spurred back towards London, as that a part of the Matter thrust from the influence of the Object into the Brain, may be thought more to p [...]r­ceive in its return to the Optick-nerve, than in its direct course Hum. nat p. [...]4. The Interior Coat of the Eye is nothing else, but a piece of the Optick-nerve; & therefore the Motion is still there­by continued into the Brain; & by resistance or re-action o [...] the Brain, is also a rebound into the Optick▪ nerve again, which we not conceiving it as such, call Light.

[Page 86]The like Arguments are to be used against Fancy or Imagination, as a material attribute; it being but a Perception of Phantasms, (espe­cia [...]ly in Vision) when the Object is removed. H [...]re we must say again, that, A perceiving of an Image, and a perceiving that it still dwells with us; and a perceiving that we perceive it; that is to say, a feeling of a motion, and a knowing that we feel it, and in what manner, in the Organs of Sense; is not the Motion it self which we perceive we feel: and yet, Moti­on is all that is introduced into the Senseless, Un [...]ctive, Matter, and not any new Principle capable of perceiving Motion. For Motion, as was granted, begets nothing but Motion. You h [...]ve somewhere Hum. [...]at. p. 13. said, That Colour is but an Apparition to Vs, of that Motion, Agitation or Alteration, which the Object worketh in the Brain or Spirits, or some Internal substance in the head: should you proceed and say, That such Motion, Agitation or Alteration, in the part, is the Sense or Fancy perceiving that Motion, Agitation, or Alteration, that is, it self, (which yet is your Opinion in varied Terms) you would surely grate the Ears of the veriest Ass in Nature.

And here the Argument is of stronger con­viction, than in sense. For if a part of Matter mov [...]d, perceives not that Motion, when the O [...]ject presseth by an immediate influence; much le [...]s is it capable of so Doing, when Mo­tion in the Spirits, or Nerve, or Membrane, is subject in short time to languish, and to lose its degree of swistness, or its determination, [Page] by the Encounters of fresh Pressures from without, or endeavours from within, which are numerous and almost perpetual.

Farther; you have admitted of the feign'd conceit of Vacuum in nature; which you ap­prehend not as a Phantasm of subtile Matter extended, but conceive a perfectly void space between two Bodies. Of this, you can have no Sensation, because there is no Object to press into the Brain. You have no proper Imagina­tion of it; for, of Nothing there is no Image. But you have an Idea, or Perception, or in your own word, a Phantasm of it: This Phan­tasm (by an Argument ad hominem) over­throws the opinion of Imagining, or Fancying Matter, whilst it ariseth from the Negation or Privation of it. But that which is of grea­ter strength, is a Reason taken from the dis­proportion of some Images to the Material Sentient, and the manner how the Image conveigheth it self to the perceiving Matter. We have within us, an Image of the Sun, about two foot in Diameter: were the whole Head the Imagining Subject, it would be no more capable of so wide an Image, than a common Wafer is, of the Broad-Seal. Besides, we may consider, that in the Sentient-Body, each part of it has either the apparence of the whole Image, or of a Part. If, of the whole, then seeing every part of Body is Body, and the smallest atom we can see is resolved further into its parts, and those into their parts without end; it will follow thence, that we shall have an apparence not of one only Sun, [Page 88] Sun, but of more, perhaps, than we have, of fixed Starrs in the widest and clearest view of the Face of Heaven. If of a part, then w [...] perceive no whole Image, or entire Appa­ren [...]; but have as many singular Perceptions broken and divided, as parts in the Image or Percipient: If in any part of the Percipient, all the Impressions are united; then are the parts of the Image confounded by so doing; and the parts o [...] the Percipient by communi­cating their Motion have lost all their Sense: neither is there a part which has not Parts; so still the Image will be infinitely multiply'd, or not entirely seen.

The next Faculty, is that of Remembrance, which is not to be ranked amongst Mechanical Powers. I [...]quire then, what Faculty per­ceiving the Image in the Brain, perceives also that the Object is removed; and how many hours it hath b [...]n absent; and when there aris [...]th a like p [...]ssure from the same Object, discerneth that such a pressure was formerly made?

By De corp. c. 25. p. 290. what Sense (say you) shall we take notice of Sense? I answer by S [...]ns [...] it self, namely, by the Memory which for some time remains in us of things sensible, though they themselves pass away: for he that perceives that he has perceived, re­members.

I understand that there may remain a quivering in the Retina, Choroeides, and [Page 89] whole Pia Mater, or in the Spirits, after the Object of Sight is removed, whose presence occasioned a more stiffe Pressure. We see the like in extended and moved Nets and Ropes, and a thousand other Examples in Art and Nature: but this trembling in them, as also in such Machins where the Motion may be more entirely and longer imprisoned, does soon vanish. Whereas the Re-action must re­main extreamly long, in such Men (for In­stance), who at the seventieth year remember most perfectly, and will repeat with pleasure the passages of their School-play; even those who retain not the things more newly passed. To tell how this can be explained by the meer Mechanism of the Brain, which has received many millions of changes in it self, and Re­actions occasion'd from the Objects of every Hour, requires a more skilful Oedipus than has yet pretended to unriddle the Secrets of Humane Nature. But if we suppose the Moti­on remaining in the Brain (which you call Memory), there is no satisfaction given to the Question: in which, proceeding further, we de­mand, By what Power do you perceive this remaining Motion as formerly, caused, and now continuing? for to say, That the Motion of the Brain is Perception of that Motion; and that Motion remaining, is the Perception of remaining Motion; and that decaying is a perception of the remaining yet decaying Motion; and that this decaying Mo­tion is a Perception that it was a brisker Vibra­tion in time past; (whilst all these Motions [Page 90] suppose a faculty pre-existing, or newly produc'd and apprehensive of them; which, be­ing the issue of Motion cannot be more appre­hensive than its Parent) to say all this, is to pile up absurd speeches unto the very heighth of Non-sense; and I have done them too much honour, whilst I have taken such fre­quent notice of them.

I again inquire of you, Whether Sense and Imagination, and Memory, being Motions Phantasms, perish, or are transformed as an impression upon the stamp of new Arms, when the rebounded Motion perisheth, as to the Brain; or is altered there?

Phantasms De corp. c. 25. p. 291. S. 1. or Ideas, are not always the same; but new ones appear to us, and old ones vanish, according as we ap­ply our Organs of Sense, now to one Object, now to another; wherefore they are genera­ted and perish. And from hence it is manifest, that they are some change or mutation in the Sentient. Now all mutation, or alteration is Motion, or Endeavour; and Endeavour also is Motion, in the Internal parts of the thing that is altered.

If then, Motion ceaseth, Memory also vanisheth away.

It is confessed. And I have said already, That unless Bodies had Organs (as living Creatures have) fit for the retaining of such Motion as is made in them, their Sense [Page 91] would be such as that they should never re­member the same.

If then, Oblivion seizeth on us, that is to say, in your sense and phrase, if the Mo­tion be removed from the Sentient; when the Organ is again moved by the same Object, there ariseth a new Motion, and a new Sensa­tion, but no Remembrance that we were formerly thus moved; because the S [...]ntient has only had Motion as it had at first; the old is perished▪ We find by common experience, that when something has escap'd our M [...]mory for many years; (suppose, the name of a Per­son in Story), we turn our Dictionaries, we chime over all Syllables we can think of; we use all endeavours to rubb up (as we say) our Memories, and perhaps in vain.

This is Re-conning. And our thoughts run Lev. p. 10, in the same mann [...]r, as one would sweep a room to find a Jewel; or as a Spaniel ranges the field, 'till he find a scent; or as a Man should run over the Alphabet, to start a rime.

This business of the Brain is set on work, by the Will or Desire, and so far from being caused by Mechanick impulse, that it is occasioned by a Privation, or, in your way, by the missing of parts.

But, to connect my Discourse to those words wherein you interrupted me; when, after all rubbings up of Memory, we despair of finding [Page 92] this much-sought Name, a [...] la [...]t, p [...]rhaps by accidence we espy it on a Monument, or Medal, or in a Book; or hear it, o [...] something of like sound with it, pronounced by another; straightway there a [...]iseth in us not only [...] P [...]r­ception of this Name, by this new Motion which is the whole Mechanick causality; but also a knowledg that this was th [...] g [...]oat we swept for, the Name sought after; & a rej [...]ycing in the discovery. The sound was not able to produce in us any other Image than we held of old, when we first read or heard the word; by what token then could it be known to be the lost Name found, if M [...]mory be performed without an Immaterial Soul?

Having mentioned Ob [...]vion, I will go on, by shewing, that, according to your Principles, almost every thing would be as deeply, and as soon forgotten, as I wish your Doctrines were concerning God, and his Angels, and the Sou [...]s of Men.

Attend then to the meaning of Heraclitus, who was wont to say, That no Man bathed twice in the same River; and of a Modern Physitian who hath told us, That no Man sits down the same to a second Meal. The Spirits, which with the greatest reason, are supposed to be most the Soul, and to rebound (because it is not so proper to say, That the Nerves and Membranes rebound from the Spinal Marrow [...]o the plexus retiformis) are always shifting po­stures and places, and many of them transpire daily, whilst new parts of the Blood are ex­alted and conveighed into their room. In Chil­dren [Page 93] the Organs are changed by accession of Parts; and in all, in the space perhaps of less than seven years, the whole Sentient, whatso­ever it is, is, for the main vanished, 'though the Texture be alike, as was the form of Structure in the Ship of Theseus. How then, (as Raimundus Martini, argueth Raim. Mart. pug▪ [...]idei. par. 1 c. 4. p. 165 Ipsu [...]sse il­lum quo (que) nunc, qui fuit tunc, est [...]ir [...]nis­sima men­tis ejus conceptio: bujusmodi ergo essen­tia ejus non est complexio, quae ab ill [...] tempore forsitan est plus quam millesies permutata. Can any person [...] him [...]l [...], after seventy years, to be individually the same, it he be not endued with a Spiritual and Incorruptible Soul, which remaineth the same intirely throughout that space; but consisteth only of a Body in Moti­on, with perpetual flux of Parts? Or by what fetch or wit can it b [...] explaned, how the new add [...]d Matter, by new pressure can remember what was perceived by the former, whose Mo­tion is scattered with it sel [...]? If we should suppose the P [...]rts to remain, and yet the Moti­on to h [...]v [...] p [...]rished, it is all one to them, when they are moved by a fresh impulse, as if they never had been moved but at that time. Now that the Motion p [...]risheth daily in effect, that is, that [...] far varieth in its degrees and de­terminations, as not to be in capacity of re­pr [...]senting the Object as it did in its unchanged condition, will I think be concluded by premi­ses, by your self, laid down. Do you not then, not only ascribe to the several Senses, proper Organs, and in them proper parts which have animation; but also affirm the Heart to be the common seat of Sense?

The Heart De Corp. c. 25 S. 10 p. 301. is a common Organ to all the Senses; whereas that which [Page 94] reacheth from the Eye to the roots of the Nerves, is proper only to sight. The proper Organ o [...] Hearing is the Tympanum of the Ear, and its own N [...]rve, from which to the Heart the Organ is common. In the proper Organs of Smell and Taste are nervous Mem­branes; in the Palate and Tongue, for the Taste; and in the Nostrils, for the Smell; and from the roots of those Nerves to the Heart, all is common. Lastly, the proper Organ of Touch are Nerves and Membranes dispersed through the whole Body; which Membranes are de­rived from the root of the Nerves. And all things else belonging alike to all the Senses seem to be administred by the Arteries, and not by the Nerves.

The Spirits, then moved in Vision by the Object, return by counter-pressure to the Retina, and from thence by such Arteries as you make conjecture of Ibid ad init., unto the Heart, the source of Spirits.

Conceptions Hum. nat. c. 7. p. 69. and apparitions (w^ch are nothing really but Motion in some Internal Substance of the Head) stop not there; but the Motion proceedeth to the Heart. And as in sense Lev. p. 25 [...]. 6. that which is really within us, is only Motion but in apparence; to the Sight, light and colour; to the Ear, sound, &c.— So when the action of the Object is continued from the Eyes, Ears, and other Organs to the Heart; the real effect, there, is nothing but Motion or Endeavour; which consisteth in [Page 95] Appetite, or Aversion, to or from, the Object moving. But the apparence or sense of that Motion, is that we either call delight, or trouble of Mind.

It is then, impossible to remember, seeing the Motion, in passing to the heart, and in being in the heart, whilst it is dilated in re­ceiving blood from the Vena Cava, and con­tracted in forcing what is receiv'd into the Ha­bit of the Body, (for the vulgar Systole is the Diastole of the Heart, and vice versa) must needs be either communicated to other parts already in Motion, or encreased by the receit of Mo­tion from such infinite parts of blood justling with it, or at least, varied once and again in its determinations, rebounding often from divers terms: wherefore it must be suppos'd to pe­rish; not properly indeed, seeing no Motion is lost any other way than money is said to be lost when it passeth from one Gamster to another, but to all the intents and purposes of repre­senting the Object; which, to awaken a new Sensation, must come into the Brain by a new Impulse. So that Motion in the Blood, from the Impression of an outward Object, is like that of water, by a stone cast in; it is propa­gated from one circle to another, 'till at length it passeth undiscerned into a foreign sub­ject.

But it is time to hasten our pace in the pre­sent Controversie. In which, I could not, to say truth, have been very brief, if I had but made a short rehearsal of the very heads of [Page 96] such Arguments as overthrow the Doctrine of Thinking Matter.

Let us then, pass by these lower powers of Sense, and Fancy, and Memory; and consider the more advanced faculty of Reason; and here we shall perceive, by the manner of Men­tal working, that Reason is a power superiour to Imagination, and much more to all the causality of corporeal pressure. For (as Des­cartes Medit. 6. p. 36. has, with acuteness, and truth, ob­served) we otherwise think of or understand a Triangle, and a figure of a thousand Angles. When we think of a Triangle, we not only un­derstand a figure comprehended by three lines, but also we have a Perception, or Image of those three lines in our Brain; and that is Imagination. But when we think of a Figure of a thousand Angles, we as perfectly, by our Reason understand, that it consists of a thousand sides, as we perceive the other to consist of three; but we cannot imagin those thousand Sides and Angles after the same manner that we did the three; that is, behold them as di­stinctly pictur'd in our Brain, as present in a Phantasm. And although, by reason of the custom which we have gotten of imagining something as often as there is mention made of a corporeal subject, we may perhaps represent to our selves some confused figure at the hear­ing the foresaid figure named; yet it is plain, that this is not the image of a figure of a thou­sand sides and Angles, because it is in nothing differing from that Image of a Figure which should represent to my self, in thinking of a [Page 97] Figure with a myriad of Sides and Angles, or of any other of very many Sides; neither doth it conduce at all to the understanding of those proprieties whereby a figure of a thou­sand Angles differs from other very Polygo­nous Figures.

Again, to proceed in order, I will endea­vour to make it evident, beyond all just excep­tion, that the power of Reasoning, in the acts of simple Appreh [...]nsion, of connecting simple notions into a Proposition, of deriving conse­quences from premised propositions, is not the meer result of the moved Mechanism of Man's Body.

First, In the Acts of simple Apprehension, our Reason, exercised in Notions purely Logi­cal, or Metaphysical, has Ideas which are e­stranged from all Corporeal Matter. For they are not conceptions of single Beings, but of the manner how we conceive of them our selves, or declare our conceptions unto others. Thus every Youth will tell us, within few days after Matriculation, That Homo is Species.

The Universality Hum. nat. p. 48, 49. of one Name to many Things, has been the cause that Men think the Things are themselves univer­sal; and so seriously contend, that besides Peter and Iohn, and all the rest of the Men that are, have been, or shall be in the World, there is yet something else that we call Man, viz. Man in general; deceiving themselves, by taking the universal or general appellation, for the thing it signifieth: For, if one should [Page 98] desire the Painter to make him the Picture of a Man; which is as much as to say, of a Man in general; he meaneth no more but that the Painter should chuse what Man he pleaseth to draw, which must needs be some of them that are, or have been, or may be; none of which are universal: But when he would have him to draw the Picture of the King, or any parti­cular person; he limiteth the Painter to that one person he chuseth.

I affirm not, that there is such an exist­ing Being as Man in general; yet that, there is such an abstracted notion of Man, or Manhood, all Circumstances of Individuation laid aside, is manifest; seeing it is not a true and proper Predication to say, a Man is Socrates: and therefore the notion reacheth beyond a singu­lar; and therefore is not an impulse from Sense, whose Objects are all singular. And because a Painter cannot make the Picture of Human Nature, but only of a Human Person; i [...] followeth that such a Notion is not Pictur'd in the Fancy. Besides, when we say, a Man is a Species; we represent not to our selves (pro­perly in Logick) Human Nature, but the man­ner whereby our Mind conceives of it, whilst it takes notice that it agrees to Peter and Paul, a [...]d Thomas, and every single Man that has been, or is, or shall be produced: For to be Species is not said of Man alone, but of every common Nature. And, this also you might have known more than 6ty years ago in Magdalen-hall in Ox [...]. It is a shame therefore, for you, to upbraid the [Page 99] Schools, of non-sense and deceit; into which, if you had enter'd with apprehension, this back­door to Atheism had never bin set open by you.

Further, To take you a short lesson out of Ramus, a Man who understood the Mathema­ticks, and yet despis'd not, though he reformed Logick: The Invention of Arguments, shews Reason to be above the Laws of Matter. For, the Arguments in his first part of Logick; (that is, Topicks apt to argue or declare the relation of one thing to another; as (Virgil in the fourth Aeneid, says, Fear does argue dege­nerate Minds) such as are Cause, Effect, Subject, Adjunct, and the like; being used here, not to find out the nature of single Beings (which ap­pertains to Natural Philosophy, Medics, and other Sciences) nor to interpret Names (which appertains to Grammar) but only as places declaring the mutual [...] or habitudes of one thing to another, which may be related divers ways; they cannot possibly arise from the single and absolute motions of sense. Won­der not, now, that I am so busie in the first Elements of Logick, seeing your own miscon­ceit about the art of Reasoning, is a manifest relapse into the Ignorance of a second Child­hood, and sheweth a necessity of your returning to Oxford anew.

Again, if we consider Reason in the framing of Propositions, we find that we connect and disjoyn Subjects and Predicates, we com­pare and refer them; we say, this appertains to the other, or it does not; it is equal to it, or unequal; like, or unlike; which being acts [Page 100] of Relation, cannot wholly arise from any thing pressing into the Brain from without, which must be some single and absolute Object; but from the meer efficacy of an Incorporeal mind. It is impossible that the Sentient by meer Motion should connect or compare one Image with another. For, a divers Phantasm is a di­vers Motion; and supposing they remain, the Motion is in a divers part: seeing, the Phan­tasms or divers Motions would be confounded, if in the same part of the Brain, they should conspire. If then there be one Phantasm in one part, and a second in another, by what imaginable power can they confer? For, if any part gives its Motion to the other, or receives from it; the Motion, that is the Phantasm of it, is, by so doing, changed. I may here sub­joyn, that, without the Anticipation of Propo­sitions in the mind, it is a difficult matter to understand, how we can be capable of Sense or Fancy, unless we first know what it is to know, and have some antecedent rules whereby to judg of receiv'd Images.

Last of all, in deriving Consequences, in lon­ger or shorter trains of coherence, reason shews it self to be an immaterial faculty: For if two Images cannot, as hath bin prov'd, be aptly con­nected by Imagination and Memory, supposed Mechanical; Reason, surely, which ranketh all Beings into their distinct Orders and De­pendencies; and connecteth myriads of such Ideas as have no Phantasm appertaining to them, must be divine. Images and Thoughts are produced in us in much disorder, by reason [Page 101] that the Objects which we converse with are many and divers; and because, our Studies vary upon infinite occasions: so that our thoughts at first do spring up one by one, as Jewels are found. It is, then, the work of Rea­son to recall and gather together all such of them as are of the same kind, and to lay aside the rest for a convenient season; and to judg fur­ther of their agreeableness, & how they depend upon and illustrate each other, and so as it were to string them into a long a [...]d nervous cohe­rence; a chain most fit to adorn a Philosopher. I know not, how a Phantasm, or moved part in the Brain, can receive any other into mutu­al dependence, which the force of the antece­dent or consequent Objects adds not to it. For that which is in Motion acts not at a distance, but presseth only its neighbour; and that, by way of pulsion, not attraction.

Again, Reason, by the drawing of divers Con­sequences, correcteth Sense; which, though it doth not properly deceive, (being such a Per­ception as naturally ariseth from such a pres­sure, and such a disposed Organ) yet would it leave us for ever in Ignorance, if our Reason did not convince us, that the Object is not adequately represented by the Image. In Sense, Imagination, or Memory, one of the fixed Starrs seems not bigger than that in the Badg of the Order of the Garter: the Image is no greater, the Motion of no further force; and therefore Reason, which by consequences in Astronomy, infers that it is bigger than the Earth, is something much superior to Motion derived from the Object.

[Page 102]If after all this, a Man shall say, that the very train of Corporeal Motions in the Head, is the Reason which judgeth of that train, disturbeth its dependance made by succession of Objects, disposeth it after a new manner, and also at pleasure ordereth the train of Logical Ideas not generated by Motion; it may sooner be resolved concerning such a saying, than about the Perpendicular and Circle in the Angle of Contact (touching which you think you have written Ep. ded. before 6. Less. p. 4. D. W's. Treatises de Aug. Cont & Arith Infin I have in two or three leaves wholly and clearly con [...]uted. shrewd matters) that it doth not meerly incline to, but is co incident with non-sense.

Here is a great deal said, and Mr. H. Consid. p. 60. too much to be confuted. yet almost every saying may be disproved, or ought to be repre­hended. In sum; It is all error and railing.

But what will you say, O [...]j. 4. p. 96. if perhaps Ratio­cination be nothing but the coupling and con­catenation of Names, by the Verb Est? whence we collect by reason, nothing at all of the Na­ture of things, but of their Appellations, to wit, whether we joyn the Names of things accor­ding to the Agreements which we made (at pleasure) about their signification, or whether we do otherwise. If this be so, as so it may be, Ratiocination may depend upon Names, Names upon Imagination, and Imagination, perhaps, as I think, upon the motion of Corporeal Or­gans; and so, still, the Soul will be nothing else besides agitation in certain parts of a well [Page 103] framed Body. Nay, It is plain Hum. nat. p. 49. that there is nothing universal but Names. And Reason Lev. c. 5. p. 18. is nothing but reckoning of the Consequences of general Names agreed upon, to certain pur­poses.

Let Des-Cartes Resp. 3. p. 96. answer this Obje­ction, to whom you once proposed it. There is (said he) in Ratiocination; a coupling not of Names, but of things signified by certain Names; and I admire how the contrary could enter into the mind of any Man: For, who doubts that a Frenchman and a German do reason the same things concerning the same Subjects, whilst they conceive their Notions in different Words or Names? And doth not this Philoso­pher condemn himself, whilst he speaks con­cerning Pacts which we made at pleasure, teaching the signification of Words? for if he admitteth that any thing is signified by Words, why will not he have our Ratiocination con­sist in that something which is signified, rather than in the bare Words themselves. Thus he, and (as I think) with unanswerable pertinence. It might be also said, that, by this Doctrine, an Ass, and a Dumb-man, are equally without Reason, and that a Parrot is indued with it.

There Lev. c. 4. p. 16. is no Reasoning with­out speech. By Hum. nat. p. 46. the advantage of Names it is that we are capable of Science; which Beasts for want of them, are not, nor Man, without the use of them.

Where is your Reason in these words, considering the ingeniousness of divers Dumb­men, excelling that of many who are loudly [Page 104] talkative? Names doubtless, though connected, are not Reason, but the Registers of our Thoughts and Reasonings; and we proceed from Mental to Verbal discourse; and when we have conceived a Book, we may, express to the World, the sense of it, in what language we please, if we be Masters of it. The use of Names causeth rather a readiness in Reasoning than begetteth Reason; and, I think, you somewhere, in your Leviathan Lev. p. 12 in the end, & p. 14. do confess it. So that I may say of Names, as you have done of Symbols in Geometry, that themselves are not Science Ep. ded. bef. [...] Less. but serve only to make men go faster about, in Reasoning; as greater wind to a wind-mill.

Well, I have talk'd my self into a necessity of drinking this untempting Ale. Sir, A good Health to you.

Your Servant, Sir,—that Liquor is not very proper for Philosophers.

This very Draught has put me in mind of an Objection, which makes me ex­treamly to dislike the Doctrine of Mechanick Ratiocination.

This muddy Ale, it seems, shall in some part of it, circle with the Blood, and be sublimed in the Heart, and sent up in Arteries to the Head, and there shall perceive, imagin, remem­ber, and help me to Philosophize, and to make divine Discourses; and give me not only the warmth, but the very essence of Mental or Verbal Prayer and Thanksgiving. Nay (that we may pass, in due time to our Sixt Subject), It shall also Will and Nill: [Page 105] which I find I may do; and think strange that I can do so by the meer power of Matter.

There Libert. & Nece. p. 61 are certain and neces­sary causes which make every man to will what he willeth.

Herein, I confess, you disagree not from your self, though you seem at the widest distance from the truth. And Regius Phil. nat: p. 478. is much more to be blamed for inconsistency, who as­s [...]rting that the Soul might be a mode of the Body, did yet profess that the Will was free; and, in his own phrase, sui juris. For your self, it was fit, upon supposition of your belief of a Corporeal Universe, that you should maintain a necessity of Willing. For if every thing be Matter, each effect in the World, being the meer result of motion in Matter, will be pro­duced by fatal impulse: And, likewise, that pro­ducing impulse, will be necessitated by a for­mer, and so on in so long an order, as cannot be pursu'd, (without the admittance of an Incor­poreal God) to any end of it, distinctly known. Wherefore the Stoicks, long before you, suppo­sing God to be a kind of Fire, and the Soul to be a subtil Body; held also the opinion of Ir­resistible Fate. And Plutarch, and Stobaeus take notice of both Opinions together, as I find them cited by Lipsius in his Manuduction I. Lyps. Phys. Stoi. l. 1. p. 28. to that Philosophy: Upon which occasion, a worthy and learned person, hath in his Dis­course at the Funeral of Bishop Hall, deserved­ly call'd you the New Stoick. If then there be nothing more divine in Man, than Matter and Motion; he does as necessarily chuse or refuse, [Page 106] as Fire ascends, or a Stone is pressed towards the Earth.

It is no more Libert. & Necess. p. 17, 18. necessary that Fire should burn, than that a man or other creature, whose Limbs be moved by Fancy, should have Election, that is Liberty, to do what he hath a fancy to do, though it be not in his Will or Power to choose his fancy, or to choose his Election and Will. Good Liber. & Nec. p. 61, & 62. and evil sequels of Mens Actions retained in Me­mory, do frame and make us to the Election of whatsoever it be that we elect; and the me­mory of such things proceeds from the Senses, and Sense from the operation of the Objects of sense, (which are external to us, and go­vern'd only by God Almighty) and by conse­quence all actions, even of free and voluntary Agents, are necessary.

Were Man such a piece of Mechanism as has been forged by your untoward invention much of the Cause would be granted to you: and yet, not this, that the Memory of good or evil Sequels of Mens Actions do frame us unto Every election; because there are too many whom no examples of Punishment will deterr from such evil manners, as they see daily pro­ducing bitter effects. But, seeing it has been prov'd that there is in Man, an Immaterial Soul; it follows thence, that the Motions from the Object, continued to the Brain and Heart, can only solicite, and not force the Assent of that Incorporeal Being which giveth them passage, or resisteth them, and determi­neth them at its pleasure, in divers cases. Nei­ther [Page 107] can outward force any more restrain this Spiritual mind, than Xerxes could properly fetter the Hellespont. There is then, left me but little work in oppugning your Opinion about Liberty and Necessity, seeing the foundation of your belief of Fate, is the Corporeity of the Universe.

It is also, to be considered, that a Person of great fame and place, hath already contended with you; so very much to your disadvantage, that it seems not worth the while for any Man henceforth, to enter the lists. And of this I will not make my self the Judg, but repeat the opinion of a Learned Man, who was wont to declare his mind in Controversies, with unby­assed freedom. It is known every where (said that Elegant Bishop Taylor's Fun. Ser. on Bishop Bramhall, p. 55, 56. Writer), with what Piety and acumen [the last Lord Primate of all Ireland] wrote against the Manichean Doctrine of fatal Necessity, which a late witty Man had preten­ded to adorn with a new vizor; but this ex­cellent person wash'd off the Cerusse, and the Meritricious Paintings; rarely well asserted the Oeconomy of the Divine Providence; and having once more triumph'd over his Adver­sary, Plenus Victoriarum & Trophaearum, be took himself to the more agreeable attendance upon Sacred Offices.

This luxuriant Pen-man boasts of Trophies; and the Bishop himself, of old, talk'd of Liber. & Necess. p. 5. clearing the coast by Distincti­ons, and dividing his forces into two squadrons, one of places of Scripture, the other of Rea­sons. And I say notwithstanding (to continue [Page 108] in the military allusion begun by them) that in my Books Lib. & Nec. p. 64. not only his squadrons of Argu­ments, but also his reserve of Distinctions are defeated.

I perceive you intend to make good the Character now given of you, of being a witty Man: although, according to the Prin­ciples of your own Philosophy, it redoundeth not much to your reputation. For Wit See Hu. Nat. p. 124 de­pending upon a tenuity and agility of spirits, there seemeth wanting in a very witty Man, that fixation of parts which is required to Prudence.

Touching your Antagonist, there is no doubt (and it appeareth by your fretting and sprawling) that you have felt the smart of that Opposition which he hath made against you. But, so far as I can remember, (for I have not had for some years, any writing of his in my possession) he hath not level'd his men in force against that place wherein you seem (to me) most capable of being wounded, and wherein your chief strength seemeth to lay; that is to say, the Materiality of the whole Sphaere of Nature. In relation to which, I am apt to be perswaded, that in this Controversie about Fate, you by a daring consequence, do charge the most holy God with all the iniquities com­mitted in the World. For all Effects arising from Motion; and all Motion being derived from the first immoveable Mover, all subordi­nate Causes and Effects will owe themselves in a chain-like dependance, to the supreme Original Cause.

The concourse Lib. & Ne [...]. p. 16. of all cau­ses maketh not one simple chain or concatena­tion, but an innumerable number of Chains, joyned together, not in all parts, but in the first link, God Almighty.—That which, I say, necessitateth Lib. & Nec. p. 15. and determineth every action, is the sum of all things, which being now ex­istent, conduce and concur to the production of that Action hereafter, whereof if any one thing now were wanting, the effect could not be produced: This concourse of Causes, where­of every one is determined to be such as it is by a like concourse of former Causes, may well be called (in respect they were all set and or­dered by the eternal Cause of all things, God Almighty) The Decree of God. Every act Eev. c. 21 p. 108. of mans will, and every desire and inclina­tion proceedeth from some cause, and that from another cause, in a continual Chain (whose first link is in the hand of God, the Cause of all Causes); and therefore the voluntary Actions of Men proceed from Necessity.

Impute not that, with falshood and dishonour, to God, which is caused by Man's unconstrained Will; the only Mother which conceiveth and bringeth forth Sin; not with­standing that Objects may incline, and Exam­ples may entice, and opportunities may invite, and evil Angels may tempt, and Constitution may encline, and God permitteth. Let no Man, therefore, say when he is tempted, he is tempted of God; for, every Man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed.

'Tis Blasphemy Liber. & Nec. p. 24. to say, God can sin; but to say, that God can so order the World as a sin may be necessarily caused there­by in a Man, I do not see how it is any dishon­nour to Him.

These Answers should not have pro­ceeded from a Man, who professeth himself a Christian of no mean degree. Hi Cons. p. 46, 47. Nor can the cla­mor of my Adversa­ries make me think my self, a worse Christian than the best of them. They come (I was ready to say) as unexpectedly, as if they had dropped out of the Heavens; but that they have relation to a lower place. If we brand mortal Men with Names of Infamy and tokens of our abhorence, calling them unmer­ciful, bloody, deceitful; who are said by you, in all their actions, to be drawn by Fate; how can we speak or think with honour of the Deity, whilst we apprehend him as the Origi­nal Causer of all those evils, for which we (un­hurt) abominate one another; which he him­self hath told us he doth abhor; and for the commission of which Immoralities he will ex­ecute vengeance upon the brutish part of Man­kind? When a Sword is sheathed in the Bo­wels of an innocent and good Man, we re­proach not the bloody Weapon which was moved by force; but we give titles of extraor­dinary dishonour to the barbarous will of that savage Man, who made it an instrument of such dreadful mischief. If men be carryed on in all their Circumstances, by the mighty torrent of irresistible Motion; their iniquities, and the dishonours due unto them, are chargable upon the source and spring of Motion. If Men are necessitated to act or omit, as also to will or to [Page 111] refuse, then Exhortations unto such Duties as they perform not, are bitter taunts, and like commands to a Criple to rise up and walk; and punishment for such evils as they commit, is a cruel usage; and a declaration against Sin, as hated by the first Cause, (who cannot be thought in earnest to detest his own workman­ship); and as the default of Man (who is asked in Scripture why he will die? whilst his very Will to die, is by you supposed fatal) is imperi­ous mockery, and unworthy deceit. St. Austin himself in his 10th. cap. de Fide, contra Manichaeos Quis non clame [...] stultum esse praecep [...]ta dare ei, c [...]i librum non est quod pra­cipitur fa­cere. Et in­iquum esse [...]um dam­nare, cui n [...]n fuit potestas jussa com­plere?, speaketh in words to the same effect; ‘Who (said the Father) may not cry out, that it is a ridiculous thing to bind Precepts upon him, who is not at liberty to obey them; and an unrighteous thing to condemn that man who had no power to perform what he was com­manded?’ And what can be said of God, which may betoken honour, if he be once ac­cused as the Author of Sin?

Men Lev. cap. 21. p. 108. may do many things which God does not command; and therefore he is not the Author of them.

He is more the Author, who doth se­cretly necessitate, than he who only does com­mand the effect; in as much as a command may, as it is daily, be disobey'd, but power irresistible is not to be eluded. And David would have bin more entirely and notoriously the Murtherer of Vriah, by forcing the armed hand of an Am­monite upon him, and the Ammonite less guilty; than by a bare appointing of him to be placed in the Front of the Battel. Besides, it seems su­perfluous [Page 112] perfluous to command the doing of that, which the supposed Commander (with or without promulgation of his Will) does unavoid [...]bly bring to pass: for you make God the first Causer of all that is performed, even against the Revelation of his pleasure.

I grant that, though Lev. ib. Men may do many things which God does not com­mand; yet that they can have no passion, nor appetite to any thing, of which appetite God's Will is not the Cause.

Why then did accused Adam transfer the blame on Eve, and she upon the Serpent? It had been an easie, if it might have been a true reply, for both of them to have said, Thou thy self didst force us unto that, which by thee is so severely reprehended. The Serpent him­self at the hearing of his doom, remained si­lent; the very Father of Lies not being im­pudent in so excessive a degree, as to charge the Almighty with his own evils. Wherefore, in ascribing Sin to God as the first cause of it, you put me in mind of their fancy, upon a mi­staken Text, who See Heinsii. Exer. Sac. p. 227 affirm'd Leviathan to be the very Father of the Devil. I cannot hear­tily beg your pardon for that note, because it is necessary that I be zealous, when once the ho­liness and goodness of God is reproached by humane wit, impudence, madness.

Condemn not in such a furious way, good Dedoctor 6 Less. p. 64. of Morality; for with as ill manners you affirm that God is the Per­mitter, as I have done, in saying he is the Cause of every action.

[Page 113]I am L. & N. p. 22.23. not ignorant that Divines distin­guish between Will and Permission; and say, that, God Almighty does indeed sometimes permit sins, and that he also foreknoweth that the sin he permitteth shall be committed, but does not will nor necessitate it. —But I find no difference between the Will to have a thing done, and the permission to do it, when he that permitteth can hinder it, and knows that it will be done unless he hinder it.

The difference is heavenly-wide be­twixt bare Permission, and that Will which you have fancied in Almighty God; a Will See Lev. p. 108. at­tended with such a disposal of all things, as be­getteth a necessity in Man's Will of doing Gods. For no Man ever could imagin (your self ex­cepted) that bare Permission should have the influence of a necessary Cause; whereas such influence is ascrib'd, by you, to the Will of God. It appeareth by the Revelation which God hath made to Man, that he does so will Reli­gion that it would be more pleasing to him for Man to obey, than to remain perverse; yet not in such a manner, that he compelleth him to become his subject by active compliance: for that were to unmake Man as such, that is, as a creature endu'd with a free Will. When God saith of his Vineyard, which made not such re­turns of fruitfulness as were proportion'd to his cultivation of it, that he could do no more for it than he had done; he declared plainly that he used such means as were consistent with a liberty in Man of neglecting or misimpro­ving them: And the exercise of this liberty in sinning he permitteth, in regard to Man's free [Page 114] free nature, and because he can, not only cha­stise him for his delinquency, but likewise, by his Methods and infinite wisdom, bring good out of it. There being then in God, in many cases, a Conditional Will, that will, without the rescinding of any law of Man's uncon­strain'd Election, is always done, either by the obedience of Man, or by the vindication of abused mercy in the correction of a stubborn sinner. And thus we have seen how injurious your Doctrine of Necessity, hath been to the just honour of the most Holy Will of God. It is, also, manifest that by the same way, I will not call of reason, but of bold asseveration, you upbraid all Laws, whereby any punishment is inflicted upon Malefactors, of most rigorous and unreasonable procedure; and thereby, after dishonour done to God, you vilisie his Vice­gerents. For, why is the Scourge or Brand, the Rope, or Fire; the Press, Axe, or Bullet, pre­pared for those Men, who do not, by their own free choice and power, lay open the fence which Authority hath set down; but are hurried through it by a foreign violence, against which it is in vain to struggle? Sword and Pistol, or whatsoever is an instrument in the violation of the Law, or safety of Man, is as guilty as Man himself, and with indignation to be broken in pieces; if Man be unavoidably and fatally ma­naged (as in a Puppet-play) by a foreign hand, discern'd only by you who pretend to see with­in the Curtain. I remember to have read, that Draco, the Athenian, made a Law, whereby the very Instruments of Homicide were punish'd. And the Sons of him that perished by the fall [Page 115] of Nicon's Statue Suidas in Nicon. which he had whipped, in order to the greater infamy of Nicon, con­demn'd the Statue as a Murtherer, and with solemnity, threw it into the Sea But they were not so sottish, by these Laws and practices, to pretend a real punishment of such Instruments; but they design'd, to move Beholders to the greater abhorrence of spilling human Blood; and they gave some vent to the fermenting rage of their inward passion, which might have swell'd to their greater discommodity, if they had not sought some means of discharge­ing it.

'Tis Lib. Nec. p. 66. unreasonable to punish some Actions of Men, which could not be justly done by man to man, unless the same were vo­luntary. —The Lib. Nec. p. 41, 42. nature of Sin consisteth in this, that the Action done proceed from our Will, and be against the Law. A Judg, in judg­ing whether it be a sin or no which is done a­gainst the Law, looks at no higher cause in the Action than the Will of the doer. Now when I say, the Action is necessary, I do not say it was done against the will of the Doer, but with his will. — And Lib. & Nec. p. 27, 28. the Will to break the Law, maketh the Action unjust; because the Law regardeth the Will, and no other prece­dent Causes of Action.

The Will, if we have regard to the Opinion which you hold concerning it, can neither render the Action unjust, or the Judg righteous in his sentence of Condemnation: because every Volition See Lib. & Necess. p. 42. or Act of the Will and Purpose of Man is, by outward violence, made unavoidable; and the beginning See L. & Nec. p. 17. and [Page 116] progress of deliberation dependeth, also, upon necessary Causes.

I acknowledg that Lib. & N. p. 71, 72. when first a Man hath a Will to something, to which im­mediately before he had no Appetite nor Will; the cause of the Will is not the Will it self, but something else, not in his own disposing. So that whereas it is out of controversie, that of Voluntary Actions, the Will is the necessary Cause; and by this which is said, the Will is also caused by other things whereof it dispo­seth not: it followeth, that Voluntary Actions have all of them necessary causes, and there­fore are nec [...]ssitated.

Wherefore, if the Law inflicteth capi­tal punishment upon a Man with regard unto his Will; the Man suffers for that which was not in his power to help; and is therefore to be reckoned amongst those whose blood is shed without any proper stain in it.

Men Lib. & Nec. p. 29. are justly killed, not for that their Actions are necessitated, but because they are noxious.—Men are not L. & N. p. 30. there­fore put to death, or punished, for that their theft proceedeth from Election, but because it was noxious, & contrary to Mens preservation.

The Law regards the free choice, 'though it hath respect also to the mischief de­rived on the Commonwealth. Wherefore there have been Cities of Refuge constituted for the safeguard of those who had unwittingly, kill'd a man; whilst the wilful Murtherers were to repay blood for blood. And amongst our selves the blood of the most unuseful person in the Land, shall be avenged by the death of the [Page 117] ablest Soldier, or Counsellor, if the Law may have its course, and it be satisf'd, that he shed it with a deliberate stroke; whilst a pitiful ig­norant Criple shall escape, if by meer mis­chance, he shall slay such a man as is able to serve a Kingdom, either by his Sword or Pru­dence. In which cases, the Laws have regard, rather to the wilfulness than the noxiousness of the Actors. So also in the Roman Law Mosaic. & Roman. Leg. Collat. Tit. 12. p. 37. (re­ported by Paulus I. C. de poenis Paganorum) he that wilfully burnt an house was to suffer death; but he that, by accident, burnt a Vil­lage, or an Island, was but a Debtor. But if noxiousness be the Rule of Judging, then are you to change your phrase and say, not that men are punished (which presupposeth a crime) but afflicted or killed; after the manner of Beasts, which, not being capable of Law, do pe­rish without Law; as their ruin conduceth to the behoof or security of Man. And therefore the Civil Law L. i. ff. s [...] Quadrup. S. 1. calleth not the fact of a Beast injuria, but damnum; and determineth that a Beast, being devoid of Reason, can do no Injury.

As for Lib. & Nec. p. 30. Beasts, we kill them justly when we do't in ord'r to our own preservation.

But that Justice dependeth upon the dominion which God hath vouchsafed Man over those Creatures to which some will not allow so much as sense, See Des­cartes in 2. vol. Epist. lat. p. 6, 7. &c. and many no more than direct Perception; though you are so profuse, in one of your Books Lib. & Nec. p. 10, 11, 12., as to grant them Election and Deliberation. And here, let it be observed, that God who hath given this Dominion to Man, hath revealed it also to be his purpose, not to rule and judg him by ab­solute [Page 118] Soveraignty; nor to approve of Men, whilst they measure their Right amongst themselves by a power not to be controll'd. But he hath shew'd that he will govern them, and have you deal with one another, according to the equal Laws of their reasonable Nature.

You run on in Exceptions against that Doctrine of Necessity, which I have pro­posed; but you take no notice of the inconve­niencies wherwith your own opinion is pressed.

And first, you take no notice of the consist­ence of Freedom and Necessity; or that God and good Angels Lib. & Nec. p. 48. are supposed to be freer than Men, and yet do good necessarily. It was L. & N. p. 34. a very great praise, in my opinion, that Vil­leius Paterculus gives Cato, where he says, That he was good by Nature; Et quia aliter esse non potisit.

The Necessity wherewith Almighty God doth always good, is of a kind extremely different from that Physical co-action which you believe to be the Cause of each effect, For, he determineth himself by the eternal Reason of his own most perfect nature, and is not ur­ged by outward impulse; which if it could once be attributed to him, he would, straight­way, cease to be God Omnipotent.

That word, Omnipotent, re­minds me of a second inconvenience, which at­tendeth the Opposers of my Doctrine. For if Lev. c. 21. p. [...]08. Gods Will did not assure the necessity of Man's Will, and consequently of all that on Man's Will dependeth; the Liberty of Men would be a contradiction and impediment to the Omnipotence and Liberty of God.

It is in you absurd to mention Liberty even in relation to God himself; because, by ascribing to him a Material Nature, you assign him no Motions but such as arise from Physi­cal compulsion.—But, upon what account is it said by you, that the Omnipotence of God must be obstructed by the grant of an unde­termin'd liberty in Man? It is not, that I know of, affirm'd by any Disputant, that there is such a lawless Liberty in Man, as is not under sub­jection to the absolute Power of God, but that it is a Liberty which God Almighty, in an a­greeableness to the free nature of Man, hath been pleas'd to grant; and for the greater part to suffer in the exercise of it. Only it is said concerning sin, that God cannot force the Will of Man to the commission of it: for, the pro­duction of such a wretched Issue, would argue, not omnipotency, but impotence and imperfe­ction in the parent of it. God created Man, and gave a Law to him; and design'd not to use his Almighty Power to effect the fulfilling of that Law; which Power supposeth the Com­mand of a Law to be in vain. He therefore that interposeth not his Power whilst he may, hath not his Power disanulled when his pre­ceptive Will is only withstood, and he permit­teth that disobedience.

But what Elusion can be inven­ted touching the foreknowledg of God? The denying necessity Lib. & Nec. p. 79, 80. destroyeth both the De­crees and Prescience of God Almighty; for, whatsoever God hath purposed to bring to pass by Man, as an instrument, or foreseeth shall come to pass; a Man if he have Liberty, [Page 120] from necessitation, might frustrate and make not to come to pass; and God should either not foreknow it, and not decree it; or he should foreknow such things shall be, as shall never be, and decree that which shall never come to pass.

Touching the Decees of God, it cannot be proved that they extend to all things which come to pass. For his Prescience I'm sure, that it extendeth to all things possible to be known, and that it hath no necessary influence upon the Event; it doth neither hinder the Power of God, nor the Liberty of Man. God fore­seeth that the Event may come to pa [...]s, and that he will not hinder it, yet that he might: and it cometh to pass most necessarily if God [...]oreseeth it; but the necessity ariseth from the supposition of the infallibility, and not from any causal energy, of divine foreknowledg. It is manifest by the fulfilled Prophesies of divers inspired Men, that there is Prescience; and a man may also be assured, that neither is his Li­berty intringed by it, nor Prescience by his Li­berty. It is evident to every Man, in many cases, (as evident as that he perceiveth at all or un­derstandeth) that he willeth or [...]efuseth with­out any constraint upon his freedom. But there is great difficulty in unridling the manner of the consistence of Foreknowledg and Liberty; because, although there be some notion, yet there is not a knowledg, fully comprehensive of the Divine Wisdom, in a finite Soul. Thus much, notwithstanding, may, with sobriety be offer'd towards the explication of this mysterious truth; that the boundless wisdom of God who made the World, understanding the Laws [Page 121] and Operations of his Workmanship from the beginning to the end of them, understandeth also the nature of all appearances in all Objects in relation to the mind of Man, in every Estate wherein he is placed, and at all times, together with the dispositions of each Man's Soul, and thereby foreseeth what he will refuse or chuse, whilst he had power (absolutely speaking) o­therwise either to elect or reject. He that should drop a piece of money, by an undiscer­ned hand, in the way of a man afflicted with extream poverty; the same person might readi­ly foresee, that the espied money would infal­libly be taken up by that poor man, though he could not but understand that the Beggar had so much power over his own limbs, as not to stoop unless he pleased.

But it seemeth not worth the time and pains to reconcile to your apprehension, the Doctrins of Foreknowledg, and undetermin'd Liberty; because this Objection is by you, proposed, in order to the amusing of other Men's Reasons rather than in justification of the Truth, For, according to your Principles, all evidence or knowledg ariseth from Objects already in be­ing. Neither understand you this of Essence in the Sense of the Metaphysick-Schools, but of the actual presence of caused Objects.

In my Opinion Lib. & Nec. p. 16., Foreknow­ledg is Knowledg, and Knowledg depends on the existence of things known, & not they on it.

However, the Objection serveth for the in­commoding of those who maintain another sort of Foreknowledg; but the argument on which I establish my Doctrine is of another kind.

[Page 122]I hold Lib. & Ne, 72, 73. that to be a sufficient cause, to which nothing is wanting that is needful to the pro­ducing of the effect. The same also is a neces­sary cause: For, if it be possible that a sufficient cause shall not bring forth the effect, then there wanteth somewhat which was needful to the producing of it, and so the Cause was not suf­ficient; but if it be impossible that a sufficient Cause should not produce the Effect, then is a sufficient Cause a necessary Cause; (for that is said to produce an Effect necessarily, that can­not but produce it.) Hence it is manifest, that whatsoever is produced is produced necessarily, for whatsoever is produced hath had a suffici­ent Cause to produce it, or else it had not been; and therefore also, voluntary actions are ne­cessitated.

In the alterations made in Bodies, eve­ry sufficient is an efficient Cause, by reason that matter sufficiently moved cannot stay it self, but is wholly determin'd by foreign impulse; which impulse also had an undefeated deter­mination. But because I have proved the ex­istence of an Immaterial Soul, I may affirm that all outward preparations being made, so that there remaineth nothing wanting but the Act of Volition; the Spiritual Mind not being overcome by the sway of Matter, hath a power to abstain from acting, though perhaps it is not pleased to use it. And this we may illustrate by the Example of Abraham, whose Fire, & Wood, and Son to be a Victim, and Sacrificing-knife, were in a readiness and sufficient strength, with these, to execute the Command which God Al­mighty, by way of trial, had given to him: yet [Page 123] who can doubt that Abraham had a power, at the same time, to render these preparations useless, and to be disobedient? For, how could those Objects and this Command conveigh a force into his Will, and thence into his Arm, to slay his Son? though they might present him with a reason which the goodness of his Dis­position would not refuse: The intention of Abraham to slay his Son was wrought by a Mo­ral, and not a Physical, or Natural Power.

Natural L. & N. p. 16. efficacy of Objects does determine voluntary Agents, and necessi­tates the Will, and consequently the Action; but for Moral efficacy, I understand not what you mean.

I understand by Moral efficacy, the perswa [...]ive power of such Motives as those which arise from fear, and love, and trust, and gratitude and especially such as arise from the meer reason of the Case; as when a man doth therefore give Alms, meerly because he appre­hends it to be more blessed to give than to re­ceive, and not to be rid of the pang of compas­sion, or to obtain praise or other reward. By such Motives, the Mind is often prevail'd upon, without the force of Corporeal Motion, being wooed, and not pressed unavoidably into Con­sent. Of these Motives, that of Fear, may seem to have Me [...]hanick force; because, that Passion is often stirred up by the horror of Objects, di­sturbing the natural course of the Blood. But it will be granted by your self, that the very pas­sion of Fear doth not compell, but incline the Will: For, you acknowledg Leviath. p. 108. that Fear and Liberty are consistent; as when a Man throw­eth [Page 124] his Goods into the Sea for fear the Ship should sink, he doth it nevertheless very will­ingly, and may refuse to do it if he will: It is therefore the action of one that was free. See­ing then the Incorporeal Soul of Man is indu­ced by perswasion, and not compelled by Natu­ral Motion; you may as soon convince me, that every sufficient Man (as we are wont to call a wealthy person) is therefore a dispenser of his Goods, and a liberal Man; as that the immate­rial Soul is, forthwith, compell'd to act, when all things are present which are needful to the producing of the effect, and all impediments are removed.

To say that an Agent Lib. & Nec. p. 73. in such Circumstances, can nevertheless not produce the effect, implies a contradiction, and is non­sense, being as much as to say, the Cause may be sufficient, that is to say, necessary▪ and yet the effect shall not follow. That all L. & N. p. 76, 77. Events have necessary Causes, hath been proved al­ready, in that they have sufficient Causes. Fur­ther, let us in this place also suppose any▪ Event never so casual, as the throwing (for example) Ames-Ace upon a pair of Dice, and see, if it must not have been necessary before 'twas thrown. For, seeing it was thrown, it had a beginning, and consequently a sufficient cause to produce it, consisting partly in the Dice, partly in out­ward things, as the posture of the parts of the hand, the measure of force applied by the Cast­er, the posture of the parts of the Table, and the like: In sum, there was nothing wanting which was necessarily requisite to the produ­cing of that particular Cast, & consequently the [Page 125] Cast was necessarily thrown; for if it had not been thrown, there had wanted somewhat re­quisite to the throwing of it, and so the cause had not been sufficient.

Here you make instance in an Event resulting from Circumstances of Bodies, and from Physical motion: in relation to which I have already granted, that a sufficient is an efficient Cause; and declar'd the reason of it; and how it toucheth not the present business. But by this last Answer I begin to understand that you obtrude a Sophism upon me, instead of a real Argument. For, whilst you say, that suf­ficient is the same which necessary, and that if the Cast had not been thrown, there was some­thing wanting; you include, in your sufficient Cause, when you speak of Man, the very act of Volition, besides all the furniture prepared for that act: And then your meaning amounts to this, that when there is each thing needful, and no impediment, and also a Will to act, the effect followeth. But here you beg the Question, which is this; Whether, all things re­quisite to action being present, the will and act of Volition excepted, the Soul hath not a power to forbear that Act? and whilst you suppose a removal of impediments, and the presence of all things necessary, and the act of the Will also; and then say, the Cause is sufficient and efficient too, you say no more, than that a Man produceth necessarily, an effect, whilst he pro­duceth it; which indeed is a truth, (for he cannot act and not act at the same time) but in the present Controversie it is an egregious Impertinence. For, the Necessity which you [Page 126] speak of, is not in the Will it self, or in the Ef­fect; but in that consequence which the mind createth, by supposing that the Will compli­eth with the means, and that, whilst it chuseth, it cannot but chuse. Wherefore this fallacy is like to theirs, who say, the Will is necessarily determin'd by the last act of the Understand­ing, meaning, because it is the last: they sup­pose the last act, and that the Will closeth with the Understanding, and then they say, it fol­loweth upon necessity: which is no more than to affirm, that there is nothing later than the last. And if I am not impos'd upon by my me­mory, you somewhere argue Leviath. c. 6. p. 2 [...]., that the Will is the last appetite in deliberating; and that therefore, though we say in common Discourse, A man had once a will to do a thing, that ne­vertheles he forbears to do; yet that is not pro­perly a will, because the action depends not of it, but of the la [...]t inclination or appetite. You suppose the Will to be the last Inclination, and that there [...]ore the Action depends upon it, be­cause it is the last; and then you call it suffici­ent and necessary, when you have made it to be such; not in its own nature, but by the sup­position framed in your own brain. And thus you have made a great noise and kackling about Sufficient and Efficient, whilst there is nothing here said by you, which is not as insipid as the white of an Egg.

But of that Necessity which is said to com­pell the Will of Man, enough; let [...]s consider that Law which obligeth it, though not by force to action, yet upon default, to punishment.

And that we may proceed in order, let our be­ginning be made at

[Page 127] Our Seventh Head, The Law of Nature, that inward Law, in relation to which each Man is a Magistrate to himself, erecting a Tribunal in his own Breast.

There is Leviath. c. 14. p. 64. right, and also, a Law of Nature. The Right of Nature, is the Liberty each Man hath, to use his own power as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature, that is to say, of his own life; and consequently of doing any thing, which in his own judgment, and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.—The Law of Nature is a precept, or general Rule, found out by Reason, by which a Man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same; and to omit, that, by which he thinketh, it may be lest preserved,—the sum of the Right of the right of Nature, is, by all means we can to de­fend our selves: This is De Cive. c. 1. p. 11. Iuris na­turalis funda­mentum primum est, ut quis (que) vi­tum & membra sua, quan­tum potest tueatur. the first founda­tion of Natural Right.

The distinction betwixt the Right, and the Law of Nature, is, with good reason, to be admitted. But you ought not to challenge it Leviat: p. 64. they that speak of this Subject use to con [...]ound Ius and Lex. to your self, seeing it is expressly noted by divers ancient Authors, and in particular, by Laurentius Valla Lauren. Vall. Ele­gant. l. 4. c. 48. p.. That which you add, seem­eth as false as the other is ancient. For the right dictate of Natural Reason obliging Man (not yet suppos'd a Member of the great Commu­nity) to an orderly behaviour towards God, and his Parents, as also towards his own Soul and Body, in cases which concern, and which concern not, life & death, is the Law of Nature.

The Dictates of Reason [con­cerning [Page 128] Vice and Virtue Lev c. 15 p. 80. lin. 8 &c. Men Ibid. line 17, &c. use to call by the name of Laws, but improperly: for they are but Conclusions, or Theorems, concerning what conduceth to the conservation, and de­fence of themselves; whereas Law properly is the word of him, who by Right hath com­mand over others.

These Dictates being the Natural O­perations of our Minds, the Being, and unde­praved condition of which in right reasoning, we owe to God; we cannot but esteem them as the voice of God within us, and consequent­ly Law: wherefore St. Paul calleth the Rule of Natural Conscience amongst the Gentiles, the Law written in their Hearts.—But whence doth it come to pass, that self-interest is laid by you as the foundation-stone of the Law of Nature? in such sort, that nothing is unlaw­ful which conduceth to such preservation. For, it is commonly taught amongst us, that many things are condemn'd by the light of Reason; and that we ought not to do evil that good may come on't; but prefer the Law of God in nature before private Utility; it being the truest Self-interest to lose the present secular advan­tage, for the future recompence of such as, with peril, obey God.

The Reasons of my Opinion are manifest. Because it is natural for Man to avoid pain De Cive. p. 11. fer­tur unus­quis (que) &c. and pursue utility; and because in the state of Nature, there is nothing unlawful a­gainst others. For Leviath. c. 13 p. 62. the desires, and other pas­sions of Man, are in themselves no sin: no more are the actions that proceed from those Pas­sions, 'till they know a Law that forbids them: [Page 129] which, till Laws be made, they cannot know: nor can any Law be made, 'till they have a­greed upon the person that shall make it.

Unless you explain your self concer­ning this state of Nature which you speak of, the way of our proceeding will be darkned by words.

The natural condition of Man­kind may be thus explained.

Nature hath made Men so equal Lev. c. 13 p. 60, to 63. more at large. in the faculties of Body and Mind; as that, when all is reckoned together, the difference between Man and M [...]n, is not so considerable, as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he.

From this equality of ability, ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two Men, desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become Enemies; and in the way to their end (which is principally their own conserva­tion, and sometimes their Delectation only) endeavour to destroy or subdue one another. Whereupon some are invited to invade others, and from others may fear the like invasion.

From equality of ability, competition ari­seth fomented by equality of hope; and from thence diffidence of one another: And from this diffidence attended with desire of glory in conquering, there ariseth a war of every Man against every Man.

And therefore, whatsoever is consequent to a time of War, where every Man is enemy to every Man; the same is consequent to the [Page 130] time wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own inven [...]ion shall furnish them withal. In such condition, there is no place for industry; be­cause the fruit thereof is uncertain; and con­sequently no culture of the earth, no Naviga­tion, nor use of the Commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious bu [...]ding; no instruments of moving and re­moving such things as require much force; no knowledg of the face of the earth; no ac­count o [...] time, no Arts; no Letters; no Soci­ety; and, which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

To this War of every Man against every Man, this also is consequent. That nothing can be unjust. The notions of Right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no Law; wh [...] no Law, no Injustice. Force and Fraud, are in war the two Cardinal Virtues. Justice and Injustice are none of the Faculties, neither of the Body, nor Mind. I [...] they were, they might be in a Man that were alone in the World, as well as his Senses, and Passions. They are Qua­lities, that relate to Men in Society, not in Soli­tude. It is consequent also to the same condi­tion, that there be no propriety, no dominion, no Min [...] and Thine distinct; but only, that to be every Man's that he can get; and for so long as he can keep it.

And this is the ill condition, which Man by meer nature is actually placed in; though with a possibility to come out of it: consisting partly in the Passions, partly in his Reason.

[Page 131]The Passions that encline men to peace, are, fear of death; desire of such things as are ne­cessary to commodious living; & a hope by their industry to obtain them. And Reason suggest­eth convenient Articles of Peace, upon which Men may be drawn to agreement. These Ar­ticles, are they, which otherwise are called the Laws of Nature.

It is a very absurd and unsecure course to lay the ground-work of all civil Polity and formed Religion, upon such a supposed state of Nature, as hath no firmer support than the con­trivance of your own fancy. Let Ptolemy en­deavour a Solution of those appearances which arise from the heavenly Bodies, by one sort of Scheme; and Tycho by another, and Copernicus by a third; and let Des-Cartes attempt a fourth; for the declaring, not only in what manner, but by what Efficient Cause, the Starrs may move; for thus far the interests of Men re­main secure, not being minded by such remote Models and Hypotheses. But when the Tempo­ral and Eternal safety of Mankind is concerned (as in the Doctrines of Civil and Moral, and Christian Philosophy) then are Hypotheses, framed by imagination, and not by reason as­sisted with Memory touching the passed state of the World, as exceedingly dangerous as they are absurd. Wherefore, such persons who trou­ble the World with fancied Schemes and Mo­dels of Poli [...]y, in Oceana's and Leviathan's, ought to have in their Minds an usual saying of the most excellent Lord Bacon concerning a Philosophy advanced upon the History of Na­ture. That Dr. Rs. Pref. to Sir F. B. nat. Hist. such a work is the World as [Page 132] God made it, and not as Men have made it: for that it hath nothing of Imagination.

The faithful Records of time give us another account of the Origin of Nations; and com­mon Sense, whereby one apprehends in ano­ther's birth, the manner of his own, doth suffi­ciently instruct us in this truth, that we are born, and grow up under Government; Our Parents being Leviath. c. 22. p. 121 before the Institution of Commonwealth, absolute Soveraigns in their own Families: And as Hicrocles speaketh, [...]. Gods upon Earth. Wherefore Cicero, dis­coursing of the many Degrees of the Society of Men, calleth Cicero de Offic. l. 1. S. 17. op p. 1217. Principi­um urbis & quasi Seminari­um Rei­publicae. Wedlock the beginning of a City; and, as it were, the Seminary of a Kingdom▪ So that, to talk of such a state of nature as supposeth an Independency of one person upon another, is to lay aside not only the History of Moses, but also of Experience, which teacheth that we are born Infants, (of Parents, for that reason, to be obey'd), and to put some such cheat upon the World, as Nurses are wont, in sport, to put upon unwary Chil­dren, when they tell them, they started up out of the Parsley-bed. And verily some such odd conceit is to be suspected in that Man who says, that all is Matter, and by consequence, that Mankind arose, at first, out of the fortuitous Concretions of it. Epicurus therefore in sequel of that doctrine of his, that all things were pro­duced by atoms, explained the birth of Man, by supposing certain swelling bags or wombs upon the earth, which brake at last, and let forth In­fants [...]ucret. Crescebant uteri ter­rae radici­bus apti, &c. nourished by her Juice, clothed by her Vapours, provided of a bed in the soft grass: [Page 133] and he also taught that in the beginning (though he knew not when) Men wander'd about like Beasts, and every one was for him­self, and that meerly to secure themselves, they combin'd into Societies; and that those Societies were formed by Pacts and Covenants, and that from those Covenants sprang good and evil, just and unjust. For, such a Romance is to be read, at large, in his Compurgator, Gassendus, Gassend. Phil. Epi [...]. Synt. c. 26. de Orig. Ju­ris, p 238, 239. who subjoyneth no Essay of con­futation.

It may Leviath. c. 13. p. 63. peradventure be thought, there was never such a time, nor con­dition of War, as this now described; and I believe it was never generally so, over all the World: But there are many places where they live so now. For, the Savage People in many places of America, except the Government of small Families, the concord whereof depend­eth on Natural Lust, have no Government at all, and live at this day in a brutish manner.

I am sorry that so much barbarous­ness being charged upon Mankind, so little of the imputation can be fairly taken off Yet that the condition of human nature is not so very rude as you seem to represent it, appeareth from many passages in undoubted Story. Iustin Iust. Hist. l. 2: p. 18, 19., in his Epitom of Trogus Pompeius, describeth the ancient Scythians in such a manner, that their Behaviour seemeth to upbraid those Peo­ple, who call themselves, The Civilized parts of the World. By him we are informed, ‘That they had neither Houses, nor Enclosures of ground, but wander'd with their Cattel in solitary and untilled Desarts; That Justice had [Page 134] honour derived, to it, not from positive Law, but from the good natures of the People. That no man was more odious, amongst them than the Invader of such things as were oc­cupied by another.’ In consideration of which inbred civility, the Historian wisheth that the other Nations of the World were followers of the Scythick Moderation; after which, he thus concludeth. ‘It may seem a matter fit to be admired, that Nature should bestow that upon the Scythians, which the Graecians thems [...]lves, though long instructed by the Doctrines and Precepts of Law-givers and Philosophers, have not attain'd to: and that formed manners should be excelled by une­ducated Barbarity.’

But, let it be supposed that many brutish Families in America (in whose stead you might have rather mentioned the wild Arabes See Martyr. Legat. Ba­bylon. l. 3. p. 81., are so many dens of Robbers, and live by such prey as their power and wildness can provide for them. Yet by this Instance, because it is made in Families, where Government has place, you rather overthrow than prove your suppo­sed state of Nature. Wherefore, in a note added, upon second thoughts, to your Book de Cive De Cive. c. 1. p. 14. in order to a Solution of this Argument [that the Son killing his Parent, in the state of Nature, acteth unjustly] you subjoin an Answer to this effect A man cannot be understood to be a son in the meer state of Nature, seeing as soon as he is born he is under the lawful Ibid. Po­testas, not potentia. Po­wer and Government of them, to whom he oweth his conservation; to wit, of his Mother or Father, or to him who affords him Provisi­ons of common life.

[Page 135]It is further to be marked, that one Family, as it stands separated from another, is as one King­dom divided from the Territories of a Neigh­bouring Monarch. If therefore the state of Nature remaineth in a Family not depending upon another Family, in places where there is no common Government; then all Kingdoms which have not made Leagues with one ano­ther, are, at this day, in the same state. Where­as they rather are in a state of defence dictated by prudence; and, as you say, in the posture Leviath. p. 63. of Gladiators, having their swords poin­ting, and their Eyes fixed on one another, than in a state of War, prompted by pride and insati [...]ble ambition. And therefore no affront being offered to a foreign Prince before his In­vasion, he is esteem'd both injurious and un­just, whilst for no other reason than his greedy Will, he thrusts inoffensive people out of anci­ent possession. I know you esteem all distinct Kingdoms in a state of War in relation to each other See Lev: p. 110., and that therefore they have a right, if they have a Power of invading: but he that consults Grotius, in his Book de jure belli & Pacis (designed chiefly Vide Grotij Pro­legom. to set forth the Rights, not of Domestick, but Formsick VVar) will not be much of your opinion; neither will he, easily, be reconcil'd to the Practice of the Romans, in Petronius Arbiter, Si qua foret tellus quae ful­vum mitt [...] ­ [...]t aurum bos [...]is erat. (a Practice to which that of the Spaniards is akin), who made foreign Nations to be Enemies, as Princes sometimes make their Subjects, Traytors; for the sake of their Riches.

I confess Lev. c. 20 p. 105. that a great Fa­mily, if it be not part of some Commonwealth, [Page 136] is of it self, as to the Rights of Soveraignty, a little Monarchy: whether that Family consist of a Man and his Children; or of a Man and his Servants; or of a Man and his Children, and Servants together, wherein the Father or Master is the Soveraign. But yet a Family is not properly a Commonwealth; unless it be of that power by its own number, or by other opportunities, as not to be subdued without the hazard of War.

In those Places, where there is no common Government (as of late amongst the West-Arabes, 'till their acceptance of Muley Ar­sheid, first for their General, and then their King) a Family may be called a small Kingdom, not­withstanding the meanness of its Power; be­cause it can, as well, secure it self, against the assaults of another Family, as one Kingdom can withstand the Opposition of another. For, we compare Family to Family, and not to a vast Empire, against whose mighty numbers, it is in vain to make resistance: For, if want of strength doth render a Family no Commonwealth, than by the same reason, the Republicks of Athens, Corinth, Lacedaemon, and the rest, were properly no Republicks, because they were but so many weak and little Members, compar'd to the vast Body of the Graecian Empire.

But, further: Were every man supposed loose, even from the yoke of Paternal Government, yet in such a state, there would be place, for the Natural Laws of good and evil.

For, first, There is in Mankind, an ability of Soul to ascend unto the knowledg of the first invisible Cause De Cive. c. 14. pag. 250. by the effects of his Power, [Page 137] and Wisdom, and Goodness, which are conspicuous in all the parts of his Creation. I say, an ability to know, not an actual acknowledgment, of the Being of a God. For the Acrothoitae are said, by Theophra­sius Ap. Sim. plic. Com. in Epictet. Ench. pag. 200. Ed. Cant., to have been a Nation of Atheists; as also to have been swallow'd up by the gaping Earth; un­dergoing a Judgment worthy that God whom their Imaginations banish'd out of the World. If, then, there be such ability in the Mind of Man, he is ca­pable of sinning by himself, in the secretest retire­ment from the Societies and Laws of his Fellow-creatures▪ either by the supiness of his mind in being secure in Atheism, for want of exerting those Po­wers, by exercise, which God hath implanted in him; or, by the ingratitude of his mind, by want of Love and Thankfulness to God, whom in specula­tion he confesseth to exist; the notion of a Deity including that of a Benefactor.

I must acknowledg De Cive. c. 1. p [...] 13. in Annot., that it is not im­possible, in the state of Nature, to sin against God.

A man may also, in that state, fin, by being injurious to himself.

Neither is that denied, because De Cive. p. 14. hec may pretend that to be for his preservation, which neither is so, nor is so judged by himself.

But he may, likewise, sin, with reference to himself in matters wherein no prejudice accrueth to his health, or outward safety. The Instance may be made in Buggery with a Bea [...], which seemeth to be a sin against the order o [...] God in Nature. This monstrous Indecency, this detestable and ab­hominable Vice (as the Statute calls it) is, by our Law 25 Hen. 8. c. 6.5. Eliz. c. 17., made Felony without Clergy; and this, surely, in regard it is rather a sin against Nature than Commonwealth; it being less noxious to Society, [Page 138] to humble, than to kill the owners beast, the latter of which is but a tre [...]pass.

Lastly, In relation to ot [...]ers, I cannot but judg, that one man espying another, and not discerni [...]g in him any tokens of mischief, but rather of submission; if being thus secure & unassaulted, he rusheth upon him, & so, to display his power, and please his tyran­nous mind bereave [...]h him of life; he is a murd [...]rer, in the account of God & Man. The reason seemeth unst [...]ained & cogent. For there is no such neer pro­priety to a man in any possession as in that of life; which a man, as to this state, can no more forego, then he can part with himself: neither can the Right be more confirmed to him than his own Pe [...]na­lity. Wherefore, in no condition of Mankind, can it be forfeited but by his own default or consent. But in meer self defence there's no murther, because one life being apparently in hazard, it is reason that the assaulted man should esteem his own more dearly than his Enemy's. It is e [...]sie to understand on which side to act, when it is come to this pass that (as the Italians say of War Cibisogna essere spet­ [...]atori dell' altrui morte, O spettacolo delta no­stra., We must either be specta­tors of other me [...]s deaths, or spectacles of our own.

Moreover, it appeare [...]h, unto me, not altogether improbable, that in this feigned state of nature, un­just robbery may have place. For, in this community there being sufficient portions both for the necessi­ty & convenience, of all men; if one shall intrude into the possessi [...]n of another who is contented with a modest share, being moved only by ambition & wantonness of mind; he seemeth to be no other than an unrighteous aggresso [...]. For all men being, by you, supposed of equal righ [...] ▪ the advantage of pre-occupancy on the one sid [...], do's turn the scale, if na­tural justice holds the ballance: For it is in Law, [Page 139] an old maxim, In pari jure, melior est conditio Possiden­tis. Wherefore, if any person endeavours, by such unnatural practises, as I have mention'd, to encrease his outward safety, or brutish delight, he, in truth, destroy­eth by his iniquity more of himself than he can pre­serve by his ambition and lust. And he may be resem­bled to a rash Seaman, who out of presumed pleasure in swimming, throws himself headlong into a boiste­rous Sea; temporal delight and preservation by sin, being the ready way to bottomless ruin.

By what hath been said, I am induced to believe, that there is not only iniquity, but injustice too, in a meer state of Nature; although neither of them be capable of such aggravations, or are extended to so many In­stances, as in that state, where men live under Positive Commands. For, to make Instance, not in the lower restraints of fishing, fowling, hunting; but in the more considerable case of promiscuous mixtures; such pra­ctice seemeth not so much condemned by the Law of Nature, as by Custom, & the commands of Moses ▪ & Christ, & Christian Magistrates, and heathen Pow­ers. For the most holy God would never have begun the World by one Man and Woman, whose Posterity must needs be propagated by the mixtures of their Sons & D [...]ughters, if what we call Incest, had been in­consistent with any immutable Law of Reason & Na­ture. Neither would [...]e have allowed the Patriarchs in Polygamy, if it had been in truth an absolute evil; and not rather, in some Circumstances of time and place, and persons, fit and convenient. Neither is there, in these matters, any consent of Nations, who have no other instructor besides Nature: for, the Garamantici married not; but engendred as the Monsters at the Springs of Africa. And S [...]leucus gave his own Wife to his son Antiochus, & then passed it into a Law. And Socrates the great pretender to Moral Prudence, estee­med [Page 140] it a civility to his Friend to permit his wife to enter into his imbraces. Wherefore St. Paul affirming that the taking of the Father's wife, was a For [...]ication not once named amongst the Gentiles, is to be under­stood of those Heathens whose manners & conversati­ons he had observed in his Travels. And Aelian's Reading or Memory was but narrow, when Ael [...]l. 6. var. Hist. ap. Grot. de Iur. bel. & pa. p. 464. in con­templation of the victorious Sicy [...]ians deflouring the Pollenaearian Virgins, he cried out, These Practices, by the gods of Graecia, are very cruel, and, as far as I re­member, not approved of by the veriest Barbarians.

And, as I think, it must be granted to you, that such consent of Nations, as may seem to argue a common principle, whence it is derived; is not easily, & in ma­ny cases, found by those who look beyond the usages of Europe, & the Colonies planted by the Europ [...]ans. For Pagans (unless it be in the acknowledgment of God, in which most agree) do infinitly differ, not only from Jews & Christians, but from one another, & [...]rom their very selves also in process of time. And those who liv'd but an hundred years ago, before the strange im­provement of Navigation and Merchandize, could un­derstand but little of the manners of distant Nations; the Traffick being then in a few Port-Towns which held littl [...] Commerce with the Inland-inhabitants at any remoteness. Yet is there not hence to be taken such licentious advantage, as if there were no Law of Nature. For how various soever the opinions and cu­stoms of several Nations are; in this, they all agree, that good is to be done, and evil to be shunned: which were a vain determination, if it never descended from a general sense, to particularness of direction, which is the immediate rule of manners: for it is this or that good which is to be done, and good in general is an un­practicable notion. Again, there may be eternal Laws of good and evil, though all consent not in them; be­cause [Page 141] the understanding and manners of men, are de­praved and debauch'd by [...]stom, and the several arts of our common Enemy; in [...]omuch that divers appear to be men rather in shape and speech, than by severe Reason the law & rule of Life. And here, let it be no­ted also, that such virtues as a man out of society can­not practise, as, some sorts of justice, gratitude, mode­sty, and mercy, are laws eternal in the reason of them, because it can never come to pass that, with advantage to society, they may be banish'd out of a Common­wealth. And indeed all the Laws of nature, which re­late to certain states, though alterable in the alteration of Circumstances, yet, in the reasons of them, they are everlasting: And Reason that bids a man obey his Fa­ther, bids him in some cases, obey not Man but God: and yet the reason is unchangable on which both de­pend; to wit, of allegiance to the higher Authority.

If, now, it were agree'd upon, amongst men, what right Reason is, the controversie would be immediately ended. Reason Leviath. p. 18, 19. it self is always right reason—. But no one mans reason, nor the reason of any one number of men, makes the certainty: But the Reason of some Arbitrator, or Judg, to whose sentence men will stand: When men that think themselvs wi­ser than all others, clamor & demand right Reason for Judg; they seek no more, but that things should be de­termin'd, by no other me [...]s reason, but their own: and this is as intolerable in the society of men, as it is in play after trump is turned, to use for trump on every occasion, that suit whereof they have most in their hand. For they do nothing else, that will have every of their passions, as it comes to bear sway in them, to be taken for right reason, and that in their own con­troversies: bewraying their want of right reason by the claim they lay to it See L [...]v. p. 79, 80..

I cannot but say that prejudice & self-interest [Page 142] doth blind the understanding, and cause it to put evil for good; & humor, & education, & profit, for reason; and that an unconcerned Judg decideth a difference, to the commodity not only of peace, but of truth and right. But [...]seeing it is supposed that an Arbitrator can pronounce such a righteous sentence; it followeth that he hath some standing Rule whereby to guide his judgment. This is not always the b [...]ho [...]f of society; but it may be known, and it may oblige a man consi­dered by himself, and it concerneth the Hermite, and the shipwra [...]kt person, who is unfortunately cast upon an uninhabited Island.

Now this dictate of right Reason, which, [...]ogether with the superadded act of Conscience, is the Law of Nature, consisteth in that moral congruity or propor­tion which is betwixt the action (of mind, or [...]ongue, or hand), and the object, considered relatively in their proper circumstances. That ou [...] minds can compare the act & object, or discern whether they are congrous or incongruous, equal or unequal, is plain enough by the daily operations of our Faculties; the truth of which none but a professed Sceptick, calleth in que­stion; being mov'd thereto, rather by capricious hu­mor, than strength of his argument, the reason of which is destroy'd by his very Hypothesis, that, Nothing is certain. And he that calleth ou [...] Faculties into question, doth raze the foundations of the Mathematicks as well as of moral doctrine, and leaves no more place for the foot of Archimedes, than of Socrates. For it is as ma­nifest by the comparative operations of our minds, that hatred (for instance) and disrespect, towards that Being on which we depend for what we are and have is an ununiform, incongruous, unequal, & disproporti­on'd carriage, as that a crooked line is unequal to a straight one laying between the same terms.

The like may be said of killing an innocent man [Page 143] whom we know to have bin such, and whose continu­ance in integrity we suspect not; and of the abusing a benefactor. And he that justifieth such returns, may with equal truth & reason, maintain, that the shortest Garment of David is well proportion'd to the proper­est stat [...]re of Saul or Goliah ▪ Now to this perception of moral congruity betwixt the action and the object, considered in their proper circumstances in relation to mens manners, is added an act of conscience in all those who attend to the Laws of their Nature, as rules imprinted in them by the Governour of the World, who made them what they are; & consequently as the rules of his will in such manner declared to them: and from thence what is reasonable passeth into a Law. And as the mind of man perceiveth this proportion, or conformity, greater or less, he knoweth in some sort the measure of hi [...] obligation. And when he percei­veth the incongruity to be very little, he concludeth it to be a counsel, rather than a law; yet will he be mo­ved by that which Ovid calleth, decor Recti, if he be endued with a generous nature.

From hence it is manifest, that some primary rules of good and evil, carry a reason with them so immutable, in the etern [...]l connexion of their terms, that with mo­desty enough, we may use, concerning them, that boast of Ovid, touching his ow [...] works; affirming, that nei­ther the rage of Iupiter, nor the most devouring fire, or War, nor what consumeth more than they both, even Time it self, can abolish and destroy them. And this was the meaning of those in Aristotle Aristo [...]. de mor. l. 5 c. 10. p. 84, who be­lieved that what was natural was immoveable, and of the same force in [...]ll places, as fire burneth here & also in Persia. And this they mean, who affirm, that God cannot lie, or deny, or hate himself, or approve of him that hateth him, or adoreth him contrary to his decla­red [Page 144] will; and that he cannot torture a man, supposed innocent, with never-ceasing misery.

There is no rule which God may not most justly break, because he i [...] Almighty. This I know Liber. & Nec. p. 24. God cannot sin, because his doing a thing makes it just, and consequently no sin. Power Ib. p. 22. irresi [...]tible justifieth all actions really and properly, in whomsoever, it be found; less power does not: [...] and because such Power is in God only, he must needs be just in all his actions, and we who, not comprehending his Counsels, call him to the Bar▪ commit injustice in it. And I kn [...]w that Ib. p. 42. God may afflict by a right derived from his Omni­potence, though sin were not.

Far be it from me to say, that God can be sup­pos'd to sin, because there is no Lord superior to him: but, That he would break the rule of eternal Reason, if he should let his power loose, and do whatsoever might be done, whether with agreeableness or contradiction to his most excellent Nature: thous [...]nds have thought it, neither can they perswade themselves into another belief. It is true that God might▪ temporally, have af­flicted or annihilated man if he had lived in a state of uprightness and integrity. For, there is strict justice ob­served in this case, whilst God freely taketh away what he freely gave, or sendeth a calamity to which life is prefer'd by the reasonable choice of man. But to afflict a man extreamly and eternally without the inter­vention of any sin, is to send a torment which doth in­finitely outweigh the good of naked existence, and therefore is, by Curcell [...]us Curcell. de Iure Dei in Creat. in­nocent. p. 5. &c. and divers others of that School, esteem'd inconsistent with that Justice which is in [...]eparable [...]rom the first Cause: It being absurd to think that such Justice is not a perfection; and as absurd to imagin that there should be such a perfection in a created Soul, and not in the self-originated Mind. Therefore Chrysippus, and the Stoicks did make God the Original of Right. And some Ap. Grot. de Iu. bel. in Prolog. have derived Ius from Iupiter. And Abraham, the Friend of God, made this expostulation, for which he had no rebuke▪ Wilt thou destroy the Righteous with the Wicked? And again, this also, Shall not the Iudg of all the Earth do Right? An Agent, armed with Power irresistible, [Page 145] though he cannot be withstood in that action of his which might produceth, yet may he be justly condemned for unreasonable proceedings. A man who being bound hand and foot, has a fatal knife put to his throat (in which case the Power is irresistible in respect of his body, as much as if it were omnipotence) such a one cannot help himself; but he may judge without either falshood or partiality, that if in that manner he is butchered, without regard to any crime, the practice is both cowardly and un­merciful. But further, if the Deity justifieth all by power, and can do rightly whatsoever may be done by Omnipotence (and for that reason;) then all the Arguments of the Christian Apo­logists against the Gentiles (the barbarous and lascivious practices of whose supposed Gods they judged enough to overthrow their Divini­ty, and therefore represented at large their im­moralities) were weak and unconvincing: for there was room of replying, that such man­ners were not to be reprov'd, because the pow­ers above them could so behave themselves without controul. To conclude, whilst by the absolute Soveraignty of God, you affront his other Attributes, you set up an omnipotent De­vil in a worse sense then Manes the Persian, who, being seduced by the Fable of his Coun­try, concerning Orimaza and Areimanius, as­serted a supreme evil; but did not, directly, exclude the supreme good out of the world. See, then, how you reproach the Author of all good, by such an imputation of arbitrary Go­vernment, and of imperious will which standeth [Page 146] for a Reason; whereby you take away the most ingenious motive to Religion, Love and Reve­rence, produced by a conception of God as one who See Hum. Nat. p. 89. hath the power to do unto us both good and hurt, but not the will to do us hurt. Re­member, also, that the Atheists, in the Book of Wisdom Wisd. 2.2-3 10.11, who taught after this manner, That the soul was a little spark in the moving of the heart, said likewise, Let us oppress the poor righteous man, let us not spare the widow, nor reverence the ancient gray hairs of the aged. Let our strength be the Law of Iustice; for that which is feeble is found to be nothing worth. Thus want of reason is betray'd by those bold Writers, who slacken the laws of good and evil.

Notwithstanding all this cla­mour, you may finde in my own Books, divers laws of Nature [...]ee de Civ [...]. c. 2-3. p. 18, 36. and Lev. c. 14, 15. p. 64, &c. (no fewer then nineteen Lev. p 78) set down, and dignified with the Epithet of eternal Lev. p. 79.

You have, indeed, mention'd certain natural Laws; but you have not derived them from the reason and equity of their Nature, but from self-preservation; and call'd them eternal, not from the unalterable connexion of the terms, but because they always conduce (in your opinion) to the temporal peace and safety of single persons: which if it may, at any time be advanced by the violation of such Laws (as is manifest in every Usurpers breach of Faith and Love) they can not oblige in that instance, [Page 147] because the Reason of them (such a Reason as you have imagined) is then taken away.

And doubless upon this account, the Funda­mentals of your Policy are Hay and Stubble, and apter to set all things into a blaze, then to sup­port Government, and (what we are in the eighth Place to discuss) the Laws of Society. For, if men be lawless in a state of Nature, and for the meer sake of temporal security, do en­ter into Covenants, and are obliged to Ju­stice, and Modesty, and Gratitude, and other suchlike sociable Vertues, onely because they conduce to our peace, and to the keeping of us fro [...] the deplorable condition of a War of eve­ry man against every man; then when any subject shall have fair hopes of advancing him­self by treading down Authority, and trampling upon the Laws in a prosperous Rebellion; what is it, according to your Principles, which can oblige him to refuse the opportunity? If it be said that one Covenant is this, that we must keep the rest; it will be again inquired, what Law engageth men to keep that Pact, seeing there is no Law of more ancient descent, unless it be that of self-preservation? for the sake of which (as it includeth not meer safety, but delight also, as you have stated it Lev. p. 61. and display of Power) we suppose the Covenants to be broken. So that, without the obligation laid upon us by Fedility (the Law of God Al­mighty in our nature) antecedent to all hu­mane Covenants; such Pacts will become but so many loose materials, without the main bin­der, in the fence of the Common-wealth, which [Page 148] will, therefore, be trodden down, or broken through, by every herd of unruly men. Men are apt to violate what they esteem most just and sacred, for the sake of Reigning; and they will be, much more, encouraged to break all Oaths of Duty and Allegiance, when they once believe, that their ascent into the Throne, and Possession of the Supreme Power, like the coming of the reputed Heir unto the Crown▪ as in the case of Henry the Seventh Lord Ba­con in H. 7. p. 13., doth im­mediately clear a man of all former At­taindors.

This specious Lev. p. 73 Reasoning is, nevertheless, false: For when a man doth a thing, which, notwithstanding any thing can be foreseen, and reckoned on, tendeth to his own destruction, howsoever some accident, which he could not expect, arriving, may turn it to his benefit; yet such events do not make it rea­sonably or wisely done— As for the instance of attaining Soveraignty by Rebellion; it is manifest, that though the event follow, yet be­cause it cannot reasonably be expected, but ra­ther the contrary; and because by gaining it so, others are taught to gain the same in like manner, the attempt thereof is against Reason. Justice therefore, that is to say, keeping of Co­venant, is a rule of Reason, by which we are for­bidden to do any thing destructive to our life; and consequently a law of Nature.

This then is the Doctrine of Politics, in which you so much applaud your self; [Page 149] and of the same strain with the pernicious Book, entituled, Natures Dowry 1652. P. 31. cited by the Learned A. of the F. D. in Append. p. 123▪ Those Christians who lived under the Heathen­ish Empe­rours, but wanted strength to defend them­selves, were by that Pre­cept (Rom. 13.1.) o­bliged to sit still and to en­deavour nothing a­gainst those that had the sword in their hands, &c., printed the year after the Leviathan: That Rebellion is not ini­quity, if, upon probable grounds, it becomes prosperous: That he who usurps not like a Poli­tician, is therefore a Villain, because he is a Fool: That all the Usurpers in the World step­ping up into the Throne, by means likely to fur­ther their ascent, pursue the Fundamental Law of Nature, and are rightful and undoubted So­veraigns: That the Earl of Essex, in the Reign of Q. Elizabeth (who, after some stain of fame in Ireland, and in the days of a popular Queen, and in a time when he had potent enemies for strength and head-piece, such as Cecil and Sir Walter Rawleigh, appear'd with a small com­pany, upon presumption of the Queens love in case he should miscarry, and upon hopes of the multitude not formed to his purpose by confederacie) was a Rebel and a Traytor, be­cause he was a weak and unfortunate Politi­cian; but that Oliver (who was led on by suc­cess to things he never dreamt of in the days of his Poverty,) and saw the power of the King declining; and was as sure of being Protector, as a King can be (upon your grounds) of re­maining Soveraign, by the inclination of the Souldiery, and possession of the Militia; and therefore usurp'd upon as sure foundations of self-interest, as the nature of Civil Affairs ad­mitteth of) was, by the direct consequence of your opinion, a lawful Prince, a man of inestima­ble merit and renown, worthy the Government of thrice three Kingdoms, of dying in his bed, [Page 150] and of a Fame too wide to be contain'd be­twixt the Deucalidonian and Brittish Ocean. No, no, there are words more agreeable to his merit, and they have nothing Poetick in them besides the genuine strain of verse Mr. Cowley in his Disc. of O. C. p. 59..

I have written concerning Oli­ver [...]. Con­sid. p. 12., that his Titles and actions were e­qually unjust.

This you wrote indeed, but since the return of his Sacred Majesty, who, if men had pursu'd your destructive Principles, and judg'd his Right to have ceased with his Power, had for ever been destitute of any other Throne, then what had been erected in the hearts of the Loyal. Mr. White, also, the part-boyl'd Ro­manist, who is honour'd with the Title of, Most Learned, in the scurrilous Preface to your Book of Fate, declar'd in English, in an unhappy time, Th. White of Obed. and Govern. 17. ground p. 144. &c. to 156. se­cond Edit. published London 1655. that a dispossessed Prince ought nei­ther to be desired, nor to endeavour to return, if the people think themselves to be well, and their Trade and Employment be undisturb'd. [Page 151] And he addeth also; Who can answer they shall be better by the return of the dispossessed party? Surely, in common presumption, the gainer is like to defend them better then he who lost it. Certainly for this sentence, at such a time published to this Nation, if for no other cause, his Books ought to be burnt in Eng­land, as well as some of them have been con­demned at Rome; unless we suppose the crab­bedness of the stile, and the obscureness and weakness of the Reasoning in them, may tempt the Author, when better informed, to save Au­thority the labour of it. Dr. Baily likewise, revolting from the Church of England, for­sook his Loyalty at the same time, and caressed Oliver, and hop'd that, by his means, the Pope might come again, and set his Imperial feet up­on the neck of English Princes: For he con­cludes his Legend O. B. life of Bi­shop Fi­sher, pub­lished the same year with Mr. Whites Book Lon­don, p. 260, &c. of the Bishop of Ro­chester, after this manner.

Thus we see Gods Justice in the destruction of the Churches Enemies; (meaning Thomas Cromwel, Vicar-General of the Church under Henry the eighth, and spoiler of Religious Houses): who knows but that he may help her to such Friends, though not such as may restore her own Jewels, yet such as may heal her of her wounds? And who knows but that it may be effected by the same name? Oliva vera is not so hard to be construed Oliverus, as that it may not be believed, that a Prophet ra­ther then an Herald, gave the common Father of Christendom, the now Pope of Rome, In­nocent the Tenth) such Ensignes of his Nobility [Page 152] (viz. a Dove holding an Olive-branch in her mouth) since it falls short in nothing of being both a Prophecy and fulfilled, but only his Highness running into her arms, whose Em­bleme of Innocence bears him alreadie in her mouth. These Romanists and your self agree too well in owning of U [...]rpers, and measuring right by the length of the sword: and there­fore when such Politi [...]ians say, that Olivers Titles and Actions were equally unjust, they are to be understood in such a sense, as when we say of a very D [...]nce, that he is as good a Logician as Grammarian, that is, in truth nei­ther.

Believe me Sir, my Leviathan was written when Oliver was but General H. Cons. p. 18.19. who had not yet cheated the Parliament of their usurped power: [and I never had a kindness for him or them. I lived peaceably under his Government, at my return from France, and so did the Kings Bishops also.] Of the Bishops that then were H. Consid. p. 11.12. — there was not one that followed the King out of the Land, though they loved him, but lived quietly under the pro­tection, first of the Parliament, and then of O­liver (whose Titles and Actions were equally unjust) without treachery.

That this is false, your own Consci­ence will inform you; for the then Lord Bi­shop of London-derry (a man of whom, to your cost, you have heard) convey'd himself be­yond the Seas, and was not there unmindful of [Page 153] the Kings interest; although he hath not boast­ed of his Travels, as you are wont to do of your living at Paris. Let the testimony of Bishop Taylor, who was as likely as any man to know and report the truth, decide the controversie: his words are these. Bp. T. Fun. ser. p. 49-50. God having still re­solved to afflict us, the good man was forc'd in­to the fortune of the Patriarchs, to leave his Country and his charges, and seek for safety and bread in a strange Land.— This worthy man took up his Cross, and followed his Ma­ster. — At his leaving the Low-Countries up­on the Kings return, some of the remonstrant-Ministers coming to take their leaves of this great man, and desiring that, by his means, the Church of England would be kind to them; he had reason to grant it, because they were learn­ed men, and in many things, of a most excel­lent belief: yet he reprov'd them, and gave them caution against it, that they approached too near, and gave too much countenance to the great and dangerous errors of the Socini­ [...]ns. He thus having served God and the King abroad, God was pleased to return to the King and to us all.

As for divers others of them, some were im­prisoned, and others were by reason of Age, not so apt for forraign travel: and at home, they promoted the cause of their Soveraign, which, if all zealous Loyalists had with-drawn themselves, would, by degrees, have dyed away: and because they refused the Oaths imposed at the peril of their lives, and of their fortunes (which though they were but little, were their [Page 154] all,) they therefore are not to be judged treache­rous in undermining the usurped Government, or disloyal to the King in enjoying protection under Oliver, whom they neither arm'd, nor owned in power: neither do you, here, take no­tice of the great number of loyal Priests, of which, some fled beyond the Seas, and others, staying in the Land, were, for their the sake of Allegiance, exposed to as great dangers as the roughest sea could have threatned them with: but it is the manner of some men, to wound true Loyalty and Religion through the sides of Ecclesiastick Officers.

I have not said this to up­braid the Bishops, nor ever H. Con. p. 43-44. spake I ill of a­ny of them, as to their persons: and against their Office I never writ any thing. I never wrote (I say) against Episcopacy; and it is my private opinion, that such an Episcopacy as is now in England is the most commodious that a Christian King can use for the the governing of Christs Flock: [and if they submitted to Oliver they did justly, being then absolved of their o­bedience to their Soveraign]: for the Lev. c. 21. p. 114. obli­gation of subjects to the Soveraign, is under­stood to last as long, and no longer, then the power lasteth, by which he is able to protect them. — The end of obedience is protection; which, wheresoever a man seeth it, either in his own, or in anothers sword, Nature applyeth his obedience to it, and his endeavors to main­tain it.

You have here, according as the na­ture of falshood requireth, backed one untruth with a second: for, in your Leviathan Lev. p. 385., you called Episcopacy a Praeterpolitical Church Go­vernment, and preferred Independencie above all other forms; for, at that time, it was gotten uppermost, and seem'd the growing Interest, and Presbytery decayed: the truth is, the latter declin'd before the death of the King, to whose fall, that Partie was loath to give the last thrust: but when your Leviathan came forth, the house of Lords had bin voted useless, and the members that had voted the Kings concessions a ground for the House to proceed to a settle­ment, were secluded; and the dregs of the House were Anabaptists and Independents: soon after this Members secluded, Feb. 1. 1648. Lords vo­ted down, Feb. 6. 1648. Lev▪ pub. Lo [...]. 1651. you, thus libeld, that go­vernment which was, then by right, his present Majesties:

The Analysis, of the Pontifical Power, is by the same way, the Synthesis or construction was; but beginneth with the knot that was last tyed (the Popes Supremacy); as we may see in the dissolu­tion of the Praeterpolitical Church-Government in England. First the power of the Popes was dis­solved totally by Queen Elizabeth; and the Bishops, who before, exercised their Functions in right of the Pope, did afterwards exercise the same, in the right of the Queen and her successors; though by retaining the Phrase of Jure divino, they were thought to demand it, by immediate right from God: and so was untyed the first knot. After this, the Presbyterians lately in England obtained the putting down of Episcopacy: and so [Page 156] was the second knot dissolved: and almost at the same time, the power was taken also from the Presbyterians: and so we are reduced to the Inde­pendencie of the Primitive Christians, to follow Paul, or Cephas, or Apollos, every man as he liketh best: which, if it be without contention, and without measuring the doctrine of Christ, by our affection to the person of his Minister (the fault which the Apostle reprehended in the Corinthians) is perhaps the best. Wherefore speak no more of your reverence for Episcopacy, whilst you have cryed hail to it, and yet betraid it: neither is it for you to pretend to loyalty, who, when one asked what was the price of a Roman pen­ny, amidst a Discourse of our civil Warres, (whilst his thoughts were guided by a train, from, our Warres, to the delivering of the King, from that to the delivering of Christ, from that to the thirty pence received by Iu­das, and from that to the value of the Ro­man penny) call'd this, in Print, Lev. p. 9. a Malicious question, in the daies of the Parliament: as if it were malice, and not just zeal, which occasioned his comparing of the Martyrdom of King Charles to the death of the blessed Jesus. It is not, for you, to pretend to loyalty, who place right in force, and teach the people to assist the Usurper, with active compliance, against a dispossessed Prince; and not meerly to live, at all adventure, in his Territories, without own­ing the protection by unlawful oaths, or by run­ing into arms against their dethroned Sove­raign.

I cannot but place the right of H. Cons. p. 19. government there, weresoever the strength shall be; [whatsoever be the ignomi­nious terms with which you revile me.]

I say then again, (and I neither re­vile nor slander you, unless it can be done by the repetition of the truth) that you give en­couragement to Usurpers; and also, when ci­vil discords are on foot (as it happens too fre­quently in all States) you, hereby move such people as are yet on the side of their lawful Prince, whose affairs they see declining, strait­way to adjoyn themselves to the more prospe­ [...]ous partie, and to help to overturn those thrones of Soveraigntie, at which a while be­ [...]ore they prostrated themselves: for, in your way of reasoning, they have a right to preserve or delight themselves, by any course of means, and can be best protected by the prevailing side, which because it hath more degrees of growing power, ha's it seemeth, therefore more of right. The people thus miss-instructed, will imitate those idolatrous Heathens, who, for some years, worshipped a presumed Goddess made fast unto an Oake: but as soon as the Tree began by Age and Tempest, to appear decaying, they pay'd no further devotion to their Deity, nei­ther would they come within the shaddow of the Oak or Image.

Against this abuse of what I have taught, I have made provision, by inser­ [...]ing this amongst other Laws of Nature, that [Page 158] Lev. p. 390. every man is bound by nature, as much as in him lies, to protect in War the Authority, by which he is himself protected in time of Peace.

That Law was forgotten in the bo­dy of your Leviathan, and cometh late into the review: the wound is first made, and then you endeavour to skin it over; but neither can it so be closed: for this and all other Laws of Nature obliging no further (as hath been already no­ted) then they promote the first, the Law of self-interest; it is in the choice of every sub­ject (whom De Civ. l. 1. c. 1 p. 12. Sect. 9. you make Judge of the means to preserve himself,) to apply himself to the stronger side; or for a company combin'd in arms and counsel, when an Heir and a Traytor are ingag'd in Battle with equal success (as was the practice of the Lord Stanley, and Sir Willi­am Stanley and their adherents in the Engage­ment at Bosworth-Field) to give the day to the side they presume will most favour them, by over-poising the power of the other side, by their fresh supply. Fear will not keep men from such attempts; especially fear of outward pu­nishment, whilst every one hopes to conquer, and to mend his game (as you well Lev. p. 48. know) by a new shuffle; and is (by you) misperswaded, that failing in the enterprize, to his temporal peril, is his only offence against the Law of Na­ture. There is no tye so strong as that of Reli­gion, which eternally bindeth a conscientious subject in allegiance to his Soveraign: and Wars arise from mens self-interests and lusts: and true goodness is both the Creator and Pre­server [Page 159] of Peace: unless a man obeyeth for Conscience sake, all the cords of outward Pacts [...]nd Covenants will not hold him, when he [...]reameth that the Philistins are upon him, and [...]hat he can deliver himself by force from the [...]ower of his Enemies; in which number the Prince himself is reckon'd by ambitious subjects, [...]ut of favour: neither will such Covenants hold the people that pretend unto Religion, if [...]hey be mis-taught that God is glorified in their private good, and that their private good is to [...]e valued before the life of a Prince, if they can [...]afely deprive him of it. For it is truely said [...]y a Friend of yours, Memoires of Q. E. p. 53. That zeal, like lead, [...]s as ready to drop into bullets, as to mingle with a composition fit for medicine.

Covenants Lev. p. 89 See p. 87. being but words, and breath, have no force to oblige, contain, constrain, or protect any man, but what it has from the publick Sword. The Laws of Nature Lev. p. 85 (as Justice, Equity, Modesty, Mercy, and (in sum) doing to others as we would be done to) of themselves, without the terror of some power, to cause them to be observed, are con­trary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge, and the like. And Covenants without the Sword, are but words, and of no strength to secure a man at all.

The matter is much mended by this answer; and you who cause or permit (for with you they are the same) a person, of none of the best manners, in a Preface to your Book of De­stiny [Page 160] to revile the Embassadors of our Lord, and to levie against them, not the force of argu­ment, but of foaming malice, and to reproach them by saying that they are ignorant Tinkers, and Soderers of Conscience; how do you me­rit the same mock-name, by making wide holes and passages for every rebellious spirit, instead of stopping an Objection which charged your Doctrine with disloyalty? For thus, Society is like a State of Nature, and all is managed still by force, notwithstanding the formalities of transferring Right by Pacts, and every man is to stand no longer to his bargain, when he can break it to his advantage: And thus, the Prince is always in a state of danger, because he cannot be, a day secure, of remaining upper­most; seeing the people are taught by you, to believe that the right of Authority is a deceit, and that every one would have as good a title, if he had as long a sword: For the many-headed Beast will throw the Rider when he burthens and galls them, having no check of inward Law. For the Prince has but the strength of a single man, and the people can't confer irre­sistible Power, unless when they lift up their hands on high, they can give up their nerves, and muscles, and spirits, as well as testifie their present approbation. Wo to all the Princes up­on earth, if this doctrine be true, and becometh popular: if the multitude believe this, the Prince, not armed with the scales of the Levi­athan, that is, with irresistible power, can never be safe from the Spears and Barbed irons, which their ambition and presumed interest will pro­vide, [Page 161] and their malice will sharpen, and their passionate violence throw against him. If the Beast, we speak of, come but to know its own strength, it will never be managed: Where­fore such as own these pernicious doctrines, de­structive to all Societies of men, may be said to have Wolves heads, as the Laws of old were wont to speak concerning excommunicated Persons; and are like those ravenous beasts, so far from deserving our love and care, that they ought to be destroyed at the common charge. What you have written three times over, in your de cive, de corpore politico, and Leviathan, ought rather to be esteemed seeds of sedition, then Elements of government and societie: the Principles of the Zelots amongst the Papists (who obey a Forrein Power against the King) are not consistent with the government of Eng­land; yet, like the Elements in Aristotle, they are not burthensome in their proper place of Italy: but of such large infection is the doctrine, that it will endanger the life of the Common-wealth, wheresoever it is entertained in the consequences of it.

At Paris H. Co [...]. p. 7. I wrote my Book de cive in Latine—and I know no book more magnified then that beyond the Seas. Natural Philosophie Ep▪ ded. Be [...]. d [...] Corpore. is but young; but civil Philo­sophie yet much younger, as being no older (I say it provoked, and that my detractors may know how little they have wrought upon me) then my own book de Cive: a short Six Less. p. 56. sum of that book of mine, now publiquely in French, [Page 162] done by a Gentleman I never saw, carrieth the title of Aethics demonstrated: accuse not then such Politics, as are, though new, yet of sure foundation.

Your Doctrine is old enough, and I wish it had one propertie of Age, to be attend­ed with decay. Carneades and divers others bottom'd Policy and self-Interest, and you have only wire-drawn that which is delivered by them in a lump: and for this, as is the manner of divers who have an itch of writing, you claw your self. I could repeat to you, divers sayings of the ancient deceivers in Moralitie; such as are, Armatus leges ut o [...]gitem? nec natu­ra potest justo secernere iniquum,—utilitas justi prope mater & aequi, and the like: but you would then turn all off, by deriding me for ha­ving made a motly Oration. I have somtimes, by my self, made this conjecture, that you being so conversant with Thu [...]ydides; the Oration of Euphemus Thucyd. l 6. p. 467. [...]. delivered there, might first hint to you your sandy Politicks: for that Athenian Embassadour to the Camarin [...]i, amongst other things tending much that way, at last plainly told them, that to a Governour nothing which was profitable was dishonest, or unreasonable: which Doctrine, because it invites ambitious men to step into Authority when the door is open, and mercenary soldiers to decide a dis­pute, not in favour of the right, but the most profitable side; because it moveth them that are supream to become Tyrants in the exercise of that power, which Religion ought to limit, [Page 163] though the people may not, and to make their passions their chief rules, and to govern with Armies rather then Laws, or, if with both, to dy their Flags, and to write their Edicts, in the blood of whom they please: because, I say, it taketh off all sence of what we call humanity from the supream powers, and so, not unlike to a Porta Sabina, calls in innumerable evils upon such people as are quiet and modest; it therefore ought, no more to be sucked in, by Prince or People, then pernicious air in time of common Pestilence.

Name not Tyranny as a word of reproach, for the name of Tyranny Lev p. 392. Review [...] sig­nifieth nothing more nor less, then the name of Soveraignty, be it in one, or many men, saving that they that use the former word, are under­stood to be angry with them they call Tyrants: and I think the toleration of a professed hatred of Tyranny, is a toleration of hatred to Com­mon-wealth in general—So that here, Six Less. p. 62. I must say to you, Peace, down, for you bark now at the Supream Legislative power; therefore 'tis not I but the Laws which must rate you off. And now me thinks my endeavour Ep. ded. bes. Lev. to ad­vance the civil power, should not be by the civil power condemned; nor private men, by repre­hending it, declare they think that power too great [and after what manner I endeavour the advancement of it, I think it worth the time to declare to you.] I shew Lev. p▪ 105. that the Scrip­ture requireth absolute obedience: I teach Lev. p. 108.109. that the people have made artificial chains, [Page 164] called civil laws, which they themselves, by mutual Covenants, have fastned at one end, to the lips of that man, or Assembly, to whom they have given the Soveraign power; and at the other end, to their own ears: that, ibid. & Lev. p. 90. [...]82. no­thing the Soveraign can do to the Subject, can properly be called Injustice or injury, because every subject is Author of every Act the Sove­raign doth. That Lev. p. 128. see p. 169. the proprietie of a sub­ject excludeth not the dominion of the Sove­raign, but only of another subject.

Remember Sir, the case of Ahab and Naboth; unless you suppose it in times of pub­lick necessitie.

Interrupt me not: I teach al­so, that Lev. p. 95. the King is the absolute Representa­tive, and that it is dangerous to give such a title to those men, who are sent up by the people to carry their Petitions, and give him (if he per­mit it) their advice. That Lev. p. 137.169. the Soveraign is sole Legislator, and not subject to civil laws. That Lev. p. 143. c. 26. to him there cannot be any knot in the law, insoluble; either by finding out the ends to undo it by; or else by making what ends he will, (as Alexander did with his sword in the Gordian-knot,) by the Legislative power; which no other Interpreter can doe. That there is Lev. p. 24. no common Rule of good and evil, to be taken from the Nature of the objects them­selves; but from the Person of the man (where there is no Common-wealth) or, (in a Com­mon-wealth) from the Person that represen­teth [Page 165] it, or from an Arbitrator or Judge, whom men disagreeing shall by consent set up, and make his sentence the rule thereof. That Lib. & Nec. p. 29. where there is no law, there no killing or any thing else can be unjust. That L [...]v. p. 91 the civil Soveraign is Judge of what doctrines are fit to be taught. I also maintain Leviath. p. 119 c 33 that Sove­raigns, being in their own Dominions the sole Legislators; those books only are Can [...]nical, that is, Law in every Nation, which are e­stablished for such by the Soveraign Authority.

In some things you are just to the Praerogative of Kings; but in others, you ought to have remembred the words of our Lord, who adviseth us to give to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and unto God the things that are Gods. For your cavil at the name Tyrant, it is in the sense I us'd it (for exercise of un­limited power) unbecoming a Prince: but I know how very frequently it is misapply'd by those, who will call the very bridling of their licentiousness, hateful Tyranny; and find fault with the law, for no other reason but because it is a r [...]straint upon their supposed freedome: whereas the hedges which the law sets down, are to keep them only in the truest and safest way. The absolute Princes of Syracuse were cal­led Tyrants, though some of them deserved the title of Benefactors: and amongst our selves, the best of Kings was branded with that igno­minious character. For that which you have justly said in favour of a Monarch, had it bin Printed before Forty eight, it might have bin of [Page 166] good effect, at least it might have shewed a di­sposition to promote Loyalty. But being pub­lished, after the Kings Martyrdom, and his Sons exile, it served the purposes of those peo­ple who had then the Militia in their hands. For you say Lev. p. 102. that the Rights of a Common-wealth by acquisition, are the same with those, by Institution or Succession: That the power of the Representative (whether in one or ma­ny) cannot without consent be transferr'd, for­feited, accus'd, punish'd: and that such a per­son is Supreme Judge. The Parliament there­fore ought to have return'd you thanks, for a­scribing to them the strength of the Leviathan, and for keeping their nostrils free from the books of the right Heir and his adherents. They ought, especially, to have given you the thanks of the House for saying, Lev. p. 241. I maintain nothing in any Paradox of Religion; but attend the end of that dispute of the Sword, concerning the Authori­ty, (not yet amongst my Country-men decided) by which all sorts of Doctrine are to be approved, or rejected; and whose commands, both in speech and writing; (whatsoever be the opinions of private men) must by all men, that mean to be protected by their Laws, be obeyed.

But notwithstanding all this, what you seem to build up on the side of the Soveraign, you pull down on the side of the People. For whilst you found all upon single Self-interest, (to the advancement of which all safe means are, by you, esteemed Lev. p 90 De Cive, c. lawful) these specious rights are no longer his, then by main force he can keep possession of them. That will not be long, [Page 167] if great Delinquents call'd in question, and mi­serable people (who, like such as stake their Cloak in an over-hot day, are willing to hazard the life they would be rid of; and are easily misled, not looking upon the stumbling-blocks in the way, but Lev. p. 159. on the light that others carry before them), if these, can promote their private good, by Sword, or Poyson, or Mutiny. The people, if they believ'd that a company of Delinquents Lev. p. 111, 112-113 See p. 69 o [...] Lev. and L. S. Natur [...]s Dowry in Append. to F.D. p. 54, joyning together to defend themselves by Arms, do not at all unjustly; but may, lawfully, repel lawful Force, by Force; they would soon be stirred up, and suffer none, for whom they have respect, to be brought to ju­stice.

For your last particular concerning the Power of the Civil Soveraign, in relation to that for which we have assign'd

The Ninth place, that is to say, the Canon of holy Scripture; it see [...]eth a great indignity of­fered to the Soveraignty of Christ. Upon this occasion, I remember a saying of Dr. Weston, which would better have become a man in Buff, then a Prolocutor of the Convocation. After six days spent in hot dispute about Reli­gion, in the Reign of Queen Mary, he dismissed those of the Reformed way in these words Dr. Hey­ [...]ins Hist. of the Re­form. in Q. M. p. 30: It is not the Queens pleasure that we should spend any longer time in these debates; and ye are well enough already: for you have the Word, and we have the Sword. So little of the obligation of holy Writ is perceived by those whose eyes are dazled with Secular Grandeur.

But, before we come to dispute of the power [Page 168] which maketh the Scripture-Canon, which is, as 'twere the Main Battle; may we not a little breathe and prepare our selves, in some lesser Skirmishes, touching the Writings of the Old and New Testament?

If you like that course, I am ready to joyn with you. First, then, I take no­tice Lev. p. 200.201. at large. that divers historical Books of the Old Testament, were not written by those whose names they bear; to wit, much of the Penta­teuch, the Books of Ioshuah, and Iudges, and Ruth, and Samuel, and Kings, and Chronicles.

This hath bin, long since said, and pro­ved, by the places which you cite in your Levia­than, by the Frenchman who founded a Systeme of Divinity upon the conceit of men before A­dam! who also, by Recantation, unravel'd his own Cobweb, spun out of his own fancie, rather then the true Records of time. But this doth not invalidate the truth of those Histories, whose sufficient antiquity is, by you, granted.

I observe, again, concerning the Book of Iob Lev. p. 202., that though it appear sufficiently that he was no feigned person, yet the Book it self seemeth not to be an History, but a Treatise concerning a question in ancient time disputed, why wicked men have often prospered in this world, and good men have been afflicted: and it is the more probable, be­cause the whole dispute is in Verse—but Verse is no usual stile of such as either are them­selves [Page 164] in great pain, as Iob; or of such as come to comfort them, as his Friends; but in Philo­sophy, especially moral Philosophy, in ancient time frequent.

It is not thought that Iob or his Friends, but Moses, or some other, pen'd the History in the form in which we have it. But however you here alledge a Reason, which proveth the contrary to the purpose you would have it serve for: For Poetry exciting the ima­gination and affections, is fittest for painting out the Scene of Tragedy. You have surely forgot­ten Ovid de Tristibus.

Please your self in replies: I will proceed to observe further, that Lev. [...] 203. See Lev. 284. as for the Books of the Old Testament, they are derived to us, from no other time then that of Esdras, who, by the direction of Gods Spirit, [...]etrived them, when they were lost.

That place in the fourth Book of Es­dras, wherein it is said in his person, Thy Law is burnt 4 E [...]d. c. 14.21, &c., therefore no man knoweth the things that thou hast done, is a very fable. For though the Autographa of Moses, and the Prophets have been thought to have perished at the burning of Hierusalem, yet it is not true that all the Copies were destroyed: For the Prophets, in the Captivity Dan. [...].11, 1 [...], 1 [...]. read the Law. And concerning that whole fourth Book, it is said by Bellarmine himself, De Sc [...]p. Eccles. p. 22. that the Author is a Romancer. Of the like nature may they [Page 170] seem who talk of the men of the Synagoga magna, making Ezra to be a chief man amongst them, and ascribing to them the several divi­sions and sections of the Old Testament; even that, wherein the Book of Daniel is (most ab­surdly) reckon'd amongst the Hagiographa. Of that Synagoga magna, there is not one word spoken by Iosephus, or St. Hierom, though both had very fair occasions, in some parts of their writings, to have intreated of it. And the de­ficiencie of the Jewish story, about that time, may move us to believe that this was the fiction of modern Rabbies; and Morinus thinks he has demonstrated that so it was.

I note again, that the Lev. p. [...]99. Septu­agint, who were seventy Learned men of the Jews, sent for by Ptolomy King of Egypt, to translate the Jewish Law, out of the Hebrew in­to Greek, have left us no other Books for ho­ly Scripture in the Greek Tongue, but the same that are received in the Church of Eng­land.

It is not resolved whether they tran­slated any more then the five Books of Moses, and whether they turn'd them out of Hebrew, Chaldee, or the Samaritan Tongue, to which latter Pentateuch the translation of the seventy is shew'd, by Hottinger, to agree most exactly, in a very great number of places, by him pro­duced in order See [...]ot­ting. Thes. Philolog. p. 2 [...]1, &c.: but there is as great que­stion whether that we have, be the true Copy of the Seventy: for seeing therein the [Page 171] names of places (as [...] for Caphto­ [...]im) are there rendred not according to the Hebrew, but after the manner in which they were call'd in the latter times under the second Temple See Dr. Light-foot's Horae He­br. in S. Marc. p. 49, 50.; the antiquity of the Copy of Rome may be suspected.

Be it also observed, that those Books which are called Apocrypha were left out of the Canon, not for inconformity of Doctrine with the rest, but onely because they are not found in the Hebrew.

Here, again, you erre: for by the same Reason, some part which is contained in the Canon, should have been, of old, excluded. For instance, the Book of Daniel is partly writ­ten in Hebrew, and partly written in Caldee; for Daniel had learnt that Tongue in Babylon by the command of the King. Neither are all A­pocryphal Books to be thought not written in Hebrew; for that excellent Book of the Son of Syrach, as is manifest by his Preface to it, was a translation out of the Hebrew Copy of his Grand-father Iesus. The Reason why such Books were not received by the Jews into the Canon, was not what you suggest, but because they seem'd not written by that kinde of pro­phesie which they called Ruach Hakko­desh See Vo [...] ­sin in Proem. Pug. fid. p. 103..

I confess Lev. p. 199. c. 33. St. Hierom had seen the first of the Maccabees in Hebrew.

Neither is that rightly noted: For the Book which St. Hierom saw, as is thought by Drusius, a man profoundly learned in these matters, was the first Book of the History of the Hasmon [...]ei, whose Epoch was of later date, though the names are us'd promisouously a­mongst the Jews.

I proceed to note, that Lev. p. [...]03, 204. the Writers of the New Testament lived all in less then an age after Christs Ascension, and had all of them seen our Saviour, or been his Disciples, except St. Paul, and St. Luke; and consequent­ly whatsoever was written by them is as ancient as the time of the Apostles. But the time wherein the Books of the New Testament were received, and acknowledged by the Church to be of their writing, is not altogether so anci­ent— These Books, of which the Copies were not many, nor could easily be all in any one private mans hand, cannot be derived from a higher time, then that wherein the Governours of the Church collected, approved, and recom­mended them to us, as the Writings of those A­postles and Disciples, under whose names they go. The first Enumeration of all the Books, both of the Old and New Testament, is in the Canons of the Apostles, supposed to be collected by Clement the first (after St. Peter) Bishop of Rome. But because that is but supposed, and by many questioned, the Council of Laodicea is the first we know, that recommended the Bi­ble to the then Christian Churches, for the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles: and [Page 173] this Council was held in the 364 year after Christ. At which time, though ambition had so far prevailed on the great Doctors of the Church, as no more to esteem Emperours though Christian, for the Shepherds of the peo­ple, but for Sheep; and Emperours not Chri­stian, for Wolves; and endeavour'd to pass their Doctrine, not for counsel and informati­tion, as Preachers; but for Laws, as absolute Governours; and thought such frauds as tend­ed to make the people more obedient to Chr [...] ­stian Doctrine, to be pious; yet I am perswa­ded they did not therefore falsifie the Scriptures, though the Copies of the Books of the New Testament, were in the hands onely of the Ec­clesiasticks; because if they had had an inten­tion so to do, they would surely have made them more favourable to their power over Christian Princes, and civil Soveraignty, then they are.

It is plain to those who are versed in the Monuments of the Church, that the Books of the New Testament were declared Canon very early, though the precise time and place be not so easily known. Upon the Enumeration made in the Apostolick Canons, we rely not; not because that Book is to be esteemed wholly spurious; but because this Enumeration is made in the eighty fourth Canon. For the first fifty are those for whose antiquity we contend. It is true that the whole is call'd Apocryphal, by the Council Bin▪ Conc. tom. 3. p. 663. at Rome under Pope Gelasi­us: and it hath been answer'd, Dr. H [...]m. Conc. Ig­n [...]t. Ep. p. 4. that they [Page 174] were so called, not as if they were not an­cient Pieces, but because they were not made Nomocanon or Canon-law. But doubtless that Council rejected them as spurious Writings, numbring them amongst the late and feigned pieces of the Gospel of St. Andrew, the Revela­tion of St. Paul, the Books of Og the Gyant, of the Testament of Iob, of the Daughters of Adam, and the like. But it hath also con­demn'd the works of Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Ar­nobius, Lactantius, and the History of Ensebius; and therefore it is not material what writing standeth or falleth, before such erroneous Judges. Certain it is by other passages, in an­cient Writers, that the New Testament was ac­knowledg'd to be Canon, long enough before the Council of Laodicea. The earliest Christi­an Writers whose Books are derived to our hands, abound in [...]itations of the New Testa­ment, as the undoubted Register of what was done, and taught, and as the publick Rule. Tertullian (for example) citeth very many places out of every Book which now is contain­ed in the Canon of the New Testament, if I ex­cept the second of St. Peter. And in his fourth Book against Marcion Tert. adv. Marc. l 4. p. 415. he speaketh effectu­ally to our present purpose. If that (said he) be tru [...]st which was [...]irst, and that be first which [...]as from the beginning, and that be from the be­ginning which is derived from the Apostles, it is also manifest, that that was from the Apostles which is sacred in the Churches of the Apostles. Let us see then what milk St. Paul fed the Corin­thians with: by what rule the Galatians were [Page 175] reformed; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, Ephesians read; as also what the Romans preach, to whom St. Peter and St. Paul did leave the Go­spel sealed with their bloud. We have also Churches instructed by St. John. For although Marcion hath rejected his Apocalypse, yet the suc­cession of Bishops traced to the begin [...]ing, will e­stablish him as the certain Author of that Book. And he had taught a while before Ter [...]. [...]b. p. 14. B., that the Gospel had Apostles and Apostolike men for their undoubted Authors. The Books then of the New Testament were received anciently e­nough, as the Writings of such whose names they bare, and as the Records of Truth. And for the Copies of them, they were so widely dispersed, that it was as hard to corrupt them all, as to poyson the Sea. They were before the Council of Laodicea, not onely in the hands of Ecclesiasticks, but of Christians of any profes­sion; and of Heathens also. So it appeareth by the reflexions, invidiously made on them, by Celsies, and Hierocles; not to name Por­phyry, who was once of the Jewish, then of the Christian Religion; and against both at last, by foul Apostacy. In the persecution of D [...]ocle­tian, in the beginning of the fourth Century, there was an Edict for the delivering up the Copies of the Gospel: which for fear, was done by divers Christians, known by the name of Traditores in Church-History; and yet not­withstanding very many Copies were preserved by such good men, who valued the other [...]tate before this, and feared to be blotted out of the Book of life, if they should so contribute to the [Page 176] extermination of the Books of Scripture. Hi­storians tell us Vide Bisciol. Epit. An­nal. Bar. p. 137. Tradit. in­gens nume­rus; sed propè in­si [...]irus il­l [...]rum, qui mortem potius, &c. that the number of the Traditores was very great; but that the num­ber of such who (as the Roman Office saith) chose rather to give up themselves to the Exe­cutioners, then to deliver up holy things to Dogs, was almost infinite: and amongst these were very many Virgins, particularly Crispina, Marciana, Candida. So apparently false it is, that the Copies were but few, and those few onely in the hands of Ecclesiasticks. But in whatsoever hands these Books were, and at whatsoever time they were first publickly ac­knowledged, in this (I think) we agree, (and Iulian himself Jul. A­post. Epist. p. 195. confess'd it, when Apostate) that they are genuine.

I see not Lev. p. [...]04. any reason to doubt, but that the Old and New Testament, as we have them now, are the true Registers of those things, which were done and said by the Prophets and Apostles.

What hindereth then, that we may not at all times, do or speak the things contained in them, after such manner as we are there di­rected? And that the Scripture should not be a perpetual Canon to every Christian; seeing the Laws of Christ are contained in it, and the Suc­cessors of the Apostles (who could bind them upon the Church with sufficient right, though not with outward force) propounded them as necessary Rules of life? But, methinks, 'tis e­nough to constitute a Canon to any particular [Page 177] man, if he may, by any means attain unto a cer­tain belief, of any Rule, as delivered by Christ; without a superadded Decree Ecclesiastical or Civil.

That Lev. c. 42 p. 284 285 the new Testament should in this sense be Canonical, that is to say, a Law in any place, where the Law of the Com­monwealth had not made it so, is contrary to the nature of a Law. For a Law is the Com­mandment of that Man, or Assembly, to whom we have given Soveraign Authority, to make such Rules for the direction of our Actions, as he shall think fit; and to punish us when we do any thing contrary to the same. When therefore any other man shall offer unto us any other Rules, which the Soveraign Ruler hath not prescribed, they are but Counsel, and Ad­vice; which, whether good or bad, he that is counselled, may without injustice refuse to ob­serve; and when contrary to the Laws already established, without injustice cannot observe, how good soever he conceiveth it to be. I say, he cannot in this case observe the same in his actions; nor in his discourse with other men; though he may without blame believe his pri­vate Teachers, and wish he had the liberty to practise their advice; and that it were publick­ly received for Law.

Then, it seems, before the days of Con­stantine, a private man was obliged to be, a Jew, or a Gentile, according to the Civil Authority under which he was; and that Christianity did not oblige [...] [...]e conversation of any man.

Christ Lev. p. 285. hath not subjected us to other Laws then those of the Common­wealth; that is, the Jews to the Law of Moses, (which he saith (Mat. 5.) he came not to destroy, but to fulfil) and other Nations to the Laws of their several Soveraigns.

That Christ subjected the Jews to the Laws of Moses, considered as such, is a saying which relisheth both of ignorance and irreli­gion. It is evident that the very Law of the Ten Commandments, obligeth not any Chri­stian man, (though he be supposed to live under a Jewish▪ Soveraign) as delivered by Moses, but as the designe of them agreeth with the Law of Nature, and of Christ, who advanced both Laws, and filled them up, adding as 'twere his last hand to an imperfect Draught. And for the Ce­r [...]monial Law, our Saviour came to put an end to it, because it was but an estate of expectation, and consisted in shadows of good things to come: and if he had established that as an en­during Law, he had, in effect, denied himself to be the true Messiah. For the sprinkling of the Altar with the bloud of Bulls and Goats, after the ancient manner of the Jews, importeth ma­nifestly that the effectual Oblation is not yet of­fered: wherefore S. Paul G [...]l. 5. [...], [...]. bespeaketh his Galatians after this manner: Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if you be circum­cised, Christ shall profit you nothing. Moses him­self [Page 179] foretold that our Saviour should arise after him, and become a Prophet to be obeyed in whatsoever he taught the people Deut. 18.15.18. comp. with. Acts 3.22, &c.: where­fore Caesar Vanin, who suffered as an Atheist, said, in his Dialogues, that Moses was not so po­litic as the Messiah, in delivering his Laws; be­cause he foretold the abrogation of them, whilst Christ propounded his as everlasting.

Then for Christs subjecting the Gentiles to the Law of their Civil Soveraign, of what per­swasion soever, it is contrary to the great de­signe of our Saviours coming: for amongst the Heathen the worship of false Gods was the Law of their Country. It was one of the Laws of the twelve Tables Nemo se­paratim Deos ha­besci [...]., that no man could have a personal Religion, but worship [...]ch Gods, and in such manner, as the Law of his Country did prescribe. And Cicero shews [...]ow, in his days, it was not lawful to worship any sort of Gods; lest a confusion should be brought into Religion. Hence Augustus, tra­ [...]elling in Aegypt, would not step out of his way, to visit Apis; and Caius his Nephew, pas­sing through Iudea, would not worship at Ie­rusalem. Hence Socrates and Protagoras, main­ [...]aining opinions disagreeing with the Religion of their Country, were condemned; and Ana­ [...]arsis, also, suffered in Scythia for celebrating the Feast of Bacchus, by the Forraign Ceremo­nies of Greece. Hence Christ was not registred in the Calendar of the Gods, though Tiberius understanding his Divinity from Pontius Pilate, gave his suffrage for it; because it pleased not the Senate; and because (saith Tertullian) it [Page 180] was an old Decree of Rome, that no man should be consecrated for a Deity by the Emperour, without their Approbation. If then all per­sons were to be outwardly obedient to the Ci­vil powers, they were to worship false Deities; Idolatry being then established by a Law: but on the contrary, it is evident, that one main end of our Saviours coming was to destroy the works of the devil, and to bring the Gentiles from the worship of Daemons, to the service of the true God. Idolaters, therefore, are reckon'd amongst those who shall not inherit the king­dom of Christ: and S. Paul wrote so much particularly to 1 Cor. 6.9 Ephes. 5.5 1 Cor. 10.7 the Corinthians, and E­phesians, of those days, when the Powers were Heathen; and not merely to such as should read his Epistles in and after the Reign of Constantine and preaching at Athens against the Altar, To the unknown God (set up, no doubt, by public [...] Authority) and declaiming against the honour paid to false Gods; he lets them understand that the times of the ignorance of the Gentiles Acts 17.30, 31. God winked at, but now he commandet all men everywhere to repent; because he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom h [...] hath ordained; whereof he hath given assu­rance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Such discourses are Counsels and not Laws. Our Saviour Leviath. p 285. and his Apo­stles left no new Laws to oblige us in this world, but new Doctrine to prepare us for the [Page 181] next; the Books of the New Testament which contain that Doctrine, until obedience to them was commanded, by them that God had given power to on earth to be Legislators, were not obligatory Canons, that is, Laws, but onely good, and safe advice, for the direction of sin­ners in the way to salvation, which every man might take, and refuse at his peril, without in­justice.

The Doctrines of Christ avail not, at all, towards an entrance into his kingdom, with­out obedience Heb 5.9. to his Laws: and besides, those of mere Nature, he hath left new Laws unto the world: such are those of forgiving enemies, and against private Revenge: those, concer­ning Baptism, and his holy Supper: concerning Divorce and Polygamy: concerning a profes­sing of faith in him as the Messiah: concerning an Inward Religion, which the Governours of the world cannot take cognizance of; and which Trypho the Jew, with many others, hath denied to have been given by Moses, whose Laws they suppose to have extended not to the thought, but the conversation. That which concerns Polygamy hath (I know) bin doubted; yet (as it seemeth to me) without reason: for when our Saviour said S Luke 16.18. that he who putteth away his wife and marrieth another, commit­teth Adultery; he plainly forbad plurality of wives at the same time; which if it had bin allowed, the man might have taken more then another to him, without sin. Here then the Law of perfection hath bound us, where Na­ture [Page 182] seemeth to have left us at liberty. Now seeing these Institutions are the will of Christ, and that Christ hath made sufficient promul­gation of them to millions of men, and that he is King of kings, and Lord of lords, and that he hath annexed to them the greatest rewards and punishments to secure them from violation; it is evident that these are sufficient Laws, both without and against the Civil Sanction. For to say that the Princes of the Earth are Superior to Christ, is a Blasphemy of such altitude, that the ninetieth degree being cut, we can scarce take the heighth of it. What maketh a Supe­riour Law, but a Superiour Power, declaring his Will in some particular instances, to be o­bey'd? The Prohibition of the Tree of Life was the firmest Law to Adam, though no hu­mane Law was then enacted; nay, although Adam was King of the Earth.

But, if the Christian Faith was not a Law for more then three hundred years, to what end is it See Lev. p. 286. that the Apostles, and other Pastors of the Church, after their time should meet toge­ther, to decree upon what Doctrine should be taught, both for faith and manners, if no man were obliged to observe their Decrees?

To this Ibid. may be answered, that the Apostles and Elders of that Council, were obliged even by their entrance into it, to teach the Doctrine therein concluded, and de­creed to be taught, so far forth, as no precedent Law, to which they were obliged to yeild obe­dience, was to the contrary; but not that all o­ther [Page 183] C [...]istians should be obliged to observe what they taught: For though they might de­liberate what each of them should teach; yet they could not deliberate what others should do, unless their Assembly had had a Legislative Power; which none could have but civil So­veraigns.

That is, the Gospel preached by them was no Law then, because it did not cut its way by the Temporal Sword, and had no out­ward Power to give it countenance, and urge its entertainment. Is that your meaning?

You conjecture aright: For Lev. p. 285. in Christs Commission to his Apostles and Disciples—there is nothing of power but perswasion.—They had not in Commission to make Laws; but to obey, and teach obedience to Laws made; and consequently they could not make their writings obligatory Canons, with­out the help of the Soveraign Civil Power.

That See in the end of that page, and p. 286. which may seem to give the New Testament, in respect of those that have embraced Christian Doctrine, the force of Laws in the times and places of persecution, is the De­crees they made amongst themselves in their Synods. For we read (Acts 15.28.) the style of the Council of the Apostles, the Elders, and the whole Church, in this manner: It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and unto us, to lay upon you no greater burthen then these necessary things, &c. which is a style that signifieth a power to [Page 184] lay a burthen on them that had received their Doctrine. Now to lay a burthen on ano­ther, seemeth the same that to oblige; and therefore the Acts of that Council were Laws to the then Christians.

They were no more Laws then are those other Precepts, Repent; be baptized; keep the commandments; believe the Gospel; come unto me; sell all that thou hast; give it to the poor; and, follow me: which are not Com­mands, but Invitations, and callings of men to Christianity, like that of Esay 55.1. Ho, every man that thirsteth, come ye to the waters.

I [...] seemeth strange that such Counsels should not therefore be Laws, (though some of them are given imperatively enough) because men are gently wooed and invited, and not by out­ward force compelled to an outside obedience. Our subordination to Christ obligeth us to the performance of his revealed will, which is, for that reason, Law. And because he chooseth to rule us, rather with a Scepter of Righteousness, then an iron Rod, we are, by that, the more o­bliged, and not at liberty from obedience. You ought, therefore, to have said, not that the Do­ctrines of our Saviour were not Laws, but that the Civil Soveraign may lay a further obligati­on upon his Christian subjects, (as those that make a vow of Chastity, do, upon them­selves) by making them become his Laws. Thus many Articles of the Christian Faith are inserted into the first Law of the Codex [Page 185] Theodosianus; not having thereby, first ob­tained, but doubled their obligation. But this string of errour runneth through the whole body of your Leviathan, that, without apparent force, there is no Law. And this is the chief ground of your irreverent and false Doctrine, against the Power of the Christian Church. Be­cause it is a visible society professing the Do­ctrine of the Cross, and hath not of it self ex­ternal co-active Power, but, by virtue of the Commission of Christ as King, layeth spiritual obligation upon men, (and thereby is consistent with the Civil Empire, in which it is,) there­fore you deny unto the Church the right either of making or declaring Laws Lev. p. 171. as if there were not onely a quibble but a truth, in the meaning of the Frontispiece of your Leviathan, which compares the Canons of the Convocation, to those of the temporal Militia; and that they could not properly have that name, unless they had Powder, and Bul­let, and Fire, (external force) attending on them. It is plain enough (and you your self do own it) that after the Ascension Lev. p. 267. of our Lord, the Power Ecclesiastical, was in the A­postles; and after them, in such as were by them ordained to preach the Gospel, and to convert men to Christianity, and to direct them that were converted in the way of Salvation; and after these, the Power was delivered again to others by these ordained. But how this Spi­ritual Power, in the Administration of Spiritual Affairs in Christ's Kingdom; in ordaining Suc­cessors; in celebrating the Eucharist; in loosing [Page 186] and binding; in admitting members into this Spiritual but visible society by Baptisme (which is a proof both of the Society and its Power) how all this (I say) was derived on the person of Constantine, who was neither Ordained, nor (as some tell us) baptized till his death; requi­reth greater skill to explain, then I dare yet pretend to: he therefore rather gave outward aids and succours, then true Authority and Right to the Doctrines and Commandments of his Soveraign Jesus. Which things being well consider'd, you ought not to have ascrib'd (as somewhere you have done) the very rights of the Priestly Function to the Civil Powers. Grotius, who has not had thanks from all for his liberality to the Civil Magistrate in relation to the Affairs of the Church, hath yet made it his whole designe (in the second Chapter of his Book De Imperio summarum potestatum circa Sa­cra) to make it manifest, that Authority about Holy things, and the Sacred Function, are di­stinct. In the same person they may be (as in Anius the King and Priest of Phoebus) but not without Ordination. For the Power depend­ing upon our Lords Commission, is not con­vey'd but by Succession, through the hands of the Commissioned. Our thirty seventh Arti­cle, doth attribute to the King a Power of out­ward Rule in Ecclesiastical matters, yet granteth not to him either the ministring of Gods Word, or of the Sacraments. And under the Law, it was said unto Vzziah the King 2 Chron. 26.18, 19, &c. It pertaineth not unto thee Vzziah to burn in­cense unto the Lord, but to the Priests, the sons [Page 187] of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense. And because he would use his force in usurping the rights of the Priest, God Almighty smote him with immediate Leprosie; and taught him to discern betwixt might and right. Yet the Kings of Iudah had power in the Synagogue. They had [...]o de facto; neither in many things, wherein they ordered Religion, were they re­proved. Yet to say the truth, the having such right is no where commanded in the Old Law; which enjoyn'd not the people to have a King; but, upon conditions, permitted one to them, if they should prefer the customs of the Heathen-nations, before the most excellent e­state of Theocracie. Wherefore let them see whether they build closely, who establish the Ecclesiastical Power of Christian Princes, upon the exercise of it amongst the Kings of Iudah. It concerneth you also to consider whether you have not unduly ascrib'd unto the Prince, as such, the Power of the Keys, and the Right of Ordination, and Ministration of the Sacra­ments, and Word of Christ. The Monarch (say you) or Lev. p. 125. the Soveraign Assembly onely hath immediate Authority from God, to teach and instruct the people; and no man but the Soveraign receiveth his Power Dei Gratia simply— He it is that hath Lev. p. 297. authority not onely to preach (which perhaps no man will deny;) but also to baptize, and to administer the Sacrament of the Lords Sup­per; and to consecrate both Temples and Pastors to Gods service — If the Soveraign Power Stigm [...] p. 18. give me command (though without the ceremony of imposition of hands) to teach the Doctrine of [Page 188] my Leviathan in the Pulpit, why am not I, if my Doctrine and life be as good as yours, a Minister as well as you? This is saying and not proving; and because the Power was from Christ derived to the Apostles, and from them in Succession, by Ordination; and can be in none to whom it is not convey'd in such a Channel; what you have said, had you been versed in the seve­ral Writings of a Divine of the Church of Eng­land (a man of greater and better Learning then either your self or Mr. Selden, whose Do­ctrine you seem to have swallow'd down toge­ther with the good provisions of his Table; and who is said to have mistaken the very sta [...]e of the Erastian-Controversie See Just weights & meas. p. 25. whilst he de­fined Excommunication to be a censure infer­ring a civil penalty▪) you would have either altered your opinion, or aggravated your error.

It appeareth, by what hath been delivered, that there is Authority enough, without the ci­vil Sanction, to make the Doctrines of the A­postles to become Laws, to wit, the Kingly Power of Christ, whose Commissioners they were, and who had power to cause their rights to descend to others by Ordination. And be­fore the days of Constantine, there wanted not the Fountain of outward force, not onely in our Lord, who could dash in pieces Soveraigns of the finest mold; but also in his Members, who (as is manifest from Ecclesiastical story) had of­ten strength enough to have check'd the fury of their persecutors, and to have forc'd the yoke of Christ upon their necks. But it seemed [Page 189] good to our blessed Lord, during this state of mans probation; to deal chiefly with him, ac­cording to his reasonable nature, and to invite rather then compel. And yet, methinks, the threatnings of eternal vengeance seem to carry more force with them, then all the prisons in the world. And it is time to think that the Gospel obligeth, when we hazard perpetual misery by disobeying it, whether we be Jews or Greeks, if its sound hath reached us.

The Jews and Gentiles were to be damned, not for their infidelity, but Lev. [...]. 285. their old sins. If the Apostles Acts of Coun­cil were Laws, they could not without sin be disobeyed. But we read not any where that they who receiv'd not the Doctrine of Christ, did therein sin; but that they dyed in their sins; that is, that the sins against the Laws to which they owed obedience, were not pardoned. And those Laws were the Laws of Nature, and the Civil Laws of the State, whereto every Christian man had by pact submitted himself. And there­fore by the burthen, which the Apostles might lay on such as they had converted, are not to be understood Laws, but Conditions, proposed to those that sought Salvation; which they might accept or refuse at their own peril, with­out a new sin, though not without the hazard of being condemned and excluded out of the Kingdom of God, for their sins past. And there­fore of Infidels St. Iohn saith not,John 3.36 the wrath of God shall come upon them,John 3.18 but the wrath of God remaineth upon them; and not [Page 190] that they shall be condemned, but that they are condemned alreadie.

What will not a man say rather then acknowledge himself in an errour, though the thing it self speaketh it? Here's mistake clap'd upon mistake: yet the scales of the Leviathan are not so close, but a blinde Archer may shoot between them. Have you not read what our Lord said to his disciples, after his resurrection? Go ye into all the world S. Marc. 16.15.16. and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is bapti­zed shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned. The Author, also, to the Hebrews Heb. 4.11. &c. exhorteth the Jews to believe in Christ; and telleth them they shall, for ever, be excluded the Kingdom of heaven for their unbelief, (it they persevere in it) as their forefathers came short of Canaan, for the same reason. And al­though S. Iohn, in the places cited, doth speak in the present tense, yet in others of the same Chapter, he speaketh in the future: and in that very verse which you cite partially, concealing the words which are against you, he maketh their unbelief the cause of that severe decree which, al­ready, was gone forth. V. 18. He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the onely begotten Son of God. V. 19. This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather then light, because their deeds were evil. V. 36. He that be­lieveth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

There is, yet, behinde, a reason, whereby I prove that the doctrine of the Go­spel is not made Law, by Christ or his Apostles. The Apostles power Lev. c. 42. p. 286. was no other then that of our Saviour, to invite men to embrace the Kingdome of God; which they themselves acknowledged for a Kingdome (not presen [...], but) to come; and they that have no Kingdome can make no Laws.

Christ, as Mediator, before his Re­surrection, had power of making s [...]ronger Laws then any Soveraigns now upon Earth, for he had immediate Commission from God in Heaven. He that saw Christ John 1 [...] ▪45.48. [...]0▪ saw him that sent him; and whatsoever Christ spake, even as the Father said unto him, so he spake. And he that rejected him was to be condemned by his words at the last day. And Christ when his Father sent him, was design'd to be a King over Men and Angels, and for that purpose he came into the World: and he acquired this Kingship by way of Conquest in his resurrection from the dead: after which he spake Mat. 28.18. unto his Disciples, saying, All power is given unto me i [...] Heaven and in Earth. Go ye, therefore, and [...]ach all Nation [...], baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo [...], I am with you allwaies unto the end of the World. And when he ascended and sate on the right hand of God, he was inaugurated into his Heavenly Kingdom 1 Pet. 3 [...] and became in truth a Divine [Page 192] Heroe, as those amongst the Heathens were in pretence; and he at present raigneth, be the Earth never so rebellious, in the Oeconomie of his Church.

But to step, out of this, into our

Tenth Place of Discourse: if the commands of Christ and his Apostles, are not, also, Laws, without the civil Sanction; what meaneth the common doctrine, in the Scripture, of suffering for the sake of Christianitie? we are enjoyned to take up the Cross, and to follow Christ: Blessedness is promised to those who are perse­cuted for righteousness sake; that suffer as Christians: and we are taught, that the way to preserve our lives, is to loose them, for a time, in the glorious cause of Jesus. Such commands and exhortations to dye rather then to obey un­christian injunctions, are delivered in vain; yea they deserve the name of impious, if they be not a royal Law, without the stamp and al­lowance of civil Authoritie. It is then, in your opinion, not only our Priviledge but our duty, to save th [...] skin entire; and, for the sake of out­ward safety, [...] to obey that which is truly Law, the Law of our Countrie, though we live a­mongst the Heathens; rather then to follow dangerous, though Evangelical, Counsel.

You may easily make con­jecture of my sense, in the present case; be­cause I say the disobedient to the civil Powers do violate that which is properly Law. We are not obliged Lev. p. 27 [...]. to obey any Minister of Christ, if he should command us to do any thing con­trary [Page 193] to the command of the King, or other Soveraign representant of the Common-wealth whereof we are Members, and by whom we look to be protected.

Were this truth, there ought not to have bin any zealous propagation of the Go­spel; but it should have expired, with the Au­thor of it upon the Cross. For the Apostles sinned both against the Law of Nature, and Common-wealth, in exposing their lives to hazzard by preaching to the Gentiles; if it was injustice to gain-say their Pagan Edicts. St. Thomas, then, though armed with Miracles to command assent, ought, either not to have wandred to the East-Indies; or being there, not to have preached up a new Religion: and what he suffered, for that cause, was just, from the hand of Pagan Authority.

Into what place Lev c. 27. p. 152. soever a man shall come, if he do any thing contrary to the Law, it is a crime. If a man come from the Indies hither, and perswade men here to re­ceive a new Religion, or teach them any thing that tendeth to disobedience of the Laws of his Country, though he be never so well perswaded of the truth of what he teacheth, he commits a crime, and may be justly punished for the same, not only because his doctrine is false, but also because he does that which he would not ap­prove in another, namely, that coming from hence, he should endeavour to alter the Religion there.

A good man would be desirous of infor­mation, in matters of the greatest moment, from what quarter soever of the Heavens, the light shined into his understanding: and the questi­on is only of the assurance which the Teacher can give, and not of the equity of his Practice. But to pass by that enquiry, I cannot refrain from asking you (though I can guess at your o­pinion) whether every Traveller is bound to profess the Religion of that Country into which he goeth? I mean not this of meer prudence and caution, of an open countenance and close breast; but of actual compliance with all for­raign institutions; so as to do as men do at Rome, or Constantinople, or Agra, if we were sojourners there.

To this I shall, by and by, say somthing particularly; but I will now, in ge­neral terms, affirm, that whosoever L viath. p. 114. en­treth into anothers Dominion, is subject to all the Laws thereof; unless he have a priviledge by the Amity of the Soveraig [...]s, or by special Licence.

Seeing then the Romanists depend much upon Opus operatum; if you returned but to Paris, the prayer of Monsieur Sorbiere would be heard, who, (in his Voyage, when he weeded England) desired you might become a good Catholick: this digression puts me in mind of a saying of B. Andrews, who, when it was told, that some of the Scotch-Clergie, were to be made Bishops; advised, that they [Page 195] should be made Priests First.

But, what great motive is there to this com­pliance with the civil Power, of any perswa­sion?

That I hinted, just now, in saying, that by them we look to be protected.

As if the favour of our Lord, the Prince of glory, towards his sincere, and faith­ful, patient, and undaunted subjects (who will not be baffled out of truth, nor be ashamed of the Gospel) were not of more value then the thin shelter of worldly-power; which, if it could hide us under Rocks and Mountains, could not secure us from the stroke of him, who is, in the first place, to be feared: me­thinks, in the competition betwixt danger from men and disobedience to Christ, (as in the case of such as are commanded by Heathen powers to sacrifice to Daemons) it is easie to see on which hand we ought to turn: when there is before us, a Natural and a Moral evil, the Natural be­ing the least, is therefore to be chosen: thus So­crates was obliged to prefer Death, before the acknowledgement of Polytheism; and by such choice, we, in truth, preserve our selves, and most effectually obey that dictate of Nature: for we part with a short and unpleasant, for an happy and endless life; and our health is eternally se­cured to us, by the effusion of the blood of Martyrdom: and, indeed, it hath been the sence of almost all mankind, derived from the fear of a God, or the excellent Nature of vir­tue, [Page 196] that the honest good is to be prefer'd be­fore either the profitable, or the pleasant; and that in such cases, the powers on Earth are not to be obeyed, though upon the refusal of their pleasure, they will glut their malice with the blood of men.

The three Children, menaced with the Fur­nace, chose rather to suffer the wrath of Ne­buchadnezzar, then to do his will, in worship­ing the golden Image; and God Almighty de­clar'd his acceptance of such a refusal, whilst, by Miracle he delivered them. And the fact of those Parents who saved Moses, not being a­fraid Heb. 11.23. of the commandment of Phara [...]h, who design'd all the Males of Israel for slaugh­ [...]er, is deliver'd down unto posteritie, with ho­nour and applause, by the Author to the He­brews: and in that little book of Martyrs, we read V. 35. of some, who scorn'd to accept of a temporal deliverance, when it was offer'd to them, upon the unworthie terms of Apostacie or recantation; they having, in their eye, a greater reward. And it is recorded, rather to the same then reproach of the Eastern Magi, S. Mat. 2 [...] &c. that in returning to their Countrie, they passed by, Herod, who had, with evil intent, commanded them to bring him word concern­ing the birth of the King of the Jews. If a Prince (said Ta [...]ian. p 144. Tatianus) commands me to deny my God, I will rather dye at his foot, then live to exercise his pleasure: and the holy Bishop Felix Africanus and his Associates (men of great Integritie and constancie of mind) would r [...]ther give up their own lives, then the copies [Page 197] of the new Testament which Dioclesian intend­ed so to destroy, that it might not be found at all in the Annals of the World, that ever there was such a doctrine as Christianitie. The ve­ry Grecians, whose manner was to use pro­stration only in the Rites of their Religion, refu­sed, what peril soever was imminent, to wor­ship, in that fashion the King of Persia: and the Christians who somtimes payed a civil respect before the Images of the Emperours, chose ra­ther to expose themselves to the crueltie of their Enemies, then to humble themselves, as in former daies, when Iulian added to them, the Images of false Gods: and such refusals are not destructive of Government and Societie, be­cause the true Christian, doth not, in these ca­ses, fill the World with clamours, or endeavour to raise tumults, but is led in imitation of his Saviour, like an innocent and weak Lamb, un­to the slaughter O [...]ig. [...] Cels. l 3. [...].

For an Lev. c. 45. p. 362. unlearned man, that is in the power of an idolatrous King or State, if commanded on pain of death to worship be­fore an Idol, he detesteth the Idol in his heart, he doth well, though if he had the fortitude to suffer death rather then to worship it, he should do better.

The most obscure and illiterate person, doing outward worship to false Gods, though he sinneth not with such scandal as the wise and the renowned, who are apt to draw a mul­titude in [...]o the like snare, yet he is not to be [Page 198] acquitted as an innocent man. For, by such means, the Idolators who affright this man out of his Religion, do triumph over the honour of the true God, the procuring of whose disho­nour is against Reason, which teacheth man, apart, to adore his Soveraign Lord, and in So­cietie, to be publick in his adoration, and not to conceal it under the Vizour of an ill-instru­cted Pagan who serveth Devils. Reason (you Lev. p. 192. know) directeth, not only to worship God in secret; but also, and especially in publick, and in the sight of men: for without that, (that which in honour is most acceptable) the pro­curing others to honour him, is lost.

But to come to somwhat peculiar in Christi­anitie; what if Lev. c. 42. p 271. a King or a Senate, or o­ther Soveraign Person, forbid us to believe in Christ?

To this Ibid. I answer, that such forbiding is of no ef [...]ect; because belief and un­belief never follow mens commands. Faith is a gift of God, which man can neither give, nor take away, by promise of rewards, or menaces of torture.

But Ibid. what if we be commanded by our lawful Prince, to say with our tongue, we believe not; must we obey such command?

Profession Ib [...]d. with the tongue is but an external thing, and no more then any other gesture whereby we signifie our obedi­ence; and wherein a Christian who holdeth [Page 199] firmly in his heart the faith of Christ, hath the same Liberty which the Prophet Elisha allow­ed to Naaman the Syrian. 2 Kings 5.17.—Naaman believ­ed in his heart; but by bowing before the Idol Rimmon, he denyed the true God in effect, as much as if he had done it with his lips.

In both these answers you miss-under­stand the Faith of the Gospel, which is not complete, unless the outward profession answer­eth to the inward act of assent: for the Church is a visible societie professing the Christian faith; which men entered into by a visible sign; in which are Officers of divers ranks; in which there is a communion of visible symbols; and he that chooseth only to have faith in his heart, renounceth his title of Member, in this spiritu­al Societie: our Saviour commanded his Disci­ples, that their light should shine before men. And St. Iohn John 12 [...]42, 43. upbraideth many of the chief Rulers, who believed on Christ, but, be­cause of the Pharisees, did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the Synagogue: be­cause they loved the praise of men more then the praise of God. Hear also what St. Paul saith unto the Romans: Rom. 10.9, 10. If thou shalt con­fess with thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and shalt be­lieve in thine heart, that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation. For Naaman, who was a Gentile, amongst Gentiles, he had promised to sacrifice for the future, to [Page 200] none but the God of Israel; and his incurvati­on was his civil Office towards the King, for which notwithstanding, he begg'd especial Li­cense. If this be not an answer, I refer you to Episcopius Episcop. Resp. ad 64. Quaest. p 59, 60. who will not send you away un­satisfied.

But what can you Lev. p. [...]71. answer to our Savi­ours saying, Whosoever denyeth me before men, I will deny him before my Father which is in Hea­ven?

This Ibid. we may say, that what­soever a subject, as Naaman was, is compelled to in obedience to his Soveraign, and doth it not in order to his own minde, but in order to the Laws of his Country, that action is not his, but his Soveraigns; nor is it he that, in this case, denyeth Christ before men, but his Go­vernour, and the Law of his Country.

Instead of shewing the consistencie of your Doctrine with our Saviour's words, you tacitly accuse them, either of impertinency, or ill advice: For you make him to speak to this effect: Persecutions will arise S. Mat. 10.23, 24, 25., but be wil­ling to be treated like your Master, a man of sufferings, and acquainted with grief: and fear not the faces Vers. 20. and menaces of men; but publish, in the openest manner, unto the World Vers. 27., such Doctrines as you hear in pri­vate, whilst you sit at my feet. And do not so fear Vers. 28. those who persecute you, as to save your bodily life by the renouncing or suppressing [Page 201] of my Doctrine: but stand in aw of me, whom if ye disobey, ye forfeit life eternal. And re­member that there is a God Verse [...] 29, 30, 31., who, in such perilous times, will take care of you. If, therefore, you will own and publish my Faith, Verses 32, 33. I will own you as my loyal Subjects, and make you happy in my Kingdom: if you will renounce my Faith for fear of men, I will not take notice of you, as appertaining to me, when you shall stand in the greatest need of protecti­on. But, though I have said all this, yet upon second thoughts it seemeth reasonable that I ex­cuse you, and condemn such bloudy Pow­ers as shall, by persecution, compel you to blas­pheme: 'Tis they who force open your mouths, and move your tongues, and form the breath, and renounce me; but you are all the time very sound Believers; Believers in your hearts. And therefore, if you deny me before such powers, I will transfer the blame on them. So wretched is your Paraphrase, that it over­throweth the plainest and often-reapted letter of the Text. But supposing that our Saviour had not delivered himself thus expresly against your Doctrine; how would you have recon­cil'd your gross dissimulation with that sin­cerity which the Searcher of the hearts re­quireth?

If any man Lev. p. 271, 272. shall accuse this Doctrine, as repugnant to true, and unfeigned Christianity; I ask him, in case there should be a subject in any Christian Common-wealth, [Page 202] that should be inwardly in his heart of the Ma­hometan Religion, whether if his Soveraign command him to be present at the Divine-service of the Christian Church, and that on pain of death, he think that Mahometan o­bliged in conscience to suffer death for that Cause, rather then to obey that command of his lawful Prince. If he say, he ought rather to suffer death, then he authorizeth all private men, to disobey their Princes, in maintainance of their Religion, true or false: If he say, he ought to be obedient, then he alloweth to himself, that which he denyeth to another.

In this reply, which toucheth not the proposed difficulty, you run out into two ab­surd suppositions. First, that a Christian Ma­gistrate sheddeth the bloud of an Heathen for not frequenting the Christian Assemblies: next, that there is a parity of reason in the persecu­tion of a Christian, and of a Mahometan; and that the Alcoran may as much oblige the Con­science, as the Testament of our Lord.

But I must again ask you, what you Lev. p. 272. will say of all those Martyrs we read of in the Hi­story of the Church? I hope you will not say that they have needlesly cast away their lives. Their bloud hath been more truely the seed of the Christian Church, then the opinion of Ghosts, Ignorance of second causes, Devotion towards what men fear, and taking of things casual for Prognosticks, have ever been (as you affirm) the seeds of natural Religion, [Page 203] Lev. p. 54. which is generated out of the inquisi­tive temper of men, who, by observing any ex­cellent effect, are naturally led to search out the cause, and so proceed to the first Original. The Martyrs (I say) did, under Christ, pre­serve the Christian Faith, which if it had not been professed with the mouth, would have dy'd away, as a spark where no breath doth cherish it. Their memory is precious in the Church of God, and their names will be had in everlasting remembrance. They have been thought See Mr. Mede's works, p. 944. to have the priviledge of rising first, and, in that sence, to have a part in the first Resurrection. The Christians anciently kept their Assemblies at their Monuments: and the Church of Alexandria See Scal. de Em. Temp. Proleg. p. 18. beginneth its account, at the Aera of holy Martyrs. And yet you seem to disrespect them as imprudent Zealots, and to think their bloud was but so much water spilt upon the ground, a rash and useless effect.

For answer hereunto Lev. p. 272., we are to distinguish the persons that have been for that Cause put to death; whereof some have received a Calling to preach, and profess the Kingdom of Christ openly; others have had no such Calling, nor more has been required of them then their own Faith. The former sort, if they have been put to death, for bearing witness to this point, that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, were true Martyrs; for a Mar­tyr is, (to give the true definition of the word) [Page 204] a witness of the Resurrection of Jesus the Messiah, which none can be but those that conversed with him on earth, and saw him af­ter he was risen: for a witness must have seen what he testifieth, or else his testimony is not good. And this is manifest from Acts 1.21, 22. of these men which have companyed with us-must one be a Martyr (that is, a Witness) with us of his Resurrection. Where we may observe that he which is to be a witness of the truth of the Resurrection of Christ—must be—one of his Original Disciples: whereas they which were not so, can witness no more, but that their Antecessors said it, and are therefore but witnesses of other mens Testimony; and are but second Martyrs, or Martyrs of Christs wit­nesses.

By this answer, wherein you approve of the Martyrdom of the Apostles, you grant unto me what I contend for, and contradict your former doctrine. For if the Apostles, drawing temporal deaths upon themselves, by preaching the Gospel, when they were enjoyn­ed to desist, by the Civil Powers, are to be ju­stified by us, and honour'd, for such resistance unto bloud; then there was given to them a Superiour Law by Christ, by the vertue of which higher obligation they were free from active duty to the Civil Powers: otherwise, if with­out a Law, they had opposed the present Go­vernours, they had been pernicious Rebels, and not honourable Defenders of the Faith. [Page 205] What you add concerning the word Martyr, is a weak nicety of Grammar, upon which the stress of this Cause doth not depend. For the Question is not, whether no man be properly call'd a Witness but an eye-witness, or he who beareth testimony of report received at second or third hand, but whether, at any distance of time, a man may not have sufficient ground to believe the Gospel; and whether, after the hearty belief of it, he may with his mouth re­nounce it out of a tender regard to flesh and bloud.

To proceed in this Argument; there is yet remaining another objection, to which, I know not what answer can be by you returned. It is the Argument used by St. Peter and St. Iohn, to the Rulers of the people and Elders of Israel, when, by menaces, they urg'd them to desist from the propagation of the holy Gospel: Whe­ther it be right (said those Apostles) in the sight of God, to hearken unto you more then unto God, judge ye Acts [...]. 19.

If the command Lev. p. 321, c. 43. of the Civil Soveraign be such, as that it may be obey­ed, without the forfeiture of life eternal; not to obey it is unjust— but if it be such as can­not be obeyed, without being damned to eter­nal death, then it were madness to obey it.— All men, therefore, that would avoid, both the punishments that are to be in this world inflict­ed, for disobedience to their earthly Soveraign, and those that shall be inflicted in the world to [Page 206] come for disobedience to God, have need to be taught to distinguish well between what is, and what is not necessary to eternal Salvation.— Now Lev. p. 322. all that is necessary to Salvation, is contained in two Vertues, Faith in Christ, and Obedience to Laws. Now — Ibid. Sect. 3. our Sa­viour Christ hath given us no new Laws, but counsel to observe those we are subject to; that is to say, the Laws of Nature, and the Laws of our several Soveraigns: and for Faith, The Lev. p. 324. (Vnum necessarium) onely Article of Faith, which the Scripture maketh simply necessary to Salvation, is this, That Jesus is the Christ. Ha­ving thus Lev. p. [...]30. shown, what is necessary to Sal­vation; it is not hard to reconcile our obedience to God, with our obedience to the civil Sove­raign, who is either Christian or Infideld. If he be a Christian, he alloweth the belief of this Ar­ticle, that Jesus is the Christ; and of all the Articles that are contained in it, or are, by evi­dent consequence, deduced from it; which is all the Faith necessary to Salvation: and because he is a Soveraign, he requireth obedience to all his own, that is, to all the Civil Laws; in which also are contained all the Laws of Na­ture, that is, all the Laws of God: for besides the Laws of Nature, and the Laws of the Church, which are part of the Civil Law, (for the Church that can make Laws is the Common-wealth,) there be no other Laws Divine.— And when the civil So­veraign is an Infidel, every one of his own sub­jects that resisteth him, sinneth against the [Page 207] Laws of God.— And for their Faith Lev. p. 331. it [...]s internal, and invisible; they have the Li­ [...]ense that Naaman had, and need not put themselves into danger for it. But if they do, they ought to expect their reward in Heaven, [...]nd not to complain of their lawful Sove­raign— In the mean time, they are to intend to obey Christ at his coming, but at present they are bound to obey the Laws of that Infidel King: all Christians are bound in Conscience [...]o to do.— Thought is free Lev. p. 238. — but when it comes to confession of Faith, the private Rea­son must submit to the publick; that is to say, to Gods Lieutenant.

Instead of the resolution of this Que­ [...]y, when we are to obey God, rather then man, you shew that we may very well do both together; and so [...]ndirectly you accuse the Apostles of falshood or folly in their sug­gestion. And here again you repeat your er­rors, that Christ hath not made any new Laws, and that the Faith of a Christian is intire with­out, or contrary to profession; and you sup­pose, what the experience of the World re­futeth, that Infidel Kings command not sometimes against the Laws of Nature. Also, whilst here you remit the Martyrs, scoffingly, to heaven for a reward, you fall, unawares, into the mock of Iulian the Apostate, who amidst his persecution, us'd this taunt; It becometh not you Christians to enjoy any thing in this world, for your Kingdom is in Heaven. But if such per­sons [Page 208] as suffer for Christianity, shall be rewarded in Heaven; their constancie then was noble and excellent, whilst they chose trouble rather then base compliance; and those who inflict­ed evils on them for doing what God approved, were unjust. If then you remit the Martyrs to Heaven, you send the civil Soveraigns, who shed the bloud of the Apostles for disobedience to their unrighteous Edicts, to a place of less re­freshment.

You have made your instance in the Apostles, of whose Martyrdom I ap­prove, because of their Commission. For o­thers, who hazard their lives for Christianity, I praise them not: he that is not sent Lev. p. 272. c. 42. [...] & p. 273. to preach the fundamental Article, but taketh it upon him of his private Authority, though he be a witness, and consequently a Martyr, either primary of Christ, or secondary of his Apostles, or their Successors; yet is he not o­bliged to suffer death for that cause; because being not called thereto, 'tis not required at his hands; nor ought he to complain, if he looseth the reward he expecteth from those that never set him on work. None therefore can be a Martyr, neither of the first nor second degree, that have not a warrant to preach Christ come in the Flesh; that is to say, none, but such as are sent to the conversion of Infi­dels.

Every Member of the Christian So­ciety [Page 209] is bound to profess the Gospel; as hath been proved: and therefore a private man, though he hath not right, not having Commis­sion to exercise the Offices of a Priest, yet hath he a command to own the truth, when he is adjur'd to confess of what faith he is; not onely in relation to Christianity in general, but also in relation to the Doctrines of Moment in it, which sometimes the Christian Powers do erre in. And every person will, with readiness, make such profession, notwithstanding the terrours of the Civil Sword, who hath sworn in his heart and tongue Allegiance unto Christ; who is sincere in his Religion; who valueth his soul more then his body; who is heartily per­swaded of a life or death eternal, the latter of which is

Our eleventh Subject.

The maintainance Lev. p. 238. c. 38. of civil Society, depending on Justice, and Justice on the pow [...]r of life and death, and other less re­wards and punishments, residing in them that have the Soveraignty of the Common-wealth; it is impossible a Common-wealth should stand, where any other then the Soveraign, hath a power of giving greater rewards then life; and of inflicting greater punishments then death. Now seeing eternal life is a greater reward then the life present; and eternal torment a greater punishment then the death of Nature; it is a thing worthy to be well considered, of all men that desi [...]e (by obeying Authority) to avoid the calamities of confusion and Civil War, [Page 210] what is meant, in holy Scripture, by life eternal, and torment eternal.

What is then to be understood by e­ternal Torment, if we aright interpret the Ho­ly Scripture?

I mean by these, such torments Lev. p. 345. as are prepared for the wicked in Gehen­na, or what place soever, [for a Season]. These have been Leviath. p. 242, 243 set forth by the Congre­gation of Gyants; the Lake of fire; utter dark­ness; Gehenna, and Tophet; which things are not spoken in a proper, but Metaphorical sence. Now where, or whatsoever, these tor­ments shall be, I Lev. p. 345. Sect. 1 can find no where that any man shall live in torments everlast­ingly.

In St. Matthew St. Mat. 25 last. the same Greek word, in the same sentence, is used in setting forth as well the happiness of the Righteous, as the punishment of the Wicked; which there­fore is to be construed as endless as the joy of the Pious, to the blessedness of whom the most daring Origenist hath not affixed a period.

I confess the torments to be e­ternal; but I am of opinion that the same per­sons do not eternally feel them. The Fire Lev. p. 345. Sect. last. or torment prepared for the wicked in Gehenna, [...]ophet, or in what place soever, may continue for ever; and there may never want wicked [Page 211] men to be tormented in them; though not e­very, nor any one eternally. The Fire Lev. p. 245. c. 3 [...]. pre­pared for the wicked, is an everlasting fire: that is to say, the estate wherein no man can be without torture, both of body and minde, after the Resurrection, shall endure for ever; and in that sence the fire shall be unquenchable, and the torments everlasting: but it cannot thence be inferred, that he who shall be cast into that fire, or be tormented with those torments▪ shall endure, and resist them so, as to be eter­nally burnt and tortured, and yet never be de­stroyed, nor dye.

You have by this means, so very much allayed the heat of the everlasting burnings (so far as it can be done by confidence in opini­on) that they are rendred almost as tolerable as a death by fire on earth. For the Epithet Everlasting, thus interpreted, cannot mightily affright a single person from evil manners, who considers that the Flame, how long soever it be continued in it self, shall scorch him but for a sea­son. But God in holy Scripture threatneth every man with perpetual misery; and where S. Mark 9.44. it saith that the fire shall not be quenched, it saith also, not that The worm, but their worm, or remorse of conscience, dyeth not. Our Sa­viour also taught us S. Matt. 5 25, 26. to make our Peace with God in this estate of Probation; before we were hal'd to Prison; where every one that cannot pay his deb [...]s to that Supreme Lord (towards whom our obligations can scarce be cancelled in that state, where we are depriv'd of [Page 212] means, neglected by us in this life) shall be chain'd to eternal Bondage. St. Iohn also saith, Rev. 20.10. that the Beast and the false Prophet shall be tormented in the Lake of fire and brimstone, day and night, for ever and ever. The Fewel, it seems, shall be as eternal as the Flame.

It seemeth Lev. p. 345. hard, to say, that God who is the Father of Mercies, that doth, in Heaven and Earth, all that he will; that hath the hearts of all men in his dispo­sing; that worketh in men both to do and to will; and without whose free gift a man hath neither inclination to good, nor repentance of evil, should punish mens transgressions without any end of time, and with all the extremi­ty of torture, that men can imagine, and more.

God hath so given such gifts to all, whom he will severely account with, that they are left without apology. And he will not seem an hard Master, if we have as due a re­gard to his Majesty and Goodness, both abused by us; and to our own means, and wilful re­fusal of the better part, whilst he hath set be­fore us life and death; as we are wont to have to our own flesh and bloud; seeing nothing burn­eth in Hell (as St. Bernard noted) besides the proper will of man.

But why to you of all men should this seem hard? For you believe that the irresistible power of God, as such, doth justifie all things; [Page 213] and Lev. p. 187. that the right of afflicting men at his pleasure, belongeth naturally to God Almighty; not as Creator and gratious; but as omnipotent.

This irresistible Power is urged by you, where it serveth your Hypothesis; and where it yeild­eth no advantage to your Cause, there you will have Mercy to succeed in its place. And this may be, more particularly observed, in a Section of your Book De Cive De Cive c. 4 p. 69. Sect. 9.. To the sixth Law of Nature (saith that Book) which teacheth that punishments respect the future, belong all those places of Holy Writ, which en­joyn the shewing of Mercy; such as are (Matt. 5.7.) Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Lev. 19.18. Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people. Now there are who think this Law so far from being confirmed, that they imagine it invalidated by the Scriptures: because there remaineth to the wicked eternal punishment after death, where there is no place either for amendment or example. Some resolve this objection, by saying, that God, who is under no obligation, referreth all things to his own Glory; but that it is not lawful for man so to do: as if God would seek his glory, that is to say, please himself in the death of a sinner. It is more rightly answer'd, that the institution of eternal punishment was before sin, and re­spected this onely, that men might, for the fu­ture, be afraid of sinning.

It is, from this place, to be observed, that you once construed the phrases of Scripture, wherein it speaketh of eternal torments, with [Page 214] relation to the persons, and not the mere state of torture; as also that you here ad­vance not power, but plead for Mercy; and lastly, that you abuse the veracity of God, by supposing him to scare the children of men, with such bug-bear threatnings, as shall never, upon their most enormous delinquencie, be put in execution.

But in what horrid place, and of what con­founding quality, are the future torments, if they be not, to single persons eternal? for I cannot but imagine that they are extreamly bitter, if they be but short. What then seemeth to you to be the place and state of the damned?

Gods enemies, and their tor­ments after Judgement Lev. p. 242., appear by the Scri­pture to have their place on eaath. And there the Reprobate Lev. p. 345, 346. shall be in the estate, that Adam, and his Posterity were in after the sin committed; saving that God promised a Re­deemer to Adam, and such of his seed as should trust in him, and repent; but not to them that should dye in their sins as do the Reprobate. And further— the wicked being left in the estate, they were in after Adams sin, may at the Resurrection live as they did, marry, and give in marriage, and have gross and corruptible bodies, as all mankinde now have; and conse­quently, may engender perpetually, after the Resurrection as they did before.

If all the wicked shall (as you ac­knowledge [Page 215] Lev. p. 244.), be together raised up; and put into Hell on earth; if also their condition shall be such as to admit of Generation, eating and drinking (the provisions for which require wide spaces upon earth, not at all possessed by the bodies of men) and there be also required room (as you assert) for the followers of Christ; it will trie the utmost of your Mathematick-skill, to finde place sufficient, for the bodies of all that have already lived, or shall live before the Universal Judgment. Some of no mean degree amongst the Learned See Dr. B's Pseud. Epid. p. 374. & [...] have, by pro­bable Rules, computed the number of men be­fore the Floud (who begat Sons and Daughters at a very great age); and have found it to ex­ceed much more then a thousand millions: in­somuch, that the Floud may seem to have been almost as necessary in relation unto the numbers of people, as to the increase of their iniquities. And they observe how, in less then four hundred years after the Floud, there were Armies Of Ninus against the Bactrians consisting of 700000 Foot, 200000 Ho [...]se, 10600 Cha [...]i [...] Of Semira [...]is agai [...]st the Indians, of 1300000 Foot, 500000 Horse, 100 [...]00 Chariots: Of Staurobates against her, consisting of a greater number. in the Eastern Coun­tries, sufficient to leave nothing rising there besides the Sun. If therefore Tophet be on earth, let it not any more be taken up, as a Proverb, by us, That Hell cannot be satisfi'd, seeing it will be glutted with half the people for whom it is prepared.

But, methinks, if that be, in truth, the estate of the Reprobate, which you have described; the literal Hinnom may seem to have been overspread with greater horror, then [Page 216] the mystical shall be; and the unrighteous may dance and leap with joy in their very chains of darkness; seeing they neither pinch extreamly at the present, nor shall be everlasting: there is nothing more Divine to voluptuous men, then to eat, and drink, and to exonerate nature, and to be immortal in their off-spring.

You are too hasty in your re­flexions: you mistake that for the full descripti­on of Hell, which I design'd for the easier part of it. I therefore tell you further, that they Lev. [...]. 244. shall be punished with grief, and discon­tent of mind, from the sight of that eternal fe­licitie in others, which they themselves, through their own incredulity, and disobedience, have lost. And because such felicity in others is not sensible but by comparison with their own actual miseries; it followeth that they are to suffer such bodily pains and calamities, as are in­cident to those, who not only live under evil and cruel Governours, but have also for Ene­my, the eternal King of the Saints, God Al­mighty.

But shall not there be Devils let loose upon those persons who have bin seduced by th [...]m from obedience to God! shall not they be deliver'd over to the Tormentors, who have not discharged their obligations towards him, and have such outward scourges superadded to the lash of remorse within?

For Leviath. p. 244. [...]ect. 1. See Lev. p. 213. the Tormentors, we [Page 217] have their nature and properties, exactly and properly, delivered by the names of the E­nemy, or Satan; the Accuser, or Diabolus; the Destroyer, or Abaddon: which significant names, Satan, Devil, Abaddon, set not forth to us any individual Person, as proper Names use to doe; but only an Office or Quality; and are there­fore Appellatives.— Gods Kingdome was in Palestine; and the Nations round about were the Kingdomes of the Enemy; and conse­quently by Satan, is meant any earthly Enemy of the Church. [You are therefore mistaken in the notion of Tormentors. Now that which completeth the misery of the damned is, that they shall dye again.]

That which you make the top of their calamitie, is to be reckoned as a priviledg, because it puts an end to their torment together with their being; the continuance of which cannot make recompence for that misery with which in the real Hell, it will be oppressed: but whence is it proved, by you, that the last pain of the damned is such destruction?

I learn, from the Scripture Lev. p. 244. See p. 243. that amongst bodily pains, is to be reckoned al­so to every one of the wicked, a second death: for though the Scripture be clear for an univer­sal Resurrection; yet we do not read, that to any of the Reprobate is promised an eternal life. [I know you will now salve your self by saying Lev. p. 332.] that by the second and everlasting death, is meant a second, and everlasting life, [Page 218] but in torments; a Figure never used but in this very case.

The Figure in which we speak, whilest we express a great calamitie by death, is of com­mon use, in relation to the incommodities of this present life: for nothing is more usual then to say, that to live is to be well. St. Paul with reference to his many troubles, said he dy­ed daily. And Grotius, somwhere Grotius in Apoc. 14.13. expoun­deth [...] by such, quibus vita haud vitalis. In Sophocles, you might have read these words;

That this, also, is the true meaning of the second death, appeareth to those who are aware that the phrase was borrowed by St. Iohn, from the Hebrew-Doctors; with whom it was, and is, most frequent, to call the torments of Hell by that very name. Wherefore those words of David Psal. 49.11▪ He seeth that wise men die, are thus Paraphrased by the Caldee Paraphrast: He shall see wicked wise men, who die the second death, and are adjudged to Hell.

Having now attended to your Opinion con­cerning the Place and Estate of the damned; methinks, it begetteth, in me, as feeble belief, as the Fables of Charon, and the River Styx, and the black Frogs therein, were wont to do in Iuvenal's daies, amongst the Romans; whose very children, (he saies) unless they were so young as not to pay for their Bath, were apt to scoffe at such improbable stories.

But let us now understand (in order to the dispatch of our Twelfth and last Head) What, more successful doctrine you can deliver, concerning the felicities of the just. He that can­not paint a Devil well, is not likelie to shew masterie in the painting of an holy Angel: but whatsoever your description be of eternal life, I am ready to fix my eye upon it; and if I es­pie reason, to approve it.

In delivering my opinion con­cerning the future state, I will begin by telling you, that, Lev. p. 241. the Soul of man is not in its own nature eternal, or a living creature inde­pendent on the body; and that no meer man is immortal, otherwise then by the resurrection in the last day, except Enoch and Elias.— But Lev p. 344. though there be no natural immortalitie of the Soul; yet there is life eternal, which the E­lect shall enjoy by grace.

It hath bin, alreadie, proved, that there is, in man, a spiritual substance which im­magineth, remembreth, reasoneth; and that therefore naturally it endureth after the dissoluti­on of that body from which it is, by such notori­ous marks, distinguish'd: neither doth it slumber, 'till the sounding of the last Trump, at the gene­ral resurrection. It is true, that without the assi­stance of Revelation we cannot, well understand that our withered bodies shall spring out of the dust: and therefore, with reference to the re­surrection, the ancient Iews, in their Forms of Benediction Pococ [...] in no [...]. in Doct. Moy [...]. p. 149. celebrated the power of God above the ordinary Laws of Nature: and what­ever [Page] hopes the Heathens may have, they can­not have firm assurance, that their Souls shall be permitted to enjoy that duration which they are, by nature capable of; or that, if they shall be permitted to survive their bodies, they shall have a great, or endless, happiness. For when they consider that there is God, and that, how virtuous soever they have bin, yet, their own consciences bearing witness, they have, too of­ten, transgressed his Laws; they may be justly suspicious either of annihilation, or at best, of a low degree of felicitie: and this suspition will be encreased if, with you, they gaze at his irre­sistible power, and look not, with hope, upon his Philanthropie: and therefore such salvation, as signifieth the advancement of the Soul of man to the utmost height of blessedness, is not of Nature or humane merit, but of grace; and an effect of the merits of our Lord, who ha­ving overcome death, did open the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers. But yet of this boun­ty we, in some measure, partake, if we dye as Christians, so soon as ever we have lay'd down this burthen of the flesh: and of this we are assured by Revelation; especially, by that in the New Testament: therein we read, that our Sa­viour promised to the repenting Thief, that ve­ry day, a place in Paradise, that is, in some Re­gion of happy Souls; which the Jews were wont to call Paradise, or the Garden of plea­sure. That, besides the bodily life, there is a Soul in man which cannot be touched by the sword, or utmost violence of our Enemies. That St. Stephen, in the very Article of death, commend­ed [Page] his Spirit into the hands of Christ▪ beseech­ing the same Jesus to receive it. That the dead, who dye in the Lord, are from henceforth, or Rev. 14▪13. [...]. jam nunc. Grot. i [...] loc. immediately in an happy estate. Neither can we, with tolerable sense, expound the Ar­ticle of Christs descending into Hell, or into Hades, that is, the state of the dead; as also his preaching to Spirits in prison; unless we sup­pose him to have had an immaterial Soul, whereby his Spirit might be in the state of se­parate Spirits, as well as his body was in the state of dead bodies, their corruption excepted: for to mean All of the body, is to say in effect, twice over, that he was dead and buried; and so to commit Tautology in the most compendi­ous systeme of the Christian Faith▪ Neither must we forget the wish of St. Paul, who de­sired to be dissolved that he might be with Christ; esteeming that far better for his own Person, though his continuance in the world was of more advantage to the Christian church. Now it cannot but be imagined that S. Paul exspected, so soon as ever he had quitted this earthly Tabernacle, to be received by Christ, in­to the mansions prepared above: for seeing his inclinations were so poised betwixt the thoughts of the benefit of the Church, and the delay of his consummate happiness, that he knew not which way to turn the scale; there is no doubt but he would have preferred the advantage of the Church, for which he would gladly spend, and be spent, before s [...]ch an E­state, wherein, for more then sixteen hundred years, he should not so much as think of Christ, [Page 222] or his holy Gospel, but be as if he had never bin.

[There are other places, per­haps more pertinent, to which I will return an answer.] And first, Lev. p. 343, 344. there are the words of Solomon (Ecclesiastes 12.7.) Then shall the dust return to dust, as it was, and the Spirit shall return to God that gave it: which may bear well enough (if there be no other Text directly a­gainst it) this interpretation, that God only knows, (but man, not) what becomes of a mans Spirit, when he expireth: and the same Solomon, in the same book, (Chap. 3. v. 20, 21.) delivereth the same sentence in the sense I have given it: his words are, All go (man and beast) to the same place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again: who knoweth that the Spirit of man goeth upward, and that the Spirit of the beast goeth downward to the earth? that is, none knows but God: nor is it an unusual phrase to say of things we understand not, God knows what, and God knows where.—But, what interpretation shall we give, besides the literal sense of the words of Solomon, Eccles. 3.19. That which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts, even one thing befalleth them: as the one dyeth, so doth the other; yea, they have all one breath (one Spirit) so that a man hath no prehe­minence above a beast, for all is vanity. By the litteral sense here is no natural immortalitie of the Soul.

You would here impose upon me, by [Page 223] confounding the sense of those several verses, which are to be interpreted apart from each o­ther. And that we may aright conceive the meaning of them (and not say only, though perhaps with reason we may do it, I'm sure with Authority Raimund Pug. Fid. p. 155. that Solomon here and in other places doth personate the Atheist;) it is fit that we observe how the Preacher, in this book, sets forth the beginning, progress, and ripeness of his disquisition, concerning the happiness of man. Wherefore in the begining of his enqui­ry, he setteth down his raw apprehensions: and he relateth, in the first and second Chap­ters, how he, once, thought folly equal with wisdom, and that there was nothing better then to eat and drink; and what adventures and trials he made, towards the better understand­ing of what was good for the sons of men: and in this third Chapter, he declareth how full of mystery he found the workes of God (v. 11.) and how little was manifest, especially to sensual men, of the future state: but in the e­leventh and twelfth Chapters, wherein he de­clareth his advanced judgement, and calleth men off from the world, to the thoughts of the day of account, and to the early remembrance of their Creator; to the fear of God, and the observance of his commands; he layeth it down as a positive doctrine (a doctrine apt to promote such observance, fear, and remem­brance) which at first was delivered, by him, as a probleme, or as the mistake of worldly men, that when the wheel shall be broken at the Cistern, and the circle of our blood utterly [Page] disturbed, then the dust shall return to the earth as it was; and the Spirit shall return to God who gave it.

But if the Spirit be the breath and life, and not an immaterial substance, why make you it so hard to know what becomes of it; so that only God can understand it? for might we not say, that the machine of the body is dissolved, the breath vanisheth in the soft air, the motion is gone from the carcasse into ambient bodies? we might then, with equal admiration say of a Clock broken all to peices, and in rest; God knoweth what is become of it; for, in both in­stances, there is only a dissolution of the con­texture of the parts, and the motion, convey'd to other portions of neighbouring matter.

Why, also, do you vary from the translation of the Hebrew copy▪ in Chap. 3. v. 21. for instead of, Who knoweth the spirit of man that is ascen­ding, and the Spirit of the beast that goeth down­ward to the earth? You have thus rendred the words; Who knoweth that the spirit of man go­eth upward? for there is great difference be­twixt this saying, Who knoweth that Mr. Hobbes is a Mathematician? and this, Who knoweth Mr. Hobbes, who is a Mathematician? The former disposition of Solomon's words sup­poseth a Spirit, and the ascent of it, and with­all, our ignorance of the nature of the Soul: the latter leaveth it doubtful whether the Spi­rit ascendeth or not. It is well (though I be­lieve you knew it not your self) that the Seven­tie Interpreters Lxx▪ [...], &c. are, a little, on your side.

But what is, on your part, to be said Lev. p▪ 344. to those words of Solomon in Chap. 4. ver. 3. of Ecclesiastes? Better is he that hath not yet been, then both they; that is, then they that live or have lived; which if the Soul of all them that have lived, were immortal, were a hard saying; for then to have an immortal Soul, were worse then to have no Soul at all.

To this, the easie truth is to be re­plyed, that the wise man preferreth a condition of not being (if we suppose him speaking in his own Person) before a life of misery: and doubt­less it is better to have no Soul, then to have a Soul immortal, together with immortal grief: and the saying is common amongst Divi [...]es, that it had bin better for Dives to have had no tongue, then to have bin possessed of it, meer­ly as a subject, for the fury of the infernal flames to prey upon: and I think also, it is the natural sense of mankind. Wherefore though Iob was a man of great fortitude of spirit, and one who feared, by impatience, to offend God; Yet when his calamities, as so many waves in thick succession, were ready to over-whelme him, he began to curse the day of his Nativi­tie.

There is yet another place in the book of Ecclesiastes, which confirmeth my opinion of the state of the dead. It is said, Lev. p. 344. in Chap. 9. ver. 5. That the living know they shall dye, but the dead know not any thing; that is, naturally, and before the resurrection of the body.

For answer to this citation, I [...]efe [...] you to Diodati, whose notes you have no rea­son to despise, seeing you have submitted the declaration of your judgement Lev. p. [...]38. to the An­notations of the Assembly, who pleased to transcribe so very many places out of the afore­said Authour: observe therefore the context, and his interpretation, which I may represent to you in this Paraphrase. Ver. 3. ‘By reason of this indifferency of events (mentioned by Solomon, in the beginning of the Chapter) worldly men dally with, 'till they die i [...], their sins. (Ver. 4.) For whilst life doth last, the gate of hope, and repentance, is open▪ though men make not use of this opportu­nity in order to their salvation. For a living dogg, that is to say, a great sinner alive, is hap­pier whilst God grants to him life, and op­portunitie of conversion; then a lesser sin­ner (compared to a Lyon, which is a more noble, and not so unclean a beast as a dogg) who dyeth in his impenitencie, and so is past all remedy. (Ver. 5. For the living know they shall die, and through the fear of death, may be induced to repentance, whilst there is space for it: but the dead know not any thing; not in this sense, that their souls do loose all knowledge, conscience, or remembrance; but in this, because it availeth them nothing to Salvation; and they understand not now the things that belong to their peace, for they are, by the absence of opportunity, quite hidden from their eyes: neither have they [Page] any more a reward, set down for virtue, whilst a man liveth in this world, which is the place appointed for us to labour▪ and run our race in: for the memory of them is for­gotten; God hath for ever cast them off, ac­cording to that of David Psal. 88.5. — Like the slain that lye in the grave, whom thou re­membrest no more: and they are cut off from thy hand.’ And this sense of the place is con­firmed by the tenth verse, where Solomon pres­seth men to a speedie exercise of religion, in these words: Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work nor de­vice, nor knowledg, nor wisdom in the grave whi­ther thou goest.

What answer have you to the words of Iob, Lev. p. 241. Chap. 14. ver. 7. There is hope of a tree, if it be cast down: though the root thereof wax old, and the stock thereof dye in the ground, yet when it senteth the water, it will bud, and bring forth boughs like a plant: but man dyeth and wasteth away, yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? And (ver. 12.) man lyeth down, & riseth not till the heavens be no more. But when is it, that the heavens shall be no more? S. Peter tells us that it is at the general resurrection.

It hath been thought by some, a suf­ficient answer to this place, to understand it of entire man, as he consisteth of soul and body; seeing man is not, man ariseth not, 'though the soul existeth and ascendeth, before the con­summate estate of both, in the great day of the [Page 228] Messiah. I know, also, that the Jews, Truth springing out of the Earth, p. 209 See Job 7. [...],10. con­sider Iob as a Gentile, who had no assurance of a future state, and that he speaketh, in the se­venth Chapter, as much against the resurrecti­on of the body, as the immortalitie of the soul. As the cloud (saith Iob) is consumed and vanisheth away; so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. And there are many who expound the letter (in the 19 Chap. and 25, 26. verses) of the restitution of Iobs body, tormented with worms, to soundness of health; and of the blessings descending upon him, in his latter daies, even to the eclipsing the glo­ries of his first posteritie.

What need is there of an­swer upon answer in the present case? for this doctrine of the natural immortalitie of the soul, which you so eagerly conted for, is Lev. p. 339. un­necessary to the Christian faith. For supposing that when a man dies, there remaineth nothing of him but his carcass; cannot God that raised inanimated dust and clay into a living creature by his word, as easily raise a dead carcass to life again, and continue him alive for ever, or make him dye again, by another word?

If you attempt, thus, to explain the resurrection of entire man, you will be pressed with such a weighty inconvenience, as cannot, by the utmost strength of your wit, be ever sustained. For if man be not raised up by a reunion of his immaterial soul to the main Sta­mina of such a body as he, somtimes, had; but [Page 229] meerly by the framing again, and moving, of such matter as he is supposed to have wholly consisted of, and by the help of which he hath done worthy, or shameful acts; then either the same man, who obeyed or transgressed, is not raised up to an estate of reward or punishment; or else he is raised with all the parts of matter which conduced to action, and appertained to him, almost from the cradle, to the grave, and is, therefore, in the last day, of such dimensions, that he may not only equal the antient Gyants of which we read in story, but likewise come nigh the bulk of those very mountains which they are said to have heaped up in defi­ance of H [...]aven.

Well; whatsoever the essence of man is, or whensoever any part of him is sup­posed to be happy; it is most probable, that, at the last day, the place of heaven, shall be on earth. The Lev. c. 35. p. 216. kingdom of God in the wri­tings of Divines, and specially in Sermons, and treatises of devotion, is taken most commonly for eternal felicity, after this life, in the highest heaven, which they also call the kingdom of glory; and somtimes for (the earnest of that felicity) sanctification, which they term the kingdome of grace; but never for the Monarchy, that is to say, the Soveraign power of God over any subjects acquired by their own consent, which is the proper signification of Kingdom. To the contrary, I finde the Kingdom of God to signifie, in most places of Scripture, a King­dom properly so named, constituted by the [Page 230] votes of the people of Israel in peculiar man­ner; wherein they chose God for their King by Covenant made with him, upon Gods pro­mising them the possession of the land of Ca­naan —Now the Throne Lev. p. 240. See more to this pur­pose, in this page. of this our King is in Heaven, without any necessity evident in Scripture, that man shall ascend to his happi­ness any higher then Gods footstool the earth.

There is no need of the consent of men, in the right notion, of the Kingdom of God; for the Lord is King, be the people ne­ver so unquiet. Also, there is nothing more frequent, in the New Testament, then the noti­on of Gods Kingdom of Grace in the dispen­sation of the Gospel; and of glory, in the highest Heavens. And for the latter, we pray in the second petition of that Form which our Lord taught us; and the former we acknow­ledge in the Doxologie. The holy Baptist, be­ing the fore-runner of the Christ, preached un­to the Jews (who though they justifi'd them­selves at present by the works of the Law, yet held repentance necessary to the reception of the Messiah) the Doctrine of Penance; adding this reason, because the kingdom of heaven was at hand: and this had been an improper Doctrine, if the Messiah, as you dream, was not to have a Kingdom, till after more then sixteen hun­dred years. Our Saviour, therefore, when he preached (as his Fore-runner had done) that Doctrine of Repentance; he us'd not the same phrase, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; but he said, Matt. 4. [...]7. See Matt. 12. [...]8. Repent, and believe the [Page 231] Gospel, that is, forsake sin, and enter into the Kingdom of the Messiah, by Grace. Our Lord, also (in the twelfth Chapter of St. Matthew) proveth, by his great power over Satan and the Kingdom of darkness, that the Kingdom of the Messiah, was then come. And he declared St. John 3 5. That Baptism was a Sacrament of entrance and admission into the Kingdom of the Go­spel. And he Joh. 12.13. receiv'd the Hosannah's of the people, who saluted him as that King of Is­rael, who came unto them in the name of the Lord. And when he was asked Luk. 17.20, 21. by the Pharisees, when the Kingdom of God should come, he answered; The Kingdom of God is within you; that is, it is already come, it is 'Ev [...] Luk. 1.28. Inter Mu­lier. amongst you. The further manifestation of his Kingdom, he foretold, in prophesy­ing of his coming to take vengeance on the bloudy Jews, by his scourges, the Romans, in the destruction of Ierusalem: the History of which, as it standeth in Iosephus, if it be duly compared with the predictions of our Lord, is sufficient to stop the widest mouth of profane­ness; and to hold up a powerful light against the dim Ey-balls of the most forsaken A­theists. To this the words of St. Mark have relation, in the ninth Chapter, and first Verse: Verily I say unto you, that there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Those words (alledged Lev. p. 341, 342. by Beza long ago) if taken grammatically, make it cer­tain [Page 232] that either some of those men that stood by Christ at that time, are yet alive, or else that the Kingdom of God must be now in this present world.— But yet if this Kingdom were to come at the Resurrection of Christ, why is it said, Some of them, rather then All? for they all lived till after Christ was risen.

Christ, at his Resurrection, had vindi­cated to himself, by way of conquest over Death and Hell, this spiritual Kingdom; but the manifestation of it, in power, was displayed in the desolation of the City of Ierusalem. And because (for instance) St. Iohn liv'd, to see the triumph of Christ, over his bloud-thirsty Ene­mies, though all the Apostles did not; there was, therefore, reason for saying, Some of them, rather then, All.

If Lev. p. 342. it be lawful to con­jecture at the meaning of the words, by that which immediately follows, both here, and in St. Luke, where the same is again repeated, it is not unprobable, to say they have relation to the Transfiguration, which is described in the Verses immediately following.— And so the promise of Christ was accomplished by way of Vision.

You are to look backward and not forward: for the words do manifestly relate to those of the eighth Chapter, where our Savi­our had commanded the embracers of his Go­spel to take up the Cross; and promised that, by their constancie in their Christian Profession, [Page 233] they should save their lives; whilst, others, who would endeavour to preserve life by denying the persecuted faith, should be destroyed: and so it came to pass, when Gallus, even against the reason of State, did raise the Siege before Ieru­salem; the Christians and convert-Jews, escape­ing, whilst a door was open, unto the Moun­tains, and into the City Pella; and not remain­ing 'till Titus, some moneths after, renewed the Siege. After this exhortation to constancie, and promise of deliverance, our Saviour, threat­ned that he would be ashamed of such, who should refuse to confess him before men, at his coming, in the glory of his Father, with his holy Angels: which coming with Angels, and open rejection of cowardly spirits, (importing their present claim, and his re­fusal) agreeth not to his Transfiguration, which was transacted in secret with some of the Disciples, and the apparition of Moses and Elias.— There is therefore reason for Di­vines, to insist upon a kingdome of Christ, al­readie come, a kingdom of the Gospel: neither want they reason on their side, when they af­firm, that the kingdom of glory is in the high­est Heavens; and not on earth: which if men rise the same they were when they acted in the present world (retaining all their parts, howsoe­ver new-moulded,) then according to your Hy­pothesis, which conceiveth man to be wholly material, the whole earth will be little enough to give the Blessed space, wherein to move with pleasure; and we shall be as much in the dark for the place of the damned, as the place it self is said to be.

[Page 234]Our blessed Saviour hath assur'd us, that we shall, in the Resurrection, be like the Angels. And St. Paul hath, also, informed Christians, that they shall be indued with Coelestial Bodies, when they have put off these earthly Sepulchres in which their nobler mindes lay entombed; and that this body of flesh and bloud (for of that, is his whole discourse St. Hie­ron. in Esai. c. 24. p. 102. Ca­ro & san­guis reg. Dei non posside­bunt. Non quod, se­cundum haeriticos, dispereat natura corporum, sed quod corrupti­vum hoc induat in­corruptio­nem, &c. and not of a­ny moral body, of sin and corruption) shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. And from hence Athenagoras Athenag. p. 35. hath been taught to say, that in the Resurrection, we shall not be as flesh, though we bear flesh about us. Now this Angelical, Coelestial Body, seemeth very una­greeable to the condition of Inhabitants upon earth: neither had innocent Adam such a body in Paradise. And it is, also, to be noted, that the Blessed cannot, by any means enjoy such Coele­stial Bodies, according to the principles by you delivered; and of this I, above, have given some intimation. For if man be onely a piece of well-disposed matter, and is devoyd of an immaterial soul, upon the permanent oneness of which dependeth, chiefly, his individuation, he is no more the same person upon so great an al­teration made in the contexture of the body, then a spire of Grass is the same with part of the flesh of an Ox, into which after digestion, it is transform'd.

But why doth it seem to you incredible, that holy men shall be caught up with Enoch, and Elias, and St. Paul, and enjoy their happiness in Heavenly Regions, when there are so many places of Scripture which look that way?

[Page 235]Our blessed Lord Matt. 5.12. administreth comfort to such as bear his Cross, by telling them that their reward is great in Heaven. And he ad­viseth Matt. 6.19, 20, 21. and Luke 12.33. all his followers, to lay up for them­selves treasures, not on earth, but in the hea­vens, that their hearts may with the greater fa­cility be lifted up, by Divine and Heavenly Me­ditation. And Joh. 14.1, 2, 3. he spake these words of con­solation to his Disciples who began to be, most deeply concerned, at the thoughts of his departure: Let not your heart be troubled: ye be­lieve in God, believe also in me. In my Fathers house are many mansions; if it were no: so, I would have told you. And if I go and pre­pare a place for you, I will come again, and re­ceive you unto my self, that where I am, there ye may be also. This, then, was the Doctrine of Christ; as also of his Apostles. St.Paul deli­vereth this Doctrine with much confidence, saying 2 Cor. 5.1., We know, 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. And Col. 1.5. he blesseth God for the faith of the Colossians; and for the hope which was laid up for them, in the Heavens. And he comforteth the Thessalonians 1 Thess. 41.6, 17., after this manner: The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the Arch-angel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive, and remain, shall he caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. The Author, also, of the Epistle to the Hebrews [Page 236] Heb. 10.34., extolleth the patience of the afflicted Con­verts, and likewise insinuateth the great Reason which they had to take joyfully the spoiling of their earthly goods, because they had in Hea­ven a better and enduring substance.

I have, with much patience, at­tended to your citations: there is reason that now you should listen to such as on my side, may be produced. We finde Joh. 3.13. Lev. p. 240, 241. written in in St. Iohn, That no man hath ascended into hea­ven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man that is in heaven— yet Christ was then not in Heaven, but upon the earth. The like is said of David (Acts 2.34.) where St. Pe­ter, to prove the Ascension of Christ, using the words of the Psalmist Psal. 16.10., Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thine holy One to see cor­ruption, saith, they were spoken (not of David, but) of Christ; and to prove it, addeth this rea­son, For David is not ascended into Heaven. But to this a man may easily answer, and say, that though their bodies were not to ascend till the general day of Judgement, yet their souls were in Heaven, as soon as they were depart­ed from their bodies; which also seemeth to be confirmed by the words of our Saviour Luk. [...]0. [...]3, 38. who proving the Resurrection out of the words of Moses, saith thus, That the dead are raised, even Moses shewed, at the bush, when he called the Lord, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Iacob. For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living; for they all live to him. But if these words be to be [Page 237] understood onely of the immortality of the soul, they prove not at all that which our Sa­viour intended to prove, which was the Resur­rection of the body, that is to say, the immor­tality of man. Therefore our Saviour meaneth that those Patriarchs were immortal; not by a property consequent to the Essence, and Na­ture of Mankinde; but by the Will of God, that was pleased of his meer Grace, to bestow e­ternal life upon the faithful. And though at that time the Patriarchs, and many other faith­ful men were dead, yet, as it is in the Text, they lived to God; that is, they were written in the Book of Life with them that were absolved of their sins, and ordained to life eternal at the Resurrection.

Our Lord design'd to prove a future state, against the Sadduces, who denyed, not onely the Resurrection of the body, but like­wise the existence of Angel or Spirit: and the words [...] or [...], do not always imply the raising of the body; but, being used without the addition of flesh or body, do usually denote the future life, and the awakening, and ad­vancing of the Soul; or the conserving or keep­ing of it alive; as God is said to have raised up Pharaoh, that is, to have kept him still alive Vorst. in Rom. 9 17. [...] Hoc es [...]. fe­ci ut resta­res, vel su­peresles. sec. Hebr. ita (que) sen­sus est, No­lui [...] ex­scindere, sed potius reservare. And whereas you suggest, that the Patriarchs were alive onely by destination; it is an expo­sition derived by you, from your Hypothesis, that man is wholly mortal, and not from the letter of the words, where Christ speaketh in the present, and not the future time; affirming [Page 238] that the Patriarchs live already, and not that they shall be awakened unto life, after many hundreds of years.

A second place is Lev. p. 239. that in St. Paul (1 Cor. 15.22.) For as in Adam all dye, even so in Christ shall all be made alive— Now, if as in Adam, all dye, that is, have forfeited Paradise, and eternal life on earth; so in Christ all shall be made alive; then all men shall be made to live on earth; for else the comparison were not proper.

That Adam, if he had remained obe­dient, should have lived eternally upon earth, together with all the race of men to have been produced out of his loyns (to whom this earth would, at last, have denyed Elbow-room) is a conceit of yours which reason doth not fa­vour. For the first man was of the earth earthy, he was sustained by corruptible food; he was design'd for propagation before his fall; which things seem to argue a mortal nature, and are, by our Saviour, excepted from the condition of those who shall enjoy eternal blessedness. And though it was said to him, that in eating the forbidden fruit he should dye the death; that argueth thenceforth a necessity of dying and denyeth not a capableness of dying formerly: and though God Almighty could have sustain'd his mortal nature for ever upon earth, yet there is (as I think) no promise of it in Holy Writ: and whilst we consider the future estate of blessed men, described in Scripture; there is [Page 239] some reason for us to believe, that he should have rather been translated to an Heavenly Pa­radise, then to have dwelt, for ever, in the E­den below.

Neither was it the business of the Apostle, in this Text, to determine any thing of the place, but to set forth the priviledge of Belie­vers, by the means of Christ, at the last day. The meaning of the Apostle, who speaketh here of those that are Christs, seems no other then this. As all who came from Adam were ob­noxious to death, and could not, naturally, claim the priviledge of a Resurrection to life e­ternal: So all who believe in the Messiah shall not rot for ever in the grave, but be raised up to e­verlasting happiness. To this sense agree both Crellius, and Vorstius, whom I, the rather, name to you, because they were men of singularity in conceit, and such as stepped out of the bea­ten Road of Divinity, which the Orthodox believe the truest and safest way. In the Para­phrase of this comparison, All of one kinde, is answered by All of the other kinde, and death by life: And therefore there is no impropriety in the comparison, though, in other particu­lars, the things compared disagree. The main scope of the Apostle, in setting forth the ad­vantage of Believers at that day, by Christ, doth justifie the similitude, though the place of life be not the same to all the Sons of Adam which was possessed by that Root of mankinde. Parables (saith Salmeron, who wrote of them) are like to swords; the Hilts and Scabbards of them are variously wrought, but it is the Edge whereby they [...]o execution.

Notwithstanding what hath been talk'd, I still maintain that Lev. p. 345. the Elect after the Resurrection shall be restored to the estate, wherein Adam was before he had sin­ned: [and that the place shall be on earth, and more particularly at and about Ierusalem]. Con­cerning Lev. p. 246. the general salvation, because it must be in the Kingdom of Heaven, there is great difficulty concerning the place. On one side, by Kingdom (which is an estate ordained by men for their perpetual security against Enemies, and want) it seemeth that this Sal­vation shall be on earth: for by Salvation is set forth unto us, a glorious reign of our King, by conquest; not a safety by escape: and therefore there where we look for Salvation, we must look also for Triumph; and before triumph; for victory; and before victory, for battle: which cannot well be supposed, shall be in hea­ven — and it is evident by Scripture, that Sal­vation shall be on earth, then, when God shall reign (at the coming again of Christ) in Ieru­salem; and from Ierusalem shall proceed the Salvation of the Gentiles that shall be received into Gods Kingdom.

In this speech of yours, there is a threefold error, easily confuted and broken in sunder. First, you say the Elect shall be in the estate of innocent Adam; and you would have comparison answer comparison, as face answer­eth face. Yet our Saviour saith, That the elect shall neither eat, drink, nor marry. Secondly, you suppose a War in the estate of the heaven [Page 241] on earth; and after that victory: the former of which, is inconsistent with that uninter­rupted peace which the Scripture ascribeth to that estate; and the latter is meant of Christ the Captain of our Salvation conquering death; in behalf of Believers, by dying, and arising again, and triumphing over death in ascending and reigning at Gods Right-hand. Wherefore St. Paul saith 1 Cor. 15.55, 56. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? And, again, Thanks be to God which giveth us the victo­ry, through our Lord Iesus Christ. Neither (in the third place) do you speak consistently with your self, when you mention Ierusalem as the Metropolis of Heaven. For blessedness being, by you, supposed the recovery of the estate lost in Adam, the chief seat of it ought, by you, to have been fixed in the Region of Eden; which, where it is, those Atheists who scoff at the story of Adam, may be instructed, both in relation to their knowledge and manners, by an obscure, but yet most learned Mr. Car­ver of the scituation of the ter­restrial Pa [...]adise. Geographer and Divine.

Will you suffer me to proceed in proving that the future estate of Gods subjects shall be upon earth, & particularly at Ierusalem?

You shall not be unseasonably inter­rupted.

That it shall be on earth is pro­ved from a third place Lev. p. 239., 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 was the Tree of Adams eternal life, but his life was to have been on earth.

You here mistake (as many have done in attempting to unfold the Revelation) this Book of Mysteries which representeth, Al­legorically, to our senses, the things in Heaven, by patterns on earth. There is a Paradise not upon earth; an entrance into which our Saviour promised to the relenting and believing Male­factor, that very day upon the Cross. Besides, the meer letter of the Text fixeth the chief Seat of Heaven in Eden, not in Ierusalem.

To my opinion concerning the Heavenly Ierusalem on earth, seemeth L [...]v. It. to a­gree that of the Psalmist (Psal. 133.3) Vpon Zion God commanded the blessing, even life for evermore: for Zion, is in Ierusalem, upon earth.

This blessing is meant of temporal long life which God promised, so especially, to the o­bedient, in the Land of Canaan: neither cannot it (with reason) be interpreted of a life eternal; for David saith, in the last place, that God did there command a blessing. Besides, though Zion was at Ierusalem; yet Hermon, which is first named, was on the other side of Iordan, on the utmost part of the holy Land Ea [...]tward.

My opinion seemeth, again, to be confirmed Lev. p. 239. by St. Iohn, (Rev. 21.2.) where he saith, I Iohn saw the holy City, new Ierusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And again, vers. 10. to the same effect; as if he should say, The new Ierusalem, the paradise of God, at the coming again of Christ, should come down to Gods people from heaven, and not they go up to it from earth.

Heaven is the Ierusalem above, which the Patriarchs sought Heb. 11 10, to 16. in contra-distinction to Canaan below: of this Ierusalem above, St. Paul saith Gal. 4.25, 26. that it is free that is, typed by Sa­rah the free-woman, and cannot but be free from Enemies seeing God is the King of it) and that it is the mother of us all; that is, the Gospel came thence immediately by Christ, and not, as the law, by the mediation of an An­gel. Our original, as Christians, we owe to heaven, and thence are we nourished; and pre­served by the divine grace: and to the revela­tion of this Ierusalem Christians attain, by the preaching of the Gospel, which is a dispensati­on of more clearness and comfort then the Law See Heb. 1.12, to 258. And the new Ierusalem descending is a type of Heaven in a glorious estate of the Christian Church on earth; the commencement of which hath much puzled those who have spent their studies about the great Millenium. But this new Ierusalem descended is not to be esteemed the estate of just men made perfect, because it is said that the Rev. 21.24. Nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and also that after the thousand years, wherein the Martyrs are thought to raign with Christ, in the new Ierusalem below; the devil Rev. 20.7, 8, 9. shall be loosed and go out to deceive the Nations, and with them, as Enemies in battel array, to encompass the holy City: which things are improperly ascribed to a state of entire joy, in the life eternal, of the saved in the Ierusa­lem above. If then as Mr.Mede affirmeth M. Medes in Clav. Apoc. par. 2. p. 534.5. and attempteth to prove) the new Ierusalem Syncronizeth with the seventh Trumpet or In­terval [Page 244] from the destruction of the beast, and supposeth afterwards a loosing of Satan, it can­not be understood of the highest heaven, or the consummate happiness of man.

[There are behind, divers pla­ces in the Prophets, in order to the evading of whose force, you will much perplex your un­derstanding: and when I have once produced them, I shall then have done drawing, at my end, of this Saw of disputation.]

How good soever Lev. p. 246▪ 247, c. 38. the Reason, before alleadged, may b [...], I will not trust to it, with­out very evident places of Scripture. The state of Salvation is described at large, Isaiah 33. ver. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. Look upon Zion, the Ci­ty of our solemnities; thine eyes shall see Ierusa­lem a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down; not one of the stakes thereof shall ever be removed, neither shall any of the cords thereof be broken. But there the glorious Lord will be unto us a place of broad Rivers, and streams, wherein shall goe no galley with oars; neither shall gallant ship pass thereby. For the Lord is our Iudge, the Lord is our Law-giver, the Lord is our King, he will save us. Thy tacklings are loosed; they could not well strengthen their ma [...]t; they could not spread the sail: then is the prey of a great spoil divided, the lame take the prey, and the [...]nhabitants shall not say I am sick; the people that shall dwell therein shall be forgiven their ini­quity. In which words we have the place from whence salvation is to proceed, Ierusalem, a [...]; the eternity of it, a Tabernacle that [...]: be taken down, &c. the Saviour [Page 245] of it, the Lord, their Judge, their Law-giver, their King, he will save us; the Salvation, the Lord shall be to them as a broad mote of swift waters, &c. The condition of their enemies, their tacklings are loose; their masts weak, the lame shall take the spoyl of them. The condi­tion of the saved, the inhabitant shall not say, I am sick: and lastly, all this comprehended in forgiveness of sin; the people that dwell there­in shall be forgiven their iniquity. By which it is evident that Salvation (as I said) shall be on earth, then, when God shall reign (at the com­ing again of Christ) in Ierusalem; and from Ie­rusalem shall proceed the salvation of the Gen­tiles that shall be received into Gods kingdom: as is also more expresly declared by the same Prophet, Chap. 65.20, 21. And they (that is, the Gentiles who had any Jew in bondage) shall bring all your Brethren for an offering to the Lord, out of all Nations, upon Horses, and in Charrets, and in Litters, and upon Mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy Mountaine, Ierusalem, saith the Lord, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord: & I will also take of them for Priests, and for Levites, saith the Lord. Whereby it is manifest, that the chief seat of Gods kingdom (which is the place from whence the salvation of us that were Gentiles, shall proceed) shall be Ierusalem: and the same is also confirmed by our Saviour, in his discourse with the woman of Samaria, concerning the place of Gods worship; to whom he saith, Ioh. 4.22. That the Samaritans worshipped they knew not what, but the Jews worship what they knew, for salvation is of the Jews, (ex Iudaeis, [Page 246] that is, begins at the Jews:) as if he [...]hould say, you worship God, but know not by whom he will save you, as we do, that know it shall be by one of the tribe of Iudah, a Iew, not a Samari­tan: and therefore also the woman not imper­tinently answered him again, We know the Messias shall come. So that which our Saviour faith, Salvation is from the Iews, is the same that S. Paul sayes▪ (Rom. 1.16, 17.) The [...]spel is the power of God to salvation to every one that belie­veth; to the Iew first [...]nd also to the Greek: for therein is the righte [...]sness of God revealed from faith to f [...]ith; from the faith of the J [...]w, to the faith of the Gentile. In the like sense the Prophet Ioel describing the day of judgement (Chap. 2.30, 31.) that God would shew wonders in hea­ven and in earth, blood and fire, and pillars of s [...]ak; the Sun shall be turned into darkness, and the Moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come; he add [...]th, ver. 32. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved: for i [...] mount Zion, and in Ierusalem shall be Salvation. And Obadiah ver. 17. saith the same, Vpon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holy­ness, and th [...] h [...]use of Jacob shall possess their pos­sessions, that is, the poss [...]ssions o [...] the heathen; which possessions he expresseth most particular­ly in the following verses, by the mount of Esau, the land of the Philistin [...]s, the fields of Ephraim, of Samaria Gilead, and the Cities of the South; and concludes with these words, The kingdome shall be the Lords. All these places are for salva­tion, and the kingdome of God (after the day of judgement) upon earth.

It is manifest that Isaiah, in those places, meaneth the salvation from Senacherib & the As­syrians wrought by God himself, in the daies of Hezekiah; whilst the Jews relyed upon Sethon, who deceiv'd them, hoping that the As [...]yrians and they weakning each other, his strength might be the better promoted against both. The Prophecy of Ioel concerneth, literally, those times, when th [...] Caldeans, by sword and fire, destroyed Ieru­salem, at which season, (according to the height of the prophetick style) the very face of the hea­vens (by reason of the flames, and smoke, and streams of blood) were alter'd, to the amazement of common spectators. It seemeth also a type of the destruction of Ierusalem by Titus. The saved, V. 32. were the captives reserved alive, a remnant design'd by God for the continuance of his Church. Obadiah is to be understood See 2. Chron. 28.9.16, 17. &c. of the destruction of the Edomites, and of the aforesaid salvation from the Assyrians. The places in S. Iohn, and S. Paul, relate to the beginning of the Gospel, & not to the beginning of the kingdome of glory Luk. 24.47. Rep. & rem. to be preached to all—be­ginning at Jerusalem Acts 13.46.—the word first spoken to you— the Messiah according to the flesh, ari­sing from that Nation; and the Gospel being first offered to th [...]m. You should have done well to have added those other words in St. Iohn (V. 21.) The hour cometh & now is when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Fa­ther. You have, for the serving your hypothesis erred most grosly in these your last interpretati­ons of holy writ: & I cannot but pity you, whilst I perceive you, in gloriously, stumbling, when you are just stopping out of this disputation. Let no man, hereafter, honour you with the name of Phi­losopher, who findeth you no happier at the in­terpretation of Nature, then of the holy Bible; [Page 248] into the inward sense of which you enter not, by any expedite unlocking of its mysteries; being resolved to force a way, through it, to your own novel conceits. But at this, I am not to be asto­nished: for there is so much learning, and so much attention required to the true understand­ing of divers sections of holy writ; that if a man hath not made it much his business, to study, and meditate, about that true and concerning part of Antiquity, to compare text with text, and read­ing with reading, and sacred history with pro­fane, his thoughts will scarce be worth the wri­ting down upon the most neglected piece of pa­per. Good Sir be wise to sobriety; handle the Scripture with more reverence and care; be not rashly busie in relation to the things of the Al­tar, for there is a burning coal, ready, always, to stick to a profane finger, which will endanger somthing of greater price then your reputation.

You your self have not examined An Imi­tation of his conclus of Stigmal, p. 31. the Scriptures to the bottom: therefore you perhaps may be, but are not yet, a good Divine. I would you had but so much Ethicks, as to be civil: but you are a notable expositor, so fare you well, and consider what honor you doe to the U­niversity of which you have bin a member; and what honor you do to Corpus Christi Colledge, by your divinity; & what honor you do to your De­gree, with the manner of your language: & take this counsel along with you; Think me no more worthy of your pains; you see how I have fouled your fingers.

Nay, if the scene be so changed, that we must rail and quarrel instead of debating matters with sober reason, it is time to have done; the world having long since, had enough of passion and impertinent noise.