abominable that Moses should be placed as a person in the Trinity well let us see his answer further in this place that saith he the Authour did labour to explain the Trinity was pia voluntas but erronea explicatio it was a pious desire but an erroneous explication surely it is a pious desire in any man to endeavour to explain any Divine truth out certainly it cannot be imagined that a man of his parts and learning could be so overseen in so high a Point of Divinity as to think that such a person ought to pass for the father but that he would steal a discredit of that great and most universally received truth by interposing such a cloud before it for saith he Moses because he after some manner seems to bear the person of God as do all Christian Kings he seems to make him one person of the Trinity valde negligenter this was exceeding negligently done and pittiful repentance for such a crime to blaspheme God and call man God for so must each person in the Trinity be no it looks not like repentance but a vain excuse which near upon amounts to a justification but he proceeds If saith he he had said that God in his proper person had made the world in the person of his Son had redeemed mankind in the person of the holy Ghost had sanctified his Church be had said no more then is in the Catechisme put out by the Church certainly he is much out in this saying for the Catechisme of the Church of England has no such saying as God in prop iâ personâ God in his proper person did make the world this expression propriâ personâ is not there nor I think in any confession of any Christian Church to be used for the Father all three are proper Persons no one more then other neither doth the Catechism use that very phrase Person in that whole answer for it is thus I believe in God the Father who hath made me and all the world not that he made it in propriâ personâ for it was the work of the whole Trinity and the God who is the whole Trinity is the Almighty Father which made the world no one word which signifieth one person to be more proper then another Secondly in God the Son who hath Redeemed me and all mankind it is true this Redemption being a glorious effect of the Death and Sufferance of Christ which must needs be acted in his humanity which was united to his Divinity to the second Person in the Trinity hath a most proper termination in the Son so that I do yield it must be implyed that it was acted in the Son but it is not expressed and therefore although it was materially the same yet formally it was not and he said more then was in the Catechism and for the last it is not said in the Catechism that God in the Person of the Holy Ghost did Sanctify his Church but in God the Holy Ghost who sanctifieth me and all the Elect People of God which although God the Holy Ghost in the Catechism be the same with the third Person yet he is not called so there and we may mark that although these three Persons are put down in the Catechisme as fountains of those great Blessings comminicated to man yet no where is any called proper person of God more then the other nor is any of those blessings appropriated to any person exclusively shutting out the other so that although it is said God the Father who made me it is not said without the Son of which abundance of Scripture affirms he made the World and Mr. Hobs dealt unhandsomly with our Catechism when he forced such a sense upon it SECT III. Another Answer Censur'd BUt perhaps he hath a better Exposition afterwards for when the Objector immediately after urged that Mr. Hobs used that Language in divers places he answered That all of them might receive that Exposition but he a little further explains himself thus Vel si dixisset or saith he if he had said God in his proper person had constituted himself a Church by the Ministry of Moses in the person of his Son had redeemed the same in the person of the holy Ghost had sanctified the same he had not erred Thus far he but it seems to me strange that both these should be without Errors for they are extreamly different in the first God in his proper person to Create the World and the second in his proper person by the Administration of Moses to constitute a Church but that phrase of in his proper person is unheard of amongst any who are not with it called Hereticks for if God the Father did any of those great works in his proper person then the Son did not operate in them which is against the whole sense of Scripture Joh. 1.3 All things were made by him and without him was nothing made that was made Of which I have treated at large in my former Piece with much more which is to be seen in every Writer upon this Subject or else the same must be the very person of the Father which is horrid Divinity or else not a proper but an improper person of the Deity which is alike hateful Then consider his next proposition that God in the person of the Son did redeem the same what is that he calls the same surely that was the Church of the Israelites only for Moses constituted no other Church then Christ Redemed them only when before in the former opposition according to our Church Catâ—chisme he Redeems Mankind which is much larger then the Church which Moses constituted and then last of all when he saith that God in the person of the Holy Ghost did sanctifie the same it is too narrow for his former proposition which was that in the Person of the Holy Ghost God did Sanctifie the Church which is much larger then the Synagogue which was constituted by Moses and when he said he had not Erred if he had phrased it after that manner I say it is evident he had erred and erred grievously in expressing himself either of these ways CAP. V. Joh. 1.1 Explained I Pass now to Page 364. where at the top is objected that in his 43. Cap. he should say Joh. 1.1 that the word there and so likewise in the 14. verse doth signifie a promise and that promise is the same with the thing promised that is Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 it is Psalm 105.19 and the 40.13 and other places I will not dispute this further I have writ at large concerning this place and do answer to him both in this objection and to his Justification of it in his answer that avails him nothing towards his disgrace of the Divine Nature of this word if it should be allowed such a sense for that he was the person is evident out of his gloss and let that person be eternally with God and be God as the Text speaks that he
Rebellious force and violence of great numbers of the people yet those who got the Soveraignty at such times had it not by any such Institution as is here described by the peoples authorising that Person to these Actions he is exalted to but from the Peoples subserviency obtained by his wit or fraud to his great Ambition Here I might put an end to his Politiques with a little enlargement upon this Subject for the Foundation being destroyed the building must fall But I will touch upon his Inferences which will make this Foundation appear more weak CHAP. V. SECT I. Mr. Hobbs his first Inferrence affirmed the Soveraign absurdly termed the person of the People .. HE first infers that because they Covenant it is to be understood that they are not bound by a former Covenant to any thing repugnant thereunto This must be most true not of this Covenant only but all other Covenants No man can alienate any Estate twice without his leave to whom he alienated it first and so where one has disposed his allegiance to one he cannot take it away and dispose it to another afterward I like the conclusion that follows also thus And consequently they that have already instituted a Common-wealth being thereby bound by Covenant to own the Actions and Judgments of one cannot lawfully make a new Covenant amongst themselves to be obedient to any other in any thing whatsoever without his permission And therefore they who are Subject to a Monarchy cannot without his leave cast off Monarchy and return to the confusion of a disunited multitude nor transfer their Person from him that beareth it to another man or Assembly of men This hath truth with it out of the grounds formerly spoke of But this senseless name of calling their Soveraign their person or to found the Allegience to their Soveraign upon their Covenant which never was nor could be is to make it extreamly weak and his reason is most illogical and without force for saith he They are bound every man to every man to own and be reputed Author of all that he that already is their Soveraign shall do and judge fit to be done so that one man dissenting all the rest should break their Covenant made to that one man which is injustice I do not understand the consequence of this Argument That if one man dissent all the rest should break the Covenant made to that man for his dissenting may break his Covenant but why it should make them break their Covenant is not vissible to me SECT II. His expression of giving the Sovereignty to him that bears their person further censured HIS following discourse is not more reasonable than this And they have also every man given the Soveraignty to him that heareth their person And therefore if they despose him they take from him that which is his own and so again it is Injustice That phrase Given him the Soveraignty who bears their person is not rational for according to his own Doctrine it is the same thing to be Soveraign and bear their person if he had spoke logically according to his doctrine his phrase should be who is their person for so he makes the Soveraign to be the person of the Common-wealth not to bear it which is another thing But then mark you what a slight thing he makes Rebellion only a little Injustice for so that word Injustice may extend it self to any the least Injustice He takes that from him that was his a poor piece of business every little Theft doth so SECT III. The irrationality of Mr. Hobbs his arguing further discovered Covenants may be made immediately with God HE adds another reason very weakly Besides saith he If he that attempteth to depose his Soveraign be killed or punished by him for such attempts he is author of his own punishment as being by the Institution Author of all his Soveraign shall do And because it is Injustice for a man to do any thing for which he may be punished by his own Authority he is also upon that title unjust Certainly Reader you may wonder at the strange unreasonableness of this Arguing This proves by his supposed Institution no faultiness in this Treason for suppose a Soveraign shall punish a Subject for speaking truth he doth it according to his institution by the Authority given by that Subject and that Subject is Author according to his Doctrine of killing himself for Truth as well as for Treason because he is Author of all his Actions and there is as much injustice in the one as in the other especially considering another Inference which he makes and will be discoursed on hereafter That a Supream can do no Injustice But he adds not another argument but an answer to another Objection I will speak to that his words are And whereas some men have pretended for their disobedience to their Soveraign a new Covenant not made with men but God this is also unjust for there is no Covenant with God but by mediation of some body that representeth God's Person which none dâ—th but God's Lieutenant who hath the Soveraignty under God But this pretence of Covenant with God is so evident a lye even in the pretenders own Consciences that it is not only an act of an unjust but also of a vile and unmanly disposition Thus He. This I yield unto so far that it is sinful and wicked to engage in any Covenant with God against his Soveraign but his means of obtaining it I deny He scarce ever speaks or names God but with an Error in particular here what a false affirmation is this to say That there is no Covenant with God but by mediation of some body who representeth Gods person which none doth but Gods Lievtenant who hath the Soveraignty under God Certainly a man may make Covenant with God betwixt God and his own Soul in private in his Chamber before men in Company divers are recorded in Scripture and pious men often use it and practice it accordingly and when these Covenants are holy and devout God blesseth them and those persons are obliged to those duties But it is true in the case in which he instanceth all such Covenants are wicked in the making and most abominable in the performance for it is a Covenant with God in himself to destroy him in his deputy a Covenant with God in Heaven to oppose him on Earth the iniquity lyeth not in this That the Soveraign is the peoples Person for then the height of the sin lyes in this that the people are affronted but in this other way God in his way it is but an injury to such as themselves but in this it is to our politique Father to whom under God we owe all our obedience and is the first command of the Second Table with promise in this World Of this Nature are those contracts betwixt man and woman concerning Marriage those promising Oathes which men make one with another which oblige the contractors
evident I think to be apprehended that the same rights and consequencies of Soveraignty which belongs to a Supreme by Institution do not belong to one by Conquest CHAP. XVI SECT I. Mr. Hobbs his method censured his contradictions noted Of the right of Dominion from Generation Paternal Dominion not flowing from the consent of children Infants cannot consent Paternal Dominion flowing from the Laws of God and Nature Scripture vilified by Mr. Hobbs IN the next Paragraph he comes to treat of Dominion Paternal how attained as the Margin directs My first note shall be upon his method He had treated in the precedent Cap. of Dominion by Institution then the Title of this Cap was of Dominion Paternal and Despotical In all the preceding part of this Cap. he hath handled only Dominion by acquisition and that without consideration of what he had writ before he defined to be such as is got by force Now he confutes himself in the first words of this Paragraph which are Dominion is acquired two ways either by Generation or by Conquest That by Generation I am sure cannot be called by force therefore either his definition of acquired Dominion is not good or that Dominion by Generation is not an acquired Dominion He proceeds The right of Dominion by Generation is that which the Parent hath over his Children and is called Paternal A high Mystery expounded that the Government of Parents should be called Paternal But his next words confute this immediately which are And is not so derived from the Generation as if therefore the Parent had Dominion over his Child because he begot him How then can Paternal Dominion be acquired by Generation which he immediately before affirmed when he said Dominion is acquired two ways by Generation and by Conquest but saith he from the Childs consent either express or by other sufficient Arguments declared Let us consider this and examine what consent a Child can give in his Infancy certainly no otherwise then a Pig or any Infant Beast he can wish for a Teat and cry for it when he lacks it and be satisfied with any that is offered If this Doctrine of his were true the Child did chuse his Nurse who gave him suck not the Mother who gave him being At the first in his Infancy he cannot distinguish betwixt his Parents and therefore can have no election nor consent I mean rational consent to one more then another to be his Guardian yet the Parent hath Dominion over that Child and like other Governours shall give an account one day of that Stewardship and of his behaviour towards him Let us go on and observe the Child grown up with a smattering of Reason Can any man think that the Parent should not govern that Child who hath not prudence enough to govern himself but much passion to make him unruly and therefore needs to have a Governour Well let us go further and bring the Child to one and twenty years of age when he is generally thought fit to govern his estate if he have any yet even then until his death he owes obedience to his Parents and they have Dominion over him whether he consent or not And whosoever denies this denies not only Scripture which is nothing with Mr. Hobbs but even Humanity which hath expressed her tenderness of this duty in all Ages as will appear â—ore fully hereafter SECT II. Mr. Hobbs his Chain of contradictions discovered BUt good Reader observe with me how many contradictions are crouded together in one page First an acquired Dominion is by force and that contradicted because that a Dominion is acquired by Generation which is not a forced but a most natural act and that is again contradicted because not Generation but consent gives the Dominion and this which he calls consent is not such a thing as belonged to an acquired Dominion for that consent is only a consent to that Government for fear of the Conquerour but this consent is for love of his own accommodation or out of that reverential awe which Children have to their Parents and this is in nothing like the other And surely if it participated of either it most resembled the consent which he imagines to be in an instituted Commonwealth and therefore not to be ranked under the Acquisite SECT III. Mr. Hobbs his constant abuse of Scripture noted The command of the Mother to be obeyed in subordination to the Father in whom the obedience of children is terminated His iterated quarrelling with Scripture Rules of Government to be proportionable to general emergencies BUt let us go on with him for saith he As to the Generation God hath ordained to man a helper and there be always two that are equally Parents The Dominion therefore over the Child should belong equally to them both and he be equally subject to both which is impossible for no man can obey two Masters To begin where he ends He doth abuse Scripture wheresoever it crosseth his way as it doth very often No man can serve two Masters but in every Family a man serves a Master and a Mistress There cannot be two Supremes But in an Oeconomical Dominion the Man is above the Woman and if the Woman command contrary to the Man the Mans command is to be obeyed and the Woman her self is to be obedient to the Man the Mother to the Father I but saith he they are equally principles of Generation therefore if the right of Dominion be an appendant to Generation it must equally belong to them both I will not dispute the nature of Generation which Philosophers and Physitians have abundantly done but suppose that in the case it exacts an obedience to them both yet with a subordination to the Father which must clearly appear in this because the Woman her self must be obedient to the Father as will appear in the two first principles of Generation Adam and Evah God gave them that Law Thy desire shall be to thy Husband and he shall rule over thee Gen. 3.16 Now then if the man rules the woman then in the subordination of Government she cannot equally share in that Dominion with him who is Governour of her So that although the Child hath from his Generation two persons to obey yet this obedience is terminated in one the Father who is Supreme to whom the Mother also is subject He proceeds And whereas some have attributed the Dominion to the man only as being of the mâ—re excellent Sex they misreckon it for there is not always that difference of strength and prudence between the man and the woman as that the right can be determined without war Thus this Author hath a spight to Scripture and hopes with a flash of wicked wit to divert men from that due observance which they ought to have of those duties which are there required or at the least to diminish that rational obedience which men should give to it It may be some do attribute the obedience to the man only out
of this regard that he is the Nobler Sex and why not He is so undoubtedly for although it may happen out in particulars that the Woman may be more prudent or strong then her Husband yet certainly the generality is not so and the rules of governing and obeying are not to be taken from a few particular instances but the common condition of the Sexes Servants may be wiser or stronger then their Masters Subjects then their Kings children then their Parents yet these sacred Laws of governing and obeying must not be varied for such few particular instances SECT IV. The brawling of Man and Wife improperly called war War only between Nations VVisdom not strength enable to Government VVives submit to their Husbands by the Law of God under the first and second Adam St. Pauls Argument from the Law of Nature explained WHat he saith that this cause must be determined by war is ill expressed For first the contention betwixt man and wife cannot properly be called war but brawling or fighting at the worst War is betwixt Nations in the genuine signification I remember Aelian tells a story of the Sacae that when a Man and a Maid married they were to fight at the first and he or she that conquered was afterwards served by the other for the term of their lives This was a pretty gambal whether true or false it is not much material I read it only in him but surely a most unreasonable practice Is the power of Government proper to strength or wisdom Can any man think that a Bull or a Horse is fitter to govern a man then he them because they are of more strength though he have more wisdom But surely for us that are Christians there is no need to fly to such poor little instances or customs or the accidental prudence or strength of the woman if she have more wit let her use it to the gaining and winning him to vertue if she have more strength let her use it to the assistance of her Husbands weakness by that means her excellencies will be imployed to their right uses she shall be a helper to him not a Ruler over him I need not here repeat what of late I delivered concerning this Doctrine out of Gen. 3. But that Gods Command is clear to this purpose not only in Adam but those that are descended from the second Adam consider what S. Paul writes in the fifth to the Ephesians v. 22. Wives submit your selves to your own Husbands as unto the Lord. But methinks Mr. Hobbs should answer to this that this is only a positive Law yet I can reply to that that it is universal or what is equivalent indefinite and comprehends all wives But then go further and read the Apostles Argument in the following verse For the Husband is the Head of the Wife even as Christ is the Head of the Church Thus the Apostle argues from the Law of Nature First that by the Law of Nature the rest of the body submits to the Head so must Wives do to their own Husbands Then this is exemplified from Christianity in the manner of his Headship such a Head as Christ is over his Church which I hope no Christian will say but that it must submit to and be governed by him And I hope both Nature Gods Law and Christian duty may be sufficient to determine this controversie without war And I may add that since all Nations have consented to it sure we ought not now to demur upon the case because Mr. Hobbs interposeth his Authority with little or no reason SECT V. This Paragraph contrary to Mr. Hobbs his principles and the supposed institution of a Commonwealth but yet most true not from Mr. Hobbs his reason but the Law of God Fathers of Families have the disposition of their Families The invalidity of Mr. Hobbs his reasons His example of the Amazons inconcludent HE proceeds In Commonwealths this controversie is decided by the Civil Law and for the most part but not always the sentence is in favour of the Father because for the most part Commonwealths have been erected by the Fathers not by the Mothers of Families Now I am come to page â—03 but I would fain know how the Fathers rather then the Mothers should come to be Erectors of Commonwealths Certainly if Commonwealths were instituted as he feigns by the general suffrage of all who had interest in the Government then women as well as men Mothers as well as Fathers had the management of that business for they have their interest in the publick constitution as well as men But he hath let fall an excellent truth which is clear against the whole Body of his Politicks which is that the Fathers of Families not the Rabble were the Erectors of Commonwealths For if they did as I am confident with him here they did then his former discourse which is built upon the institution of a Commonwealth by the universal consent of all who have interest in it must fail for not the Fathers and Mothers only but even the meanest child or servant may challenge their shares in it And certainly the Fathers of Families could not be the Erectors of Commonwealths but only out of this regard that they were the chief in their Families and by that reason had right to dispose of himself and them And here let the Reader consider that Mr. Hobbs never remembers that great Authority given by God to Moses which regulated him and his Posterity many Generations nor the confirmation that Law laid from our Saviour in the New Testament which are obligatory to us in all Ages He only clouds the truth with this pittiful poor reason or rather shew of reason only that men were the Law-makers and they were partial to their own Sex No Master Hobbs God was the Law-maker who is no accepter of persons or Sexes but in an infinitely wise manner disposeth all things in the best and surest method that may be according to his most just Laws But because he said but not always that is that the Fathers of Families were not always the Erectors of Commonwealths intimating that some Commonwealths were erected by the Mothers of Families I should thank him or any man else who can shew me any such in the world It may be he will fly to that beggerly instance which he gives presently of the Amazons but let it suffice for them if there were any such that they were Widdows or single Women not united in Marriage and so not subject to Husbands and therefore were free to dispose of themselves as they pleased and might have made what just Laws they thought fit for their condition but if they were joyned in marriage to Husbands they must then submâ—t to that yoak and be governed in their domestick affairs according to his discipline The dispute is here betwixt Husband and Wife not betwixt man and woman Wives must submit to their own Husbands not every woman to every man SECT VI. Mr.
he makes him to reward only and punish his own decrees and acts not those of men And therefore I think it a Book not to be suffered amongst Christians and I am confident would not be tolerated amongst such kingdomes which do not acknowledge our Saviour but only one God FINIS To Mr. Hobs or the Reader or both I dedicate this short POSTSCRIPT CAP. I. A short Introduction declaring the reason of this POSTSCRIPT IN my Epistle before this Treatise I have said that I heard of some amendments Mr. Hobs would make in his Leviathan and upon that stop'd these papers which were intended for the Press being desirous rather that he should do it himself with his own hand than I a work which would be very beneficial to his own soul and more satisfactory to those Readers upon whom his name had gain'd an Authority but after a tedious expectation I found nothing corresponding to my Expectation Wherefore I urged this Treatise to the Press where I thought to have it Printed when I came to London but I was no sooner arrived than a cruel Cold locked me up in my Chamber which gave me leasure to enquire after him whilest these Notes were Printing and found that he had Printed his Leviathan in Latine which I never before had notice of I sent for it and viewed it hoping that it might prove the designed retractation as St. Aug. calls his or at least a recognition as Bellarmine calls his of the like nature but truly I found little to that purpose only the virulency of some English Phrases now and then more gently expressed in Latine And at the latter end which was not in the Title I found an Appendix consisting of three Chapters the first of which was of the Nicene Creed the second of Heresie the third an Answer to some Objections against his Leviathan In these three I hoped to have found much matter which might shew his Ingenuity in the true censuring his own writings but indeed very little what I find I shall deliver here especially reflecting any such thing as hath already passed my pen for other things which will deserve whole and entire discourses I shall reserve to a future consideration as God shall please to spare me life and my Episcopal duties afford me leasure CAP. II. Of things omitted in this Discourse I Begin with his Chapter upon his Nicene Creed which he enters upon in his 328 page where I omit his observation upon that Phrase I believe in and that likewise which is in the bottom of the precedent and the subsequent Page about the exposition of that phrase which is not in the Creed that is Deus est God is which is not in the Creed for the language of the Creed is I believe in one God the Father Almighty in which it is not said there is a God but supposed and he affirmed to be one and he the Father Almighty so that if we must be forc'd to make one or more propositions of it they must be these I believe there is one and only one God and that he is Father Almighty where is is a copula not a substantive as he makes it and upon which he makes his discourse but I let it pass as he might well have done being nothing conducing to his or my dispute 't is true à tertio adjacente ad secundum valet argumentum and therefore when I affirm there is one God it must be imply'd there is a God but this proposition there is one only God supposeth and implicitely affirms it not by any express propositions CAP. III. The Nature of Light examined I Come to page the 330. which opposeth something that I have delivered there you shall find in the letter a which signifieth the Opponent a question asked Quid est lumen and answering himself lumen ut mihi videtur phantasma est non res existens This proposition I have opposed in my first part Cap. 4. Sect. 2. where I have divers arguments for it and the Reader may observe my Answers to his Arguments no one of which is touched here but a strange new Argument which I now proceed to examine whether I may term it argument or illustration of his conclusion I care not which is thus framed Exempli gratia si inter oculum Candelam vitrum statuas cujus superficies ex multis planis constat certo modo dispositis multae tibi videbuntur candelae scimus tamen unicam ibi esse candelam veram proinde caeteras omnes mera esse phantasmata idola hoc est ut dicit sanctus Paulus nihil For my part I cannot observe where the force of this Argument lies to prove that lumen or light is a meer Phantasm or nothing this light shews the Candle or if he will represents it now what represents another must be like it but nothing cannot be like a thing being clean contrary or rather privatively or negatively opposed to it therefore if light were nothing it could not represent the Candle but perhaps the force may be couched in these words Multae tibi videbuntur Candelae there shall many candles appear to wit by the reflection of those many plains of glass but surely this no way enforceth his conclusion for every one of these plaines for all I know represents the true Candle and are so far from being nothing as they must therefore be something because they represent something but they may by a false reflection multiply the Candle and make it seem many what if it does Does the erroneous representing make the representor nothing certainly no for then every man who tells a lye should say nothing for that lye is a false representation we see that light makes us see the Candle from whence it comes and indeed any body else in the Room where it is truly if it be not abused by some Hocus Pocus tricks or such devices as those jugling glasses he mentions but the abuse lies in the plains in the glass which returns the representing light wrong ways not in the light it self which is retorted he might therefore from hence fitter call that nothing which abuseth the medium than the light which is abused he proceeds in the same place with a strangely unnecessary discourse to this purpose as it seems to me neque tamen saith he earum una est verior Candela quam reliquae quatenus apparent I need repeat no more if there be strength in any part of his discourse it is in this but here is none for although none of these Images of the Candle is the Candle yet they are things such things as did represent the Candle for the Candle could not be represented to the eye by that which is nothing the thing that represents another and that which is represented are two but both of them must be things or neither but now it may be replyed to me that this is not Mr. Hobs his opinion but the Objectors I answer with Mr. Hobs