an exceeding great number of Men of the better sort that had been so educated as that in their Youth having read the Books written by famous Men of the ancient Grecian and Roman Common-wealths concerning their Politie and great Actions in which Books the Popular Government was extoll'd by that glorious Name of Liberty and Monarchy disgraced by the Name of Tyranny they became thereby in love with their Forms of Government and out of these Men were chosen the greatest part of the House of Commons or if they were not the greatest part yet by advantage of their Eloquence were always able to sway the rest Fifthly The City of London and other great Towns of Trade having in admiration the prosperity of the Low-Countries after they had revolted from their Monarch the King of Spain were inclin'd to think that the like change of Government here would to them produce the like prosperity Sixthly There were a very great number that had either wasted their Fortunes or thought them too mean for the good Parts they thought were in themselves and more there were that had able Bodies but saw no means how honestly to get their Bread These long'd for a War and hoped to maintain themselves hereafter by the lucky choosing of a Party to side with and consequently did for the most part serve under them that had greatest plenty of Money Lastly The People in general were so ignorant of their duty as that not one perhaps of 10000 knew what right any man had to command him or what necessity there was of King or Common-wealth for which he was to part with his Money against his will but thought himself to be so much Master of whatsoever he possess'd that it could not be taken from him upon any pretence of common safety without his own consent King they thought was but a Title of the highest Honour which Gentleman Knight Baron Earl Duke were but steps to ascend to with the help of Riches and had no Rule of Equity but Presidents and Custom and he was thought wisest and fittest to be chosen for a Parliament that was most averse to the granting of Subsidies or other publick Payments B. In such a constitution of People methinks the King is already outed of his Government so as they need not have taken Arms for it for I cannot imagine how the King should come by any means to resist them A. There was indeed very great difficulty in the business but of that Point you will be better inform'd in the pursuit of this Narration B. But I desire to know first the several Grounds of the Pretences both of the Pope and of the Presbyterians by which they claim a Right to govern us as they do in chief and after that from whence and when crept in the Pretences of that long Parliament for a Democracy A. As for the Papists they challenge this Right from a Text in Deut. 17. and other like Texts according to the old Latin Translation in these words And he that out of pride shall refuse to obey the Commandment of that Priest which shall at that time minister before the Lord thy God that Man shall by the Sentence of the Judge be put to death And because as the Jews were the People of God then so is all Christendome the People of God now they infer from thence that the Pope whom they pretend to be the High-Priest of all Christian People ought also to be obeyed in all his Decrees by all Christians upon pain of death Again whereas in the New Testament Christ saith All Power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth go therefore and teach all Nations and baptize them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and teach them to observe all these things that I have commanded you From thence they infer that the Command of the Apostles was to be obeyed and by consequence the Nations were bound to be govern'd by them and especially by the Prince of the Apostles St. Peter and by his Successors the Popes of Rome B. For the Text in the Old Testament I do not see how the Commandment of God to the Jews to obey their Priests can be interpreted to have the like force in the Case of other Nations Christian more than upon Nations Unchristian for all the World are Gods People unless we also grant that a King cannot of an Infidel be made Christian without making himself subject to the Laws of that Apostle or Priest or Minister that shall convert him The Jews were a peculiar People of God a Sacerdotal Kingdom and bound to no other Law but what first Moses and afterwards every High-Priest did go and receive immediately from the mouth of God in Mount Sinai in the Tabernacle of the Ark and in the Sanctum Sanctorum of the Temple And for the Text in St. Mathew I know the Words in the Gospel are not Go teach but Go and make Disciples and that there is a great difference between a Subject and a Disciple and between Teaching and Commanding And if such Texts as these must be so interpreted why do not Christian Kings lay down their Titles of Majesty and Sovereignty and call themselves the Popes Lieutenants But the Doctors of the Romish Church seem to decline that Title of Absolute Power in their distinction of Power Spiritual and Temporal but this distinction I do not very well understand A. By Spiritual Power they mean the Power to determine Points of Faith and to be Judges in the Inner Court of Conscience of Moral Duties and of a Power to punish those Men that obey not their Precepts by Ecclesiastical Censure that is by Excommunication and this Power they say the Pope hath immediately from Christ without dependence upon any King or Sovereign Assembly whose Subjects they be that stand Excommunicate But for the Power Temporal which consists in judging and punishing those Actions that are done against the Civil Laws they say they do not pretend to it directly but only indirectly that is to say so far forth as such Actions tend to the hindrance or advancement of Religion and good Manners which they mean when they say in ordine ad spiritualia B. What Power then is left to Kings and other Civil Sovereigns which the Pope may not pretend to be his in ordine ad spiritualia A. None or very little and this Power the Pope pretends to in all Christendome but some of his Bishops also in their several Diocesses Jure Divino that is immediately from Christ without deriving it from the Pope B. But what if a Man refuse obedience to this pretended Power of the Pope and his Bishops What harm can Excommunication do him especially if he be the Subject of another Sovereign A. Very great harm for by the Pope's or Bishop's signification of it to the Civil Power he shall be punish'd sufficiently B. He were in an ill Case then that adventured to write or speak
force to make him consider better of his own Doctrine and sometimes brought him to the acknowledgment of the Truth But other punishment they could inflict none that being a right appropriated to the Civil Power So that all the punishment the Church could inflict was only Ignominy and that among the Faithful consisting in this that his company was by all the Godly avoided and he himself branded with the name of Heretick in opposition to the whole Church that condemned his Doctrine So that Catholick and Heretick were terms relative and here it was that Heretick became to be a Name and a name of Disgrace both together The first and most troublesome Heresies in the Primitive Church were about the Trinity For according to the usual curiosity of Natural Philosophers they could not abstain from disputing the very first Principles of Christianity into which they were baptized In the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Some there were that made them allegorical Others would make one Creator of Good and another of Evil which was in effect to set up two Gods one contrary to another supposing that causation of evil could not be attributed to God without Impiety From which Doctrine they are not far distant that now make the first cause of sinful actions to be every man as to his own sin Others there were that would have God to be a body with Parts organical as Face Hands Fore-parts and Back-parts Others that Christ had no real body but was a meer Phantasm For Phantasms were taken then and have been ever since by unlearned and superstitious men for things real and subsistent Others denyed the Divinity of Christ. Others that Christ being God and Man was two Persons Others confest he was one Person and withal that he had but one Nature And a great many other Heresies arose from the too much adherence to the Philosophy of those times whereof some were supprest for a time by St. John's publishing his Gospel and some by their own unreasonableness vanished and some lasted till the time of Constantine the Great and after When Constantine the Great made so by the assistance and valour of the Christian Souldiers had attained to be the only Roman Emperor he also himself became a Christian and caused the Temples of the Heathen Gods to be demolished and authorized Christian Religion only to be publick But towards the latter end of his time there arose a Dispute in the City of Alexandria between Alexander the Bishop and Arius a Presbyter of the same City wherein Arius maintained first That Christ was inferiour to his Father and afterwards That he was no God alleadging the words of Christ My Father is greater than I. The Bishop on the contrary alleadging the words of St. John And the Word was God and the words of St. Thomas My Lord and my God This Controversie presently amongst the Inhabitants and Souldiers of Alexandria became a Quarrel and was the cause of much Bloodshed in and about the City and was likely then to spread further as afterwards it did This so far concerned the Emperors Civil Government that he thought it necessary to call a General Council of all the Bishops and other eminent Divines throughout the Roman Empire to meet at the City of Nice When they were assembled they presented the Emperor with Libels of Accusation one against another When he had received these Libels into his hands he made an Oration to the Fathers assembled exhorting them to agree and to fall in hand with the settlement of the Articles of Faith for which cause he had assembled them saying Whatsoever they should decree therein he would cause to be observed This may perhaps seem a greater indifferency than would in these dayes be approved of But so it is in the History and the Articles of Faith necessary to Salvation were not thought then to be so many as afterwards they were defined to be by the Church of Rome When Constantine had ended his Oration he caused the aforesaid Libels to be cast into the fire as became a wise King and a charitable Christian. This done the Fathers fell in hand with their business and following the method of a former Creed now commonly called The Apostles Creed made a Confession of Faith viz. I believe in one God the Father Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible in which is condemned the Polytheism of the Gentiles And in one Lord Iesus Christ the only begotten Son of God against the many sons of the many Gods of the Heathen Begotten of his Father before all worlds God of God against the Arians Uery God of very God against the Valentinians and against the Heresie of Apelles and others who made Christ a meer Phantasm Light of Light This was put in for explication and used before to that purpose by Tertullian Begotten not made being of one Substance with the Father In this again they condemn the Doctrine of Arius for this word Of one substance in Latine Consubstantialis but in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Of one Essence was put as a Touchstone to discern an Arian from a Catholick And much ado there was about it Constantine himself at the passing of this Creed took notice of it for a hard word but yet approved of it saying That in a divine Mystery it was fit to use divina arcana Verba that is divine words and hidden from humane understanding calling that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divine not because it was in the divine Scripture for it is not there but because it was to him Arcanum that is not sufficiently understood And in this again appeared the indifferency of the Emperor and that he had for his end in the calling of the Synod not so much the Truth as the Vniformity of the Doctrine and peace of his People that depended on it The cause of the obscurity of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proceeded chiefly from the difference between the Greek and Roman Dialect in the Philosophy of the Peripateticks The first Principle of Religion in all Nations is That God is that is to say that God really is Something and not a meer fancy but that which is really something is considerable alone by it self as being somewhere In which sence a man is a thing real for I can consider him to be without considering any other thing to be besides him And for the same reason the Earth the Air the Stars Heaven and their Parts are all of them things real And because whatsoever is real here or there or in any place has Dimensions that is to say Magnitude and that which hath Magnitude whether it be visible or invisible finite or infinite is called by all the Learned a Body It followeth that all real things in that they are somewhere are Corporeal On the contrary Essence Deity Humanity and such-like names signifie nothing that can be considered without first considering
there is an Ens a God a Man c. So also if there be any real thing that is white or black hot or cold the same may be considered by it self but whiteness blackness heat coldness cannot be considered unless it be first supposed that there is some real thing to which they are attributed These real things are called by the Latine Philosophers Entia subjecta substantiae and by the Greek Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The other which are Incorporeal are called by the Greek Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but most of the Latine Philosophers use to convert 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into substantia and so confound real and corporeal things with incorporeal which is not well For Essence and Substance signifie divers things And this mistake is received and continues still in these parts in all Disputes both of Philosophy and Divinity For in truth Essentia signifies no more than if we should talk ridiculously of the Isness of the thing that is By whom all things were made This is proved out of St. John cap. 1. vers 1 2 3. and Heb. cap. 1. vers 3. and that again out of Gen. 1. where God is said to create every thing by his sole Word as when he said Let there be Light and there was Light And then that Christ was that Word and in the beginning with God may be gathered out of divers places of Moses David and other of the Prophets Nor was it ever questioned amongst Christians except by the Arians but that Christ was God Eternal and his Incarnation eternally decreed But the Fathers all that write Expositions on this Creed could not forbear to philosophize upon it and most of them out of the Principles of Aristotle Which are the same the School-men now use as may partly appear by this that many of them amongst their Treatises of Religion have affected to publish Logick and Physick Principles according to the sense of Aristotle as Athanasius and Damascene And so some later Divines of Note still confound the Concreet with the Abstract Deus with Deitas Ens with Essentia Sapiens with Sapientia Aeternus with Aeternitas If it be for exact and rigid Truth sake why do they not say also that Holiness is a Holy man Covetousness a Covetous man Hypocrisie an Hypocrite and Drunkenness a Drunkard and the like but that it is an Error The Fathers agree that the Wisdom of God is the eternal Son of God by whom all things were made and that he was incarnate by the Holy Ghost if they meant it in the Abstract For if Deitas abstracted be Deus we make two Gods of one This was well understood by Damascene in his Treatise De Fide Orthodoxâ which is an Exposition of the Nicene Creed where he denies absolutely that Deitas is Deus lest seeing God was made man it should follow the Deity was made man which is contrary to the Doctrine of all the Nicene Fathers The Attributes therefore of God in the Abstract when they are put for God are put Metonymically which is a common thing in Scripture for Example Prov. 8.28 where it is said Before the mountains were setled before the Hills was I brought forth the Wisdom there spoken of being the Wisdom of God signifies the same with the wise God This kind of speaking is also ordinary in all Languages This considered such abstracted words ought not to be used in Arguing and especially in the deducing the Articles of our Faith though in the Language of God's eternal Worship and in all Godly Discourses they cannot be avoided And the Creed it self is less difficult to be assented to in its own words than in all such Expositions of the Fathers Who for us men and our Salvation came down from Heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Uirgin Mary and was made Man I have not read of any exception to this For where Athanasius in his Creed says of the Son He was not made but begotten it is to be understood of the Son as he was God Eternal whereas here it is spoken of the Son as he is man And of the Son also as he was man it may be said he was begotten of the Holy Ghost for a Woman conceiveth not but of him that begetteth which is also confirmed Mat. 1.20 That which is begotten in her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the Holy Ghost And was also Crucified for us under Pontius Pilate He suffered and was buried And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures and ascended into Heaven and sitteth on the right hand of the Father And he shall come again with Glory to judge both the Quick and the Dead Whose Kingdom shall have no end Of this part of the Creed I have not met with any doubt made by any Christian. Hither the Council of Nice proceedeth in their general Confession of Faith and no further This finished some of the Bishops present at the Council seventeen or eighteen whereof Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea was one not sufficiently satisfied refused to subscribe till this Doctrine of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be better explained Thereupon the Council Decreed that whosoever shall say that God hath parts shall be Anathematized to which the said Bishops subscribed And Eusebius by Order of the Council wrote a Letter the Copies whereof were sent to every absent Bishop that being satisfied with the reason of their subscribing they also should subscribe The reason they gave of their Subscription was this That they had now a form of words prescribed by which as a Rule they might guide themselves so as not to violate the Peace of the Church By this it is manifest that no man was an Heretick but he that in plain and direct words contradicted that Form by the Church prescribed and that no man could be made an Heretick by Consequence And because the said Form was not put into the body of the Creed but directed only to the Bishops there was no reason to punish any Lay-person that should speak to the contrary But what was the meaning of this Doctrine That God has no Parts Was it made Heresie to say that God who is a real substance cannot be considered or spoken of as here or there or any where which are parts of places Or that there is any real thing without length every way that is to say which hath no Magnitude at all finite nor infinite Or is there any whole substance whose two halves or three thirds are not the same with that whole Or did they mean to condemn the Argument of Tertullian by which he confuted Apolles and other Hereticks of his time namely Whatsoever was not Corporeal was nothing but Fantasm and not Corporeal for Heretical No certainly no Divines say that They went to establish the Doctrine of One individual God in Trinity to abolish the diversity of species in God not the distinction of here and there in substance When St. Paul
of the Jus Divinum of Bishops a thing which before the Reformation here was never allowed them by the Pope Two Jus Divinums cannot stand together in one Kingdom In the last place he mislikes that the Church should Excommunicate by Authority of the King that is to say by Authority of the Head of the Church But he tells not why He might as well mislike that the Magistrates of the Realm should execute their Offices by the Authority of the Head of the Realm His Lordship was in a great error if he thought such incroachments would add any thing to the Wealth Dignity Reverence or Continuance of his Order They are Pastors of Pastors but yet they are the Sheep of him that is on earth their soveraign Pastor and he again a Sheep of that supream Pastor which is in Heaven And if they did their pastoral Office both by Life and Doctrine as they ought to do there could never arise any dangerous Rebellion in the Land But if the people see once any ambition in their Teachers they will sooner learn that than any other Doctrine and from Ambition proceeds Rebellion J. D. It may be some of T. H. his Disciples desire to know what hopes of Heavenly joyes they have upon their Masters Principles They may hear them without any great contentment There is no mention in Scripture nor ground in reason of the Coelum Empyraeum that is the Heaven of the Blessed where the Saints shall live eternally with God And again I have not found any Text that can probably be drawn to prove any Ascention of the Saints into Heaven that is to say into any Coelum Empyraeum But he concludeth positively that Salvation shall be upon earth when God shall Raign at the coming of Christ in Jerusalem And again In short the Kingdom of God is a civil Kingdom c. called also the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of Glory All the Hobbians can hope for is to be restored to the same condition which Adam was in before his fall So saith T.H. himself From whence may be inferred that the Elect after the Resurrection shall be restored to the estate wherein Adam was before he had sinned As for the beatifical vision he defineth it to be a word unintelligible T. H. This Coelum Empyraeum for which he pretendeth so much zeal where is it in the Scripture where in the Book of Common Prayer where in the Canons where in the Homilies of the Church of England or in any part of our Religion What has a Christian to do with such Language Nor do I remember it in Aristotle Perhaps it may be in some Schoolman or Commentator on Aristotle and his Lordship makes it in English the Heaven of the Blessed as if Empyraeum signified That which belongs to the Blessed St. Austin says better that after the day of Judgment all that is not Heaven shall be Hell Then for Beatifical vision how can any man understand it that knows from the Scripture that no man ever saw or can see God Perhaps his Lordship thinks that the happiness of the Life to come is not real but a Vision As for that which I say Lev. pag. 345. I have answered to it already J. D. But considering his other Principles I do not marvel much at his extravagance in this point To what purpose should a Coelum Empyraeum or Heaven of the Blessed serve in his judgment who maketh the blessed Angels that are the Inhabitants of that happy Mansion to be either Idols of the brain that is in plain English nothing or thin subtil fluid bodies destroying the Angelical nature The universe being the aggregate of all bodies there is no real part thereof that is not also body And elsewhere Every part of the Vniverse is Body and that which is not Body is no part of the Vniverse And because the Vniverse is all that which is no part of it is nothing and consequently no where How By this Doctrine he maketh not only the Angels but God himself to be nothing Neither doth he salve it at all by supposing erroneously Angels to be corporeal Spirits and by attributing the name of incorporeal Spirit to God as being a name of more honour in whom we consider not what Attribute best expresseth his nature which is incomprehensible but what best expresseth our desire to honour him Though we be not able to comprehend perfectly what God is yet we are able perfectly to comprehend what God is not that is he is not imperfect and therefore he is not finite and consequently he is not corporeal This were a trim way to honour God indeed to honour him with a lye If this that he say here be true That every part of the Vniverse is a Body and whatsoever is not a Body is nothing Then by this Doctrine if God be not a Body God is nothing not an incorporeal Spirit but one of the Idols of the Brain a meer nothing though they think they dance under a Net and have the blind of Gods incomprehensibility between them and discovery T. H. This of Incorporeal substance he urged before and there I answered it I wonder he so often rolls the same stone He is like Sysiphus in the Poets Hell that there rolls a heavy stone up a hill which no sooner he brings to day-light then it slips down again to the bottom and serves him so perpetually For so his Lordship rolls this and other questions with much adoe till they come to the light of Scripture and then they vanish and he vexing sweating and railing goes to 't again to as little purpose as before From that I say of the Universe he infers that I make God to be nothing But infers it absurdly He might indeed have inferr'd that I make him a Corporeal but yet a pure Spirit I mean by the Universe the Aggregate of all things that have being in themselves and so do all men else And because God has a being it follows that he is either the whole Universe or part of it Nor does his Lordship go about to disprove it but only seems to wonder at it J. D. To what purpose should a Coelum Empyraeum serve in his Judgment who denyeth the immortality of the Soul The Doctrine is now and hath been a long time far otherwise namely that every man hath eternity of life by nature in as much as his Soul is immortal Who supposeth that when a man dyeth there remaineth nothing of him but his Carkase who maketh the word Soul in holy Scripture to signifie always either the Life or the Living Creature And expoundeth the casting of Body and Soul into Hell-fire to be the casting of Body and Life into Hell-fire Who maketh this Orthodox truth that the Souls of men are Substances distinct from their Bodies to be an error contracted by the contagion of the Demonology of the Greeks and a window that gives entrance to the dark Doctrine of eternal torments Who expoundeth these words
condition he might have found some Ancients who are therefore called the merciful Doctors to have joyned with him though still he should have wanted the suffrage of the Catholick Church T. H. Why does not his Lordship cite some place of Scripture here to prove that all the Reprobates which are dead live eternally in torment We read indeed That everlasting Torments were prepared for the Devil and his Angels whose natures also are everlasting and that the Beast and the false Prophet shall be tormented everlastingly but not that every Reprobate shall be so They shall indeed be cast into the same fire but the Scripture says plainly enough that they shall be both Body and Soul destroyed there If I had said that the Devils themselves should be restored to a better condition his Lordship would have been so kind as to have put me into the number of the Merciful Doctors Truly if I had had any Warrant for the possibility of their being less enemies to the Church of God than they have been I would have been as merciful to them as any Doctor of them all As it is I am more merciful than the Bishop J. D. But his shooting is not at rovers but altogether at randome without either President or Partner All that eternal fire all those torments which he acknowledgeth is but this That after the Resurrection the Reprobate 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 not to them Adding that they shall live as they did formerly Marry and give in Marriage and consequently engender Children perpetually after the Resurrection as they did before which he calleth an immortallity of the kind but not of the persons of men It is to be presumed that in those their second lives knowing certainly from T. H. that there is no hope of Redemption for them from corporal death upon their well-doing nor fear of any Torments after death for their ill-doing they will pass their times here as pleasantly as they can This is all the Damnation which T. H. fancieth T. H. This he has urged once before and I answered to it That the whole Paragraph was to prove that for any Text of Scripture to the contrary men might after the Resurrection live as Adam did on earth and that notwithstanding the Text of St. Luke chap. 20. verse 34 35 36. Marry and propagate But that they shall do so is no assertion of mine His Lordship knew I held that after the Resurrection there shall be at all no wicked men but the Elect all that are have been and hereafter shall be shall live on earth But St. Peter says there shall then be a new Heaven and a new Earth J. D. In summ I leave it to the free judgment of the understanding Reader by these few instances which follow to judge what the Hobbian Principles are in point of Religion Ex ungue leonem First that no man needs to put himself to any hazzard for his Faith but may safely comply with the times And for their Faith it is internal and invisible They have the licence that Naaman had and need not put themselves into danger for it Secondly he alloweth Subjects being commanded by their Soveraign to deny Christ. Profession with the Tongue is but an external thing and no more than any other gesture whereby we signifie our obedience And wherein a Christian holding firmly in his heart the Faith of Christ hath the same liberty which the Prophet Elisha allowed to Naaman c. Who by bowing before the Idol Rimmon denyed the true God as much in effect as if he had done it with his Lips Alas why did St. Peter Weep so bitterly for denying his Master out of fear of his Life or Members It seems he was not acquainted with these Hobbian Principles And in the same place he layeth down this general Conclusion This we may say that whatsoever a Subject is compelled to in obedience to his Soveraign and doth it not in order to his own mind but in order to the Laws of his Country that action is not his but his Soveraign's nor is it he that in this case denyeth Christ before men but his Governor and the Law of his Country His instance in a Mahometan commanded by a Christian Prince to be present at Divine Service is a weak mistake springing from his gross ignorance in Case-Divinity not knowing to distinguish between an erroneous Conscience as the Mahometans is and a Conscience rightly informed T. H. In these his two first instances I confess his Lordship does not much be lye me But neither does he confute me Also I confess my ignorance in his Case-Divinity which is grounded upon the Doctrine of the School-men Who to decide Cases of Conscience take in not only the Scriptures but also the Decrees of the Popes of Rome for the advancing of the Dominion of the Roman Church over Consciences whereas the true decision of Cases of Consciences ought to be grounded only on Scripture or natural Equity I never allowed the denying of Christ with the Tongue in all men but expresly say the contrary Lev. pag. 362. in these words For an 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 than worship it he should do better But if a Pastor who as Christ's messenger has undertaken to teach Christ's Doctrine to all Nations should do the same it were not only a sinful scandal in respect of other Christian mens Consciences but a perfidious forsaking of his charge Therefore St. Peter in denying Christ sinned as being an Apostle And 't is sin in every man that should now take upon him to preach against the power of the Pope to leave his Commission unexecuted for fear of the fire but in a meer Traveller not so The three Children and Daniel were worthy Champions of the true Religion But God requireth not of every man to be a Champion As for his Lordship's words of complying with the times they are not mine but his own spightful Paraphrase J. D. Thirdly if this be not enough he giveth licence to a Christian to commit Idolatry or at least to do an Idolatrous act for fear of death or corporal danger To pray unto a King voluntarily for fair weather or for any thing which God only can do for us is divine Worship and Idolatry On the other side if a King compel a man to it by the terror of death or other great corporal punishment it is not Idolatry His reason is because it is not a sign that he doth inwardly honour him as a God but that he is desirous to save himself from death or from a miserable life It seemeth T. H. thinketh there is no divine Worship but internal And that it is
that should drive them back B. For my part I believe the cause of their descending is not in any natural appetite of the bodies that descend but rather that the Globe of the Earth hath some special motion by the which it more easily casteth off the Air than it doth other bodies And then this descent of those we call heavy bodies must of necessity follow unless there be some empty spaces in the world to receive them For when the Air is thrown off from the Earth somewhat must come into the place of it in case the world be full and it must be those things which are hardliest cast off that is those things which we say are heavy A. But suppose there be no place empty for I will defer the Question till anon how can the Earth cast off either the Air or any thing else B. I shall shew you how and that by a familiar Example If you lay both your hands upon a Basen with water in it how little soever and move it circularly and continue that motion for a while and you shall see the water rise upon the sides and fly over by which you may be assured that there is a kind of circulating motion which would cast off such bodies as are contiguous to the body so moved A. I know very well there is and it is the same motion which Country people use to purge their Corn For the Chaff and Straws by casting the Grain to the side of the Seive will come towards the middle But I would see the Figure B. Here it is There is a Circle pricked out whose Center is A and three less Circles whose Centers are B C D let every one of them represent the Earth as it goeth from B to C and from C to D always touching the uttermost Circle and throwing off the Air as is marked at E and F. And if the world were not full there would follow by this scattering of the Air a great deal of space left empty But supposing the world full there must be a perpetual shifting of the Air one part into the place of another A. But what makes a stone come down suppose from G B. If the Air be thrown up beyond G it will follow that at the last if the motion be continued all the Air will be above G that is above the stone which cannot be till the stone be at the Earth A. But why comes it down still with encreasing swiftness B. Because as it descends and is already in motion it receiveth a new impression from the same cause which is the Air whereof as part mounteth part also must descend supposing as we have done the plenitude of the world For as you may observe by the Figure the motion of the Earth according to the Diameter of the uttermost Circle is progressive and so the whole motion is compounded of two motions one circular and the other progressive and consequently the Air ascends and circulates at once And because the stone descending receiveth a new pressure in every point of its way the motion thereof must needs be accelerated A. 'T is true For it will be accelerated equally in equal times and the way it makes will encrease in a double proportion to the times as hath heretofore been demonstrated by Galileo I see the solution now of an Experiment which before did not a little puzzle me You know that if two plummets hang by two strings of equal length and you remove them from the perpendicular equally I mean in equal angles and then let them go they will make their turns and returns together and in equal times And though the arches they describe grow continually less and less yet the times they spend in the greater arches will still be equal to the time they spend in the lesser B. 'T is true Do you find any Experiment to the contrary A. Yes For if you remove one of the plummets from the perpendicular so as for example to make an angle with the perpendicular of 80 degrees and the other so as to make an angle of 60 degrees they will not make their turns and returns in equal times B. And what say you is the cause of this A. Because the arches are the spaces which these two motions describe they must be in double proportion to their own times which cannot be unless they be let go from equal altitudes that is from equal angles B. 'T is right and the Experiment does not cross but confirm the equality of the times in all the arches they describe even from 90 degrees to the least part of one degree A. But is it not too bold if not extravagant an assertion to say the Earth is moved as a man shakes a Basen or a Seive Does not the Earth move from West to East every day once upon his own Center and in the Ecliptick Circle once a year And now you give it another odd motion How can all these consist in one and the same body B. Well enough If you be a Shipboard under sail do not you go with the Ship Cannot you also walk upon the Deck Cannot every drop of bloud move at the same time in your veins How many motions now do you assign to one and the same drop of bloud Nor is it so extravagant a thing to attribute to the Earth this kind of motion but that I believe if we certainly knew what motion it is that causeth the descent of bodies we should find it either the same or more extravagant But seeing it can be nothing above that worketh this effect it must be the Earth it self that does it and if the Earth then you can imagine no other motion to do it withal but this And you will wonder more when by the same motion I shall give you a probable account of the causes of very many other works of Nature A. But what part of the Heaven do you suppose the Poles of your pricked Circle point to B. I suppose them to be the same with the Poles of the Ecliptick For seeing the Axis of the Earth in this Nation and in the annual motion keeps parallel to it self the Axis must in both motions be parallel as to sense For the Circle which the Earth describes is not of visible magnitude at the distance it is from the Sun A. Though I understand well enough how the Earth may make a stone descend very swiftly under the Ecliptick or not far from it where it throws off the Air perpendicularly yet about the Poles of the Circle methinks it should cast off the Air very weakly I hope you will not say that bodies descend faster in places remote from the Poles than nearer to them B. No but I ascribe it to the like motion in the Sun and Moon For such motions meeting must needs cast the stream of the Air towards the Poles And then there will be the same necessity for the descent there that there is in other places though perhaps