to the Scribes and Pharisees because they sit in Moses chair But then Christ should have wronged the Roman Governors in whom he acknowledged kingly power by paying tribute and by submitting himself to be judged by them Their sitting then in Moses chair doeth not imply kingly power but their power in expounding the law of Moses And it is as weak an inference to say that Christ is not King of his Church Because he would not divide the inheritance between the two brethren or because he came to save the world not to judge it For dividing of inheritances belonging not to Christs spiritual kingdom neither was it the end of Christs comming to judge that is to condemn the world for the Greek word signifieth both but to save it for his name was Jesus a Saviour because he came to save his people from their sins And no less weak is this reason The time of Christs preaching is called regeneration therefore it is no kingdom Regeneration is not the time but the fruit and effect of Christs preaching and so far is regeneration from being inconsistent with Christs Kingdom that our Saviour tells us in plain tearms except we be regenerate we cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Iohn 3. In his two and fortty chapter he broacheth a strange wheemsie concerning the blessed Trinity in saying That God who hath been represented that is personated thrice to wit by Moses by Christ and by the Apostles may properly enough be said to be three Persons as represented by the Apostles the holy Spirit by which they spake is God as represented by Christ the Son is that God as represented by Moses and the high Priests the Father is that God Hence the names of Father Son and Holy Ghost in the signification of the Godhead are never used in the old Testament for they are Persons that is they have their names from representing which could not be till divers men had represented Gods Person c. Here is strange stuffe For first The word Person in the Trinity was never taken by Divines for a Visard a personating or representation but for a peculiar way of subsisting therefore by the Greek Church the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} was used till wanton and idle wits began to â—aise differences about that word and then {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} was used answering to the Latine word Persona and is defined thus {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} by Iustin Martyr and Damâ—sâ—en an eternal or unbeginning manner of an eternal existing so that in the same essence there is a threefold way of subsisting The Fathers existence is from himself the Sons from the Father the Spirits from both so in man there is the soul the intellect and will these three are but one essence yet differently subsisting the soul of it self the intellect from the soul and the wilâ— from both Secondly if personating or representing makes the persons in the Trinity it will follow that there have been and are more then three persons nay I may truly say innumerable for God hath been represented not onely by Moses but by Iosuah also and his successors by Aaron the high Priest and all his successors by all Judges also and Kings who are therefore called gods there must be then as many persons as there have been personatings or representations and in this respect the Trinity may be called a Legion or rather innumerable persons Thirdly Why should God be called the Holy Spiâ—â—â— as he was represented by the Apostles rather then by being personated by Moses or by Christ his reason is because the Apostles spoke by the Spirit I pray did not Moses and Christ speak by the same Spirit St. Peter saith that the holy men of old spake as the Spirit moved them Or why is God by him called Father as he was represented by Moses rather then as he was represented by Christ Was there more Paternity in Moses then in any other man or in Christ who by Isaiah is called the everlasting Father Or why is he called Father as personated by the high Priests Fâ—uâ—thly It is untrue what he saith that the nâ—â—es of Father Son and Holy Ghost are never used in the old Testament For Psal. 89. which contains not only a prophesie of Solomâ—n but also of Christ it is thus written He shall cry unto me thou art my Father Psal. 89. 26. and Isa. 9. he is called the everlasting Father So Psal 2. Christ is called Son Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee And Isa. 9. For unto us a Son is given So the third Person or Spirit is mentioned The Spirit of God moved upon the Waters Gen. 1. Now that this was no winde as some have thought is plain because air was created afterwards and this Spirit is said to move or by moving to cherish the waters but the winde is an enemy to the waters both in regard of its siccity and impâ—tuosity neither is the winde ever called the Spirit of God as we have shewed already So Ioel. â— I will pour my Spirit upon all flesh And Zach â—â— I will pour upon the house of David and the Inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication But he saith that these names are not used in the signification of the God-head but he is deceived for when the child Christ is called the everlasting Father by Isaiah this cannot be in signification of his humanity for how can a little child be an everlasting Father but in respect of his God-head He saith Cap. 42. If the Supreme King have not his regal power in this world by what authority can obedience be required to his Officers This is not to be doubted but the Supreme King hath his regal power in this world for this cause he tells his Apostles after his resurrection That all power was given to him in heaven and in earth therefore he sends them abroad into all nations of this world teaching them to observe all things which he had commanded them Matth. 28. If then he hath regal power in the world why should not his Officers be obeyed 'T is true Christs Kingdom is not of this world will it therefore follow that it is not in this world For if in this world he subdueth the nations to his Scepter by the sword of his word if he leads captivity captive if he giveth gifts unto men if he prescribe laws and punisheth the offendors shall we not say he hath Kingly power in this world if the Kings and Potentates of the earth have submitted their scepters to his Heraulds have received his yoak and have placed his cross upon their crowns in sign of subjection is he not their Supreme King whose dominion here is called the Kingdom of grace his other Kingdom in the next world shal be the kingdom of glory which M. Hobs confounds with this of grace as for the coercive or commanding power of Ministers which he
will and appetite of the State that is the measure of good and evill He makes here two different appetites the one of the State which is the Law and the other of private men but I say the appetite both of State and privat men is one and the same For if it had not been the appetite of privat men to have a Law how could there have been any Can a King make a law by himself without his people which consisteth of privat men Again if not the appetite of privat men but the law of the State is the measure of good what shall we say of Daniels privat appetite to worship the God of heaven and the publick law of Nebuchadnezzar in worshipping his Idoll Was that law of the Jewish State which condemned Christ the measure of good Or the Roman law in persecuting the Christians But he cannot yet leave barking at Aristotle saying That men have learned from his civill Philosophy to call all manner of Common-wealths but the popular tyranny and all Kings they call tyrants Either he is very ignorant in Aristotles Policicks or very malicious For Aristotle both in his Ethiâ—ks lib. 8. cap. 10. and in his Politicks lib. 3. cap. 5. is so farre from calling Kings tyrants and all Commonwealths but the popular tyranny that he distinguisheth the Kingly from the Tyrannicall government where in plain terms he saith That the Kingly is of all governments the best and the Tyannicall of all worst {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that is the worst saith Aristotle which is opposite to the best therefore tyranny being {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a trangression from Kingly government and opposite to it must needs be worst he shews there that Kings aim at the publick good but Tyrants meerly at their own benefit A King governs according to the Laws a Tyrant dominiers according to his will Neither again doth he call all governments but the popular tyranny for he saith that Aristocracie is one of the good governments because it aims at {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the common utility If it doth not degenerate into Oligarchy when a few of the richer sort will dominier and turn all the publick good to their own profit and so he saith that Politia or popular government is good if it degenerate not into Democracie when the poorer sort whereof there is the greater number take upon them to invade the estates of the richer men and convert them to their own use By this we see how much Aristotle is wronged and how far he is from calling any lawfull goverment tyranny or Kings Tyrants whereas he shews that a Tyrant is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} one that will not be accountable for his government but will doe what he pleaseth be it right or wrong which is farre from the practice of Kingly government which he compares to the government of a Father over his children He hath not yet done with Aristotle Cap. 46. but accuseth him for saying That in a well ordered Common-wealth not men should govern but the laws upon this he inferres That every man who can write and read finds himself governed by them he fears and believes can kill or hurt him when he obeyeth not I pray what contradiction is there here In a well governed Common-wealth men should obey the laws In an ill governed Common-wealth men are forced out of fear to obey Tyrants Aristotle speakes to aâ— good not of a bad government and sheweth what should be done not what is done Again Aristotle sheweth that we should rather obey good laws then bad governors and good governors rather then bad laws Polit. lib. 3. c. 7. so that he will have us obey all but withall tells us that he who obeyeth bad laws or bad governors may be a good subject but not a good man Besides his reasons are good why we should rather obey the law then the man because the Law is the Rule by which he should govern Secondly because the law is impartiall and not subject to affections as men are whom paâ—â—ions do so carry away that either they understand not what is just or if they do they follow it not yet he denieth nâ—t but in some cases the man is rather to be obeyed then the law to wit when the law is obâ—cure and intricate or when it is too severe and rigid In such cases the governor that can interpret and mitigate the Law is to be obeyed What he speaks cap. 46. against privat spirits and forcing of mens consciences I am not against but his quarrell against the School-men for their barbarous termes is needlesse and witlesse for Philosophers have liberty to use such terms as may make them intelligible And it is usuall in all Arts and professions both Liberall and Mechanicall consult with Physiâ—ians Chymists and Mathematicians and you will find it so For fictitious miracles I approve them not but who can tell what is fictitious what not of things done many hundred years agoe As for the Antipodes which some of the Fathers denied I have in that poynt cleared them elsewhere as likwise I shewed the vanity of that whimzicall opinion of the earths motion at large in that book called The new Planet no Planet and in that I writ in Latin against Lanbergâ—s concerning his Pythagorical Chymera If any would have further satisfaction in that point let them read what is written there for I purpose not to boil Coleworts twice And whereas Mr. Hobbs saith That it appears every day more and more that years and dayes are determined by motions of the earth It may be so in his fancy but in the judgement of wise men it appeas lesse and lâ—sse and that it is the Sunne not the Earth who like a Giant rejoyceth to run his course In his 47. chapter he goeth about to overthrow Christs Kingdom in this world as being an invention of the Romanists and Presbyterians to uphold their own greatnâ—â—s To this purpose he brings in many controverted doctrines of the Church of Rome as the Popes power succession and infallibility the Clergies priviledges their single life auricular confessions Purgatory Canonization Transubstantiation c. which have been ventilated and canvased pro and con by many learned men and therefore I need not spend more paper about them But whatever the benefit or pretence was which the Church of Rome had by maintaining that Christ had a Kingdom in this world Mr Hobbs must be forced to acknowledge that Christ hath a Kingdom here already on earth which began after his resurrection or else he must deny Gods word and his own too for he confessed before that Christs Kingdome here was the Kingdom of grace But to say that any either Romanist or Presbyterian doth hold Christs Kingdome here to be the Kingdome of glory as Mr Hobs seemed in the beginning of this chapter to intimate is to me altogether unknown and I believe to him also
For he will find in their Writings that the kingdom of glory is to be in Heaven after the generall Resurrection Again I would know how Christs kingdom on earth can be a Roman invention to uphold their greatnesse whereas this doctrine was preached by Christ himself by the Apostles and their suceessors when they were under persecution and had no greatnesse to uphold but their greatness in afflictions then did they find that they were Kings Priests to God or as St. Peter calls them a Royall Priesthood But by the way I must let him see his error in saying That Pontifex maximus was an Officer subject to the Civill State This is not so but the Civill State was subject to him as Festus sheweth in these words Pontifex maximus Iudex Arbiter rerum divinarun atque humanarum est He is Judge and Arbitrator both of Divine and Human things So Tully confirms the same in his oration he made to the Pontifices for his house Majores nostri vos religionibus deorum immortalium reipublicae summae praeesse voluerunt They had saith he not only the chief charge of Religion but also of the State And shortly after Omnis Reipub. dignitas omnium salus vita lâ—bertas arae foci Dii penates bona fortunae domicilia vestrae sapientiae fidei potestatique commissa credita esse videntur To their trust power was committed not only Religion but also all things that concerned the Common-wealth So Dionysius lib. 2. shewech that those Pontifices were nullius potestati obnoxii subject to no power nor were they to give an account of their actions either to the Senat or the People They had the same honours which they were wont to give to their Kings and more for no man had the honor to be carried in a Chariot to the Capitoll but onely the Pontifex therefore this office and honor was so great that Nâ—â—a himself would be Pontifex and so were divers Consuls Iulius Caesar and the Emperours after him discharged that Office themselves as holding it unfit that it should be subject to any Civill power but that it should be incorporated in the supreme civil office Lastly he tells us Chap. 47. That Aristotles Metaphysicks Ethicks and Politicks the â—rivolous distinctioâ—s barbarious terms and â—bsoure language of the Schoolmen serve to keep these errors from being detectedâ— But in this he is as much deceived as in his other Tenets for next to the Scripture Aristotles Phylosophy and School Divinity have been the grearest helps our men have had to detect those errors of our Adversaries which he hath mentioned Our Modern Divines have made great use of these in handling their coÌ„troversies as may be seen easily by those that read them As for School Divines which he so much slights because it seems he is little acquainted with them we have reason to esâ—eem well of their pains who with such dexterity aâ—d method have gathered together into brief sums and systems the vast scattered and dispersed body of Divinity and by that short and witty distinctions in very significant and fit terms though not Ciceronian have dissolved many hard and knotty doubts If the Civilians think themselves bound to Iustinian who reduced the vast and disordered volumes of the Law into short Institutions Digests and the Code why should not Divines thank Lumbard Aquinâ—â— and other School-men â—oâ— their pains in contracting the voluminous works of the Greek and Latin Fathers into short and compendious methodical disputations In his Review he pleads for this discourse As not being contrary either to the word of God or good manners or to the disturbance of the publick Trunquillity How far this plea of his wil extend and hold good may be seen in the particulars of this my Answer But I findnow the reason why he hath so much inveighed against Aristotle it seems he stands in his way and keeps him back from attaining the honour of being read in the Universities he â—old us before Chap. 46 â— That seeing Aristotlâ— is onely read there that therefore this study is not to be called Philosophy but Aristotelity Now he says That this his discourse may be profitably printed and more profitably taught in the Universities Can you blame him now for grumbling at Aristotle whose brightness doth so much dazle his weak light that he cannot be seen in the Colledges Suum cuique pulchrum I know Apes and Crows think their own brood â—airest who then can blame Mr. Hobbs for having so good a conceit of his Leviathan who perhaps thinks That by his neesings a light doth shine and his eyes are like the eye-lids of the morning that out of his mouth goe burning lamps and sparks of fire leap out Iob 41. But I doubt me for all this he will come short of his expectation and misse of his mark it will not be an easie matter for Mr. Hobbs to justâ—e Aristotle out of the Universities nor to make Malmsbury so famous as Stagira though his Leviathan were as strong as Iobs who esteemeth Iron as straw and brass as rotten wood What is a Pigmy to encounter with Hercules Shall the Beetle thrust the Eagle out of his Nest There is no wise man will exchange the light of the Sun with that of a Candle The Iewes have a fabulous Tradition that Leviathan is of so vast a body that he encompasseth the whole earth and pursueth the Sun in his course labouring to put out his light de te fabula narretur I think Mr. Hobbs hath the like conceit of his Leviathan that it shall be dispersed over all the world and shall extinguish Aristotle the light of learning But I think the Fable of one Elias a Jew will be fitter for him he writes that Leviathan is a great Fish laid up long since in Pickle to be food for the just in the kingdom of the Messia here on earth Mr. Hobbs expecteth such a kingdom therefore I think he cannot imploy his Leviathan better then to salt it against that day that he with the other subjects of that imaginary kingdom may feast and make good cheer therewith But in good earnest I wish Mr. Hobbs had been more modest then to â—light so scornfully Aristotle and so many other eminent lights of learning this was not the way to get reputation to his book among wise men I will let him see the judgement not of all but of a few and those the primest men of this Age for learning and understanding concerning Aristotle and his obtrectators Aristotelem nonnúlli mures è pistrina vexare adoâ—ti sunt aâ—ios omittam nugaces quorum exclamationes videâ—s in libellis Scaliger Exercit 307. Barbara ingenia levissimâ—s momentis impelluntuâ— ad divini incomparabilis herois obtrectationem duâ— namque sunt aquilae solae in natura rerum altera bellics laudis altera literariae illa potentiae haec sà pièntiae Caesar Aristoteles unicus Poeticae Syrenophaenix
calls him the miracle of nature his works the gift of God and a principal organ of God for enriching the world with so much excellent learning and that they are ungrate wretches who do not acknowledge it but will rail against him â—or it P. Martyr sheweth that Aristotles pains were profitable his artisice great his industry excellent and his rules most notable Zanchie saith that he is of all Philosophers the most excellent and that his method is most clear 〈◊〉 calls him with admiration a man of men the onely Eagle of Philosophy whose stile is fraughted with Attick eloquence and that they who write or speak against him are dunces silly people and such whose books are fit for nothing but for the fire Scaliger calls such barbarous wits Rats Kites Crows Ravens Owles and Bats To conclude I would have Mr. Hobbs take notice that I have no quarrel against him but against his tenets I honor his worth and learning but dislike his opinions I know not his person but I know and respect his parts if there be any thing amiss in these my Animadversions for we are all apt to mistake I shall thank him if he will set me right and inform me better for I never had so great an opinion of my self as not to yeeld to reason and such as are able to convince my understanding The God of truth direct us all into the way of truth Amen FINIS The Contents of each Chapter controverted INTRODUCTION THe world was not made by art or nature Lifeâ— is not the motion of the limbs Chap. 1. The object causeth sensation not sense Fancy and sense different Colour figured nothing Sensible qualities are not motions Motion produceth not motion Outward and inward senses distinct Fancy not the same in waking and dreaming men Chap. 2. A natural appetite in things inanimate but without knowledge Imagination is not decaying sense Memory and imagination different Chap. 3. Things future have a being Prophesie is not guessing No absurdity to say the soul is all in all and all in every part To be born no act of the minde Some faculties are not acquired Universalities are not names Truth in things as well as in names Geometry not the oÌ„nely Science Chap. 3 4. Phylosophy how Pedantry Chap. 5. Many things infused besides bodies Extension how a body Colour is in bodies and sound in the air A living creature is generical The nature of a thing is its definition Tropes and figures are not absurd speeches Chap. 6. Animal and voluntary not the same Contempt and hatred not the same Superstition and Religion not the same Faith and Imagination not the same The will is a rational appetite Chap. 7. Belief is not opinion To have faith in to trust to and to beleeve a man not the same What is to beleeve in God Our belief is not in the Church Chap. 8. Devils Demoniacks and mad-men not the same Schoole terms and Suarez intelligible Chap. 10. Pitty is not dishonour Lasting good fortune is no sign of Gods favour Ambition is not honorable nor covetousness Injustice with power is not honourable Goodness no less honorable then greatness Chap. 11. Felicity consisteth not in desire Chap. 12. Felicity is in injoying Phylosophy a supporter of the Church The want of it the cause of confusion and contradictions Chap. 15. All men are not equal by nature Some are naturally fit for service Some for Dominion Inequality necessary Chap. 16. Christ did not personate God Chap. 18. Covenants are not bare words nor do all depend on the sword Princes may but should not be injurious to their subjects Men indy injure themselves Injury Iniquity and Injustice the same thing Chap. 20. Kings and Tyrants different how Samuel describeth a King Moses a Tyrant Chap. 21. David did injury to Uriah How he offended against God onely Freedom is not the same under a Monarchy and Democracy Aristotles reason why under Democracy there is more liberty then under a Monarchy Chap. 28. Mr. Hobbs contradicts himself concerning the power which Subjects give to their Soveraigns Pride is no cause of submission to government but of Rebellion rather Chap. 49. The danger of acting against conscience is no presumption but a duty to judge of good and evil Faith is not attained by reason and study but by infusion and inspiration Faith is a miracle An account may be given of inspired faith Prophesie and Faith not the same Faith may stand with civil obedience Princes are subject to their own laws How every private man hath a property in his good Chap. 31. The subjects of hope love and fear often confounded God is not a name of relation Natural reason and the word of God different Reason must be subject to faith Our natural reason cannot purchase justice peace and religion Natural reason is sometimes contrary to Gods word Divine dreams are of force to win belief Chap. 33. How Moses's words are to be understood concerning his own Sepulcher And the Canaanite in Abraham's time being in the land Gen. 12. Chap. 34. Spirits are real parts of the universe though not corporeal Why substances are so called The spirit that moved on the waters was not a winde The word Ghost what it signifieth Aerial bodies not visible delusions may be seen by many at once How spirits are in a place Angels are not fancies or dreams Why called gods Why they appeared in mans shape The Dove and fiery tongues were not Angels Why Angels are distinguished by names How evil Angels suffer by fire How we shall be like the Angels in the resurrection Faith excludes reason Chap. 31. Divers places of Scripture mis-alleadged by Mr. Hobbs for his earthly kingdom and refuted What Holam is and Paradise and the new Jerusalem There is reason and authority to prove our happiness in heaven Divers places of Scripture expounded to this purpose and Mr. Hobbs his texts brought to the contrary refuted The souls immortality proved by Scripture Chap. 38. Christ proves as well the souls immortality as the resurrection of the body to the Saduces The souls immortality proved by Scripoure A place in Job explained The opinion of Christs earthly kingdom and the souls sleep are old heresies Hell is in the lower parts of the earth How the Prophetical speeches concerning Christs Kingdom are to be understood We shall ascend higher then Gods foot-stool Chap 41. Christ hath not been all this while since his resurrection without a Kingdom Differring of punishments and rewards here no argument that Christ hath no Kingdom What it is to sit in Moses's chair Other places of Scripture expounded Chap. 42. The blessed Trinity vindicated and proved out of the old Testament Christs Kingdom is in this world though not of this world Dissimulation in religion condemned The Apostles made laws and had power to command Disobedience a great sin Minister and servant the same thing Princes why shepherds their baptism doth not authorise them to preach Urim and Thumâ—im given to Aaron not to Moses The Romans had the legislative power over the Iews Excommunication a punishment Christs Kingdom is spiritual though the subjects are cloathed with flesh In Common-wealths there is a dependance as well as a coherence Heresie what it is and who be Hereticks Chap. 45. Our faith depends not upon mans reputation and authority Chap. 44. Devils and Fantasims or Idols are not the same Christs Kingdom here is the Kingdom of Grace The soul how immortal The wicked live eternally The tree of life Life sometimes called death The soul how taken in Scripture The Scripture is plain for the souls immortality Ghost-walking what it is Eternal torments no dark doctrine Christs Transfiguration was not the Kingdom of God Solomons words Eccles. 12. 7. and Eccles. 3. 21. concerning the soul expounded And Eccles. 3. 19. Enoch's translation Better be dead then live in misery Abraham's soul is alive actually That the torments of the wicked are eternal proved Man shall not be in the same condition after the resurrection that Adam was after his fall Chap. 45. Devils which Christ cast out were not diseases Angels and Mens souls are not corporeal spirits Christs temptation in the desart was real and no vision Exorcisms useful in the Church how Many possessed in these latter times It was Satan and not a treacherous intention that entered into Judas Chap. 46. Mr. Hobbs taxed for his exorbitant speeches against Aristotle and the other Phylosophers Men are not frighted from obedience by separated essences Graces are inspired or poured into us Inspiration excludeth not obedience to the laws The tearms definitive and circumscriptive distinguished The soul is all in every part of the body Incorporeal substances capable of torment Metaphysick not repugnant to natural reason proved by divers maximes Quantity increaseth and decreaseth with the matter What St. Paul means by vain Phylosophy God is no wales the author of injustice or sin The appetite of the State and of private men is not the same Aristotle vindicated from calling kingly or any other government but popular tyrannical How these words of Aristotle are to be understood Men should not govern but the laws Mr. Hobbs his new Tenent rejected Chap. 47. Romanists and Presbyterians do not hold that the Kingdom of glory is in this world Pontifex Maximus at Rome above the civil State Aristotle Phylosophy and School-Divinity vindicated Mr. Hobbs is censured for slighting Aristotle who is highly commended and his obtrectators reproved by divers eminent Protestant writers FINIS Part 1â— cap. 1. Part. 1. cap. â— Part 1. cap. 3. Part 1. cap. 3. 4. Part 1. cap. 5. Part 1. cap. 6. Part 1. cap. 8. Part 1. cap. 10. Part 1. cap. 11. Part. 1. cap. 12. Part. 1. cap. 15. Part. 1. cap. 16. Part 2. cap. 18. Part 2. cap. 21. Part 2. cap. 21. Part. 1. cap. 21. Part 2. cap. 28. Part. 2. cap. 29. Cap. 31. Part 3. cap. 32. cap. 34. cap. 38. cap. 41 cap. 4â— Cap. 44.
conjectural and of probabilities onely whereas faith makes its object certain end withal he makes these phrases the same To have faith in to trust to and to beleeve a man but Saint Austin and the Church ever since have made these distinct phrases for credere Deo is to beleeve that God is true credere Deum is to beleeve there is a God which wicked men and evil Angels may do but credere in Deum is to love God and to relie on him and to put our trust in him which none do but good men therefore Mr: Hobbs is injurious to Christianity when he saith That to beleeve in God as it is in the Creed is meant noâ— trust in the person but confession of the doctrine If so then the Devil may as boldly and with as great comfort say the Creed as any Christian for he beleeves and trembles â—aith Saint Iames and we know these evil spirits confessed Christ to be the Son of God and he is no less injurious to God when he will have us beleeve in the Church saying Our belief faith and trust is in the Church whose words we take and acquiâ—sse therein but the Apostles in their Creed have taught us otherwaies namely That we beleeve the Catholick Church but we beleeve in God the Father Almighty and in Jesus Christ and in the Hâ—ly Ghost He makes Devils Demoniacks and Mad-men to signifie in Scripture the same thing for thus he writes Whereas many of those Devils are said to confess Christ Is it not necessary to interpret those places otherwise then that those mad-men confessed him And shortly after I see nothing at all in the Scripture that requires a belief that Demoniacks were any other thing but mad-men Yes there be divers things that make it necessary for him to beleeve that these were distinct 1. The letter of the text from which we should not digress except we were urged by an inconvenience which is not here 2. The Authority of the Church in which he saith he doth beleeve Now the Church alwaies took these for distinct creatures to wit Devils Demoniacks and Mad-men 3. The honour of Christ for wherein was the power of his Divinity seen if these were ordinary Mad-men seeing madness is curable by physick and every common Physician It tended more to Christ's honour that the Devil whose Kingdom he came to destroy should confess he divinity then that mad-men should acknowledge it 4. Christ came to call Jews and Gentiles by working of miracles but to cast out Devils and to cure Demoniacks was a greater miracle then to cure mad-men 5. The New Testament distinguisheth Demoniacks from mad-men for these are called Demoniacks not mad and Saint Paul is termed mad by the Athenians and not a Demoniack so Devils are never called mad-men in Scripture nor madmen called Devils besides as all mad-men are not Demoniacks so all Demoniacks are not mad-men for the Devil entered into Iudas Iscariot he became a demoniack or possessed by the Devil and yet he was no mad-man but I doubt me Mr. Hobbs is mad himself in thinking all learned men to be mad except himself he thinks the School-men mad because their terms cannot be translated or are not intelligible in vulgar languages by this he may as well ascribe madness to Lawyers and Physitians as to Divines for their terms of 〈◊〉 â—t cannot be well translated nor can vulgar capacities easily understand them nor is it much material whether they do or not Church and State can subsist well enough though the vulgar sort understand not the terms of School divinity if these terms are not intelligible by dull heads and shallow brains the fault is in themselves not in the terms for quicquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur non ad modum recepti Blinde men must not accuse the Sun of obscurity because they cannot see him neither are the words of Suarez which he alledgeth for an example so obscure as he would make them for to an intelligent man the words are very plain to wit That the first cause hath no necessary influence upon the second by reason of subordination which is a help to their working Here be two things remarkable 1. That the second causes work by reason of subordination to the first cause â— That the first cause worketh not necessarily upon the second but voluntarily If this dish please not Mr. Hobbs his pallat he must blame his mouth which is out of tast and not the meat which is both wholesom and savory In his tenth chapter he uttereth strange Paradoxes 1. That to pitty is to dishonour 2. That good Fortune if lasting is a sign of Gods favour 3. That covetousness of great riches and ambition of great honours are honourable 4. That an unjust action so it be joyned with power is honorable for honour consisteth onely in the opinion of power therefore the heathen gods are honoured by the Poets for their thefts and adulteries and at first among men piracy and theft were counted no dishonour 1. Pitty is rather honour then dishonour for when a father pittieth his child a King his subject or a Master his servant do they dishonour them When we desire God to pitty us do we desire him to dishonour us him whom we dishonour we pitty not and whom we pitty we dishonour not pitty proceeds of love dishonour of hatred 2. If lasting good fortune be a sign of Gods favour it seems then that the Turks are highly in Gods favour for their good fortune hath continued these many hundreth years Whether was poor and starved Lazarus or that rich glutton who fared dilitiously every day highest in Gods favour 3. Who ever afore Mr. Hobbs made ambition honourable and covetousness which Saint Paul calls the root of all evil Can sin be honorable which brought shame and dishonour upon mankinde in respect of sin man did not abide in honour but became like the beasts that perish If ambition of great honors be honorable then were the evil Angels and Adam most honorable when they affected to be like God himself which is the greatest and highest honour that can be then were Caligula Domitian Heliogabalus and others who affected divine honours most honorable Midas coveted great riches when he wished all might be gold he touched therefore in this he was most honorable but if it be honour to offend God to transgress his law to incur his displeasure and suffer eternal pains let them who list injoy this honour I will have none of it non equidem tali me digner honore 4. He makes unjust actions joyned with power honourable Then unjust actions without power deserve no honour it is even as Seneca complaineth in his time parva furta puniuntur magna in triumphis aguntur Petty theeves are hanged but great robberies are honoured He spoke it with grief when a cruel tyrant ruled or rather misruled the Empire But otherwaies where there is government unjust actions are punished not
honoured and if it were not so Kingdoms would be nothing else but dens of theeves remota justitia quid aliud sunt regna quam magna latrocinia All principalities would be tyrannies and indeed where there is greatest power there should be most justice if Princes will be like God who is optimus maximus in whom greatness and goodness have meâ— together to whom much power is given of him much justice is required in maxima fortuna minima licentia est It is abominable then to make injustice with power honorable for honour is the reward of vertue was Achab's unjust seasing of Naboths Vinyard honorable Or are the actions of highway robbers armed with power to be honoured Sure not in any Christian Common-wealth where Themis raigns and Astrea hath not again forsaken the earth but perhaps injustice may sit as a Queen and be honorable in Leviathan's Republick Vbi prosperum ac felix scelus virtus vocatur spontibus parent boni Jus est in armis opprimit leges timor There honour may consist according to Mr. Hobbs his doctrine in the opinion onely of power without respect had to vertue and goodness and so because the evil Angels are called principalities and powers they deserve most honour But in other Common-wealths were Leviathan raigns not I finde that goodness is as much honoured as greatness piety justice temperance prudence learning and other endowments are had in no less honour then the greatest power that is Demetrius Phalereus had more slatues to wit 306. at Athens erected to him for his eloquence then ever any of their most powerful Commanders for theirgreatness the Apostles Martyrs Confessors and other emient men are honored at this day for their goodness not for greatness Homer Aristotle Virgil Cicerâ— are in esteem for their learning not for their power and with me Diogines in his tub is in greater honour then Alexander in his throne We honour God not so much for his greatness for so the Devil honours him as for his goodness and the child honoreth his parents not out of fear of their greatness as out of love to their goodness Honor then doth not meerly consist in the opinion of power As for the Poets commending their Gods for their thefts and adulteries and some barbarous Gentiles honouring theft and piracy I must confess that Mr. Hobbs is here reduced to hard shifts for supporting his irreligious Paradox or Cacodox rather for by the same means he may maintain that honour is due to Garlick Onyons Crocodiles Dogs Cats c. because the Egyptians worshiped these What wonder is it if theeves and Pirats honour each other but the civilised Gentiles were so far from honouring theft and piracy that they made severe lawes against theft and inflicted condign punishment upon the guilty As for the Poets commending the thefts and adulteries of their gods they are not to be understood literally but mystically as I have shewed elsewhere in Mystagog Poetico In his eleventh chapter he tells us That felicity is a continual progress of the desire from one object to another desire is an inclination of the will to obtain the good things we want or to be rid of the evil with which we are oppressed but in neither of these consisteth felicity for he cannot be happy which wants the good which should satisfie him or is possessed of the evil which oppresseth him in heaven onely is true felicity because as Saint Austin saith we shall desire nothing that is absent if desire be happiness then is the covetous man most happy for he is still desiring more wealth In true happiness there is love but neither faith nor hope which are the companions of desire besides he makes man in worse condition then the beasts for he saith in his twelfth chapter That the felicity of beasts consisteth in the injoying of their quotidian food And yet mans happiness consisteth onely in desire which is against sense and reason for a hungry man caâ—not be happy in desiring but in injoying of food it is not therefore the sight nor desire but the injoyment of the object which will make us happy Mars videt hanc visâ—â—que cupit potiturque cupita In his twelf chapter he saith That many revolted from the Church of Rome because the Schoolmen brought in Philisophy and Aristotles doctrine into Religion whence arose contradictions and absurdities as brought the Clergy into a reputation of ignorance It is strange that Philosophy should make the Clergy reputed ignorant whereas it contains the knowledge both of divine and humane things and it is one of the chief blessingâ— of Almighty God bestowed upon mankinde by which his image lost in Adam is repaired for the understanding is enlightned by the speculative and the will is regulated by the practical parts thereof and Philosophy is so far from causing peoples revolt from that Church that on the contrary it is one of the main supporters and pillaâ—s thereof I am afraid that it was not Philosophy which brought a reputation of ignorance upon that Church but rather their want of it which also will occasion much ignorance stupidity and darkness in our Church And I pray you good Mr. Hobbs what hurt hath Divinity received from Philosophy or Aristotles doctrine Hath it caused contradictions and absurdities as you say sure you are wideâ—ly mistaken for by Philosophy contradictions and absurdities are avoided into which those ignorant souls do fall who want it as we finde at this time by woful experience there being more absurd and contradictory opinions among the peoâ—ple of this Nation now in a few years since Aristotles doctrine hath been discouraged then were all the time hitherto since Christianity was imbraced And what wonder is it if they that walk in darkness stumble How should we come to know the heavens the earth the seas the fire the air the beasts fishes and fowls the hearbs trees plants pretious stones all which physical bodies with divers others are mentioned in Scripture besides Spirits Angels and other Metaphysical entities without Philosophy how should we define divide dispute speak or write methodically or syllogistically without this I will say nothing of the benefit we receive by moral political and â—â—conomical Phylosophy How shall we dispute against Hereticks and refel their subtil arguments without it Iustin Martyr and many other Greek and Latin Fathers fought against the Gentles Jews and Hereticks with this sword and beat them with their own weapons therefore to condemn Philosophy is to condemn the minister and handmaid of divinity between which there can be no more repugnancy then there is between the principal and subordinate cause between two lights two truths or between the body and the soul In his fifteenth chapter He will have all men equal by nature and that Aristotle was mistaken in saying that wise men were more fit to command and that others whose bodies are strong and judgments weake fitter to serve This he saith is against
Adam had not sinned he had had an eternal life on earth And hence he infers That life eternal which Christ hath obtained for his Saints shall be on earth because the Apostle saith as in Adam all dye even so in Christ shall all be made alive for else the comparison were not proper The comparison is not between the two places of heaven and earth but between the two persons of Adam and Christ and between the two lives the one earthly which Adam lost by introducing mortality and the other heavenly which Christ hath purchased by overcoming mortality and as this place fails him so doth that other Psal. 133. 3. Upon Sion God commanded the blessing even life for evermore And Rev. 21. 2. I Iohn saw the holy City New Jerusalem comming down from God out of heaven And Acts 1. 11. This same Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven shall so come as you have seen him go up into heaven And Mat. 22. In the resurrection they are as the Angels of God in heaven for they neither marry nor are given in marriage What sober minded man will conclude from these places that our eternal hapiness shall be on earth and not in heaven For when David speaks of life for evermore in Sion he means a lasting happiness which accompanies concord among brethren for the Hebrew word Holam in Scripture signifieth a continuance for some time but not eternity In Exod. 21. 6. The servant whose ear was bored is said to serve his master for ever that is so long as he liveth and not everlastingly Samuel is said to appear before the Lord and there to abide for ever 1 Sam. 1. 22. Will any infer hence that Samuel was to continue in his office for all eternity The Perpetuus Dictator at Rome continued not for ever though he is called perpetual So then life for evermore in Sion is a long continuing happiness and yet Sion in Scripture is divers times taken for heaven where is onely true and eternal life As impertinent is that place which he alledgeth Rev. 2. 7. To him that overcometh I will give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the Paradise of God This saith he was the tree of Adams eternal life but this life was to have been on earth But he is quite out of the way for the Paradise mentioned here is that which Christ speaks of to the good thief Thou shalt be this day with me in Paradise that is in heaven for earthly Paradise was destroyed by the flood and so was the tree of Life which might for some time have prolonged Adams age by supplying the decay of the radical moysture but could not have continued it for ever only our blessed Saviour the true tree of life here mention'd can protract our life into eternity now that Paradise was destroyed by the flood is plain by Moses Gen. 6. saying that the flood rose higher fifteen cubits then the highest mountains Besides if Paradise had been to continue what need was there to build an Ark for Noah and his family seeing they could have been saved in Paradise and so the other creatures likewise And whereas he saith That the New Jerusalem when Christ comes again shall come down to Gods people from heaven and not they go up to it from earth Is ridiculous for Rev. 21. 2. by the New Ierusalem coming down from God is meant the Church of Christ whose original calling protection and happiness is from God so that this is not a proper but a tropical discent The Church is called Ierusalem there and elsewhere because she is or ought to be the City of Peace and as Ierusalem of old was the place of Gods worship and of his peculiar presence so is the Church now which is called new as having cast off the old man and old ceremonies is renewed in the spirit of her minde and is regenerate by water and the spirit So he sheweth his vanity when he proves out of Acts 1. 11. That Christ shall come down to govern his people eternally here and not take them up to govern them in heaven For in that place there is no mention of his government here on earth nor of the eternity thereof but onely that he shall return after the same manner that he went up that is to say gloriously riding on the clouds and attended by Angels Now if any man would know the reason or end of Christs second coming he shall finde in Daniel 2. Mat. 25. and other places of Scripture that it is not to erect an earthly Kingdom which shall continue for ever but as the Apostle saith to render vengeance to the wicked and to us that are afflicted peace Or as it is in our Creed to judge the quick and the dead so then he shall not return as an earthly Prince to set up his throne here on earth which is his foot-stool but as a Judge in his circuit who having condemned some and absolved others returns again to the place of his residence But he says cap. 38. That there is neither Scripture nor Reason to prove that after the resurrection men are to live eternally in heaven What then will he say to these passages Mat. 5. Great is your reward in heaven Christ would have said great is your reward on earth if he had purposed to erect an earthly kingdom So Mat. 6. we are advised to lay up our treasures not on earth but in heaven this were to no purpose if we were to live eternally on earth not in heaven So Ioh. 14. I go to prepare a place for you that where I am there you may be I pray was it not to heaven that Christ went to prepare that place is not heaven his Fathers house where there are many mantions Earth is never called his house nor are the Saints said here to have an house or habitation but to sojourn as in Tents Heaven is the house where we must dwell if we will beleeve St. Paul who was caught up into this house who speaks not by hearsay but by knowledge for we know saith he that if our earthly house of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a building of God an house not made with hands eternal in the heavens 2 Cor. 5. 1. Why did St. Paul desire to be dissolved and be with Christ Phil. 1. if he was to enjoy Christ upon earth onely he should rather have desired to be dissolved that Christ might be with him on earth then he to be with Christ in heaven Enoch was translated and Elijah was caught up into heaven to assure us of our right and habitation there for this cause our Saviour opened heaven at his Baptism and after his Resurrection ascended thither to take possession thereof for us and it is fit that where the Head is there the body should be where the King keeps his residence thither his servants should repair Where should the children dwell but in their Fathers house now
our Saviour did acknowledge by paying tribute and counselling to give to Caesar that which were Caesars He cap. 42 will not have excommunication to be a punishment but onely a denouncing of punishment that Christ shall inflict at the day of Judgement But I say that excommunication is not a bare denouncing but a real suffering of punishment and of such a punishment as is most grievous to wit a â— paration from Gods people and the benefits which they enjoy for if the Abstenti in the Prinâ—itive Church held it a great punishment to be debarred from the Sacrament for a whÃle how much more grievous is it to be cut off from the mystical body of Christ and to be excluded from the Communion of the Saints and of all the priviledges which they do now and shall hereafter enjoy He denieth cap. 42. that there is any spiritual Common-wealth among men in this world This he gronnds upon two reasons 1. because it is the same thing with the Kingdom of Christ which is not of this world Secondly There are no men on earth whose bodies are spiritual These reasons are very weak For first because a spiritual Common-wealth and Christs Kingdom are the same it will follow that there is a spiritual Common-wealth amongst men which is the Kingdom of grace here where Christ raigneth in the hearts of his faithful people which though it be not of this world yet it is in this world as I have shewed already And of this Kingdom our Saviour speaks when he saith The Kingdom of God is within you Luke 17. 21 Which consisteth in righteousness peace and joy in the holy Ghost Rom. 14. 17. Secondly To say that Christ hath not here a spiritual Common-wealth because mens bodies are not spiritual is ridiculous for Christs subjects here are spiritual though their bodies be corporeal because they are animated regulated directed by the spirit They are regenerated by the spirit John 3. They walk not after the flesh but after the spirit Rom. 8. The spirit helpeth their inâ—irmities and teacheth them to pray Rom. 8. The holy spirit dwelleth in them 2 Tim. 1. 14. God hath given them of his spirit 1 John 4. 13. They are sealed with the spirit of promise Ephes. 1. 13. They have the fruits of the spirit which are love joy peace long-suffering c. Gal. 5. 22. Therefore Christs subjects though they are here cloathed with flesh yet are called spiritual Gal 6. 1. Yoâ— which are spiritual restore such a one in the spirit of meekness These are distinguished froâ— carnal or natural men 1 Cor 3. 1. I could not speak to you brethren as to spiritual men but as to carnal So 1 Cor. 2. 14 15. The natural man perceiveth not the things of the spirit of God but he that is spiritual discerneth all things So their seed is spiritual 1. Cor. 9. 11. Their meat and drink is spiritual 1 Cor. 10. 3 4. Their songs are spiritual Eph. 5. 19. Their house is spiritual a Pet. 2. 5. And their sacrifice is spiritual 1 Pet. 2. 5. Can we say then that Christs Kingdom or Common-wealth as he calls it is not spiritual He cap. 42 â— will not have the members of a Common-weath to depend one of another but to cohere together They depend onely saith he on the Soveraign which is the soul on the Common-wealth But there is a dependence as well as a coherence in a dead body there is a coherence of members but no dependence in a living body there are both though the body depend on the soul it will not therefore follow that the members do not depend one of another for the hands and feet depend on the stomack to be â—ed by it and it depends on them to be defended provided and carried by them the like may be said of the other members So in a Common-wealthâ— the Soveraign depends on the people for assistance maintenance and defence they depend on him for counsel government and peace The members of the Common-wealth depend on the Clothyer for cloaths on the Husbandman for food on the Physition for health on the Divine for instruction on the Lawyer for counsel c. And these depend on each other Heresie saith he cap. 42. is nothing else but a private opinion obstinately maintained contrary to the opinion which the publick person bath commanded to be taught Hence an opinion publickly appointed to be taught cannot be heresie nor the Princes that authorise them hereticks It seems then by this definition that Arianiâ—m was onely an heresie whilâ—t it was maintained by Arius a private person but when it was anthorised publickly by the Arian Princes it was no more an heresie and so now not Arius but Athanasius that opposed it must be called an heretick by Mr. Hobbs contrary to the judgment of all learned men and the Church of God hitherto The great Turk and the Mahumetans who profess at this day the same damnable doctrine of Arius are not hereticks but the Christians within his dominions who are of another opinion these are your hereticks Mr. Hobbs by this your definition you may call Christ and his Apostles hereticks for they held doctrines contary to the traditions and opinions of the Scribes and Pharisees who as you say sat in Moyses chair It is not the person private or publick that makes an heretick but it is the doctrine repugnant to Gods word and the articles of our faith maintained obstinately for siniâ—trous ends as lucre honor c. that makes heresie a private man may maintain an opinion in Philosophy contrary to the opinion of the Prince and yet no heretick in this because he holds nothing against our Christian faith his opinion may be erroneous but not heretical In his three and forty chapter he tels us That the faith of Christians ever since Christs time hath had for foundation the reputation of Pastors and Authority of Christian Soveraigns This is to build our faith upon a sandy foundation which with every blast will be overtâ—rned the authority and reputation of men are but arms of flesh and broken reeds to rely upon these may be motives to induceus to give our assent as the testimony of that woman John 4. induced many of the Samaritans of that City to beleeve on Christ But the foundation of their faith was Christ himself who bestowed that gift upon them as he doeth upon us And how can mans reputation or authority be the foundation of that which exceeds all humane reason and capacity but such is faith Besides faith it self is the ground of our justification and salvation for we are both justified and saved by faith but if man be the ground of our faith he must also be the ground of our jâ—stification and saluation and so Christ died rose in vain But the Apostle sheweth us the true foundation of our faith in these words For other foundation canâ—no man lay them that is laid which is Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 3. 11.
Christ therefore as he is revealed to us in his word is the foundation of our faith besides By faith we are the sons of God saith the Apostle Gal. 3. But we were in a bad condition if ourfiliation depended on the authority of Princes or reputation of Pastors In his forty fourth chapter he expounds these words of Matth. 9. 34. Belzebub the Prince of Devils that is He hath principality over fantasins that appear in the air So that he makes Demons fantasms or spirits of illusion to signifie allegorically the same thing But I do not read that Devils in Scripture are called fantasms or fantasms named Devils when the Disciples Mat. 14. saw Jesus walking on the sea they thought they had seen a fantasm did they mean the devil by this word So when Christ Mat. 4. was tempted of the devil is it meant that he was tempted by a fantasm Devils are spirits and real substancet and not phantasms or fictions of the brain as we shewed beâ—ore of Angels I deny not but Satan may represent to the outward sense as well as to the inward or imagination divers shapes of things to delude men which shapes may be called fantasms as that which Suidas calls a diabolical fantasm {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which indeed was but a deluding shadow or fantasm and not the Devil himself who is an invisible spirit therefore although there be in the heathen Poets fabulous doctrines concerning Demons we must not hence infer with Mr. Hobbs That Demons are but idols or fantasms of the brain without any real nature of their own distinct from human fancy For so he may as wel infer that God is but a fancy because the Poets have delivered many â—abulous doctrines concerning the gods He that afflicted Job tempted Christ buâ—â—etted Paul and hath been from the beginning an enemy to the womans seed is more then a fantasm or idol of the brain Cap. 44. After Mr. Hobbs hath toyled himself in vain to prove that Christ hath no kingdom in this world at last is content to allow Christ the kingdom of grace which is as much as we desire for we know that the kingdom of glory is not yet come Christ then is King of his Church militant here and raigneth in the hearts of his faithful and performs all the offices of a King even in this world by prescribing laws by ruling defending rewarding punishing though not in so ample a maner as hereafter he also conquereth and subdueth the enemies of his Church though not fully till the consummation of the world He also enlargeth the territories and bounds of his Kingdom that he might fulfil the prophesies and make good his Fathers gift Psal. 2. I have given thee the heathen for thine inheritance and the ends of the earth for thy possession This is that kingdom which is in the new Testament so often called the kingdom of God and of heaven this is that kingdom which in the resurrection Christ will deliver up to God his Father 1 Cor. 15. He cannot yet digest cap. 44â— the souls immortality for three reasons First because the tree of life was to preserve man immortal Secondly what needed Christs sacrifice to recover mans immortality if he hath not lost it Thirdly must the wicked and heathen also enjoy eternal life I answer The tree of life was to preserve man immortal but not the soul which is immortal by nature as being a spirit and not subject to corruption as bodies which are compounded of corruptible materials and of contrary elements Secondly Christs sacrifice was to recover mans immortality but not the souls which was not lost now as a part cannot be the whole nor the whole a part so neither can the soul â—be man nor man the soul Thirdly eternal life which the wicked enjoy is a life of misery and such as they would be willing to exchange for death neither is it more strange that wicked men should enjoy eternal life then wicked Angels both enjoying this immortality as a due punishment for their sins now whereas he saith That eternal life was not essential to humane nature but consequent to the vertue of the tree of life I grant that man is not naturally immortal yet the soul of man is but I deny that life eternal was a consequent to the vertue of any tree for no tree can be capable of such a vertue neither was the tree of life any other then a Sacrament of mans immortality if he had pesevered in his obedience therefore God debarred him because of his transgression from it in that he would not have his Sacraments abused by profane hands But he tells us That when everlasting death is called everlasting life in torments it is a figure never used but in this very case I answer That this figure is used in other cases as when Christ saith Let the dead go bury the dead there natural life is called death So when the Apostle â—aith We were dead in our sins and trespasses he used the same figure in another case for there the delight we have in sin is called death this figure is used in the law in another case for captives slaves prisoners and such like miserable men are said to be civily dead St. Paul in another case useth this figure when he saith I am crucified that is dead to the world to wit in his affections and so they who include themselves in a monastery are said to be dead to the world But he saith that this doctrine of the souls imnortality is founded onely on some of the obscurer places of the new Testament I pray what obscurity is there in this place Thou shalt be this night with me in Paradise What was to be with Christ in Paradise not the good thiess body then it must needs be his soul So when Christ preached to the spirits in prison what were these spirits Shaddows onely or fancies such as Virgil speaks of Umbrae ibant tenues simulachraque luce carentum Bodies they could not be they must needs then be souls So when Christ saith That body and soul shall be cast into hell fire there cannot be meant as Mr. Hobbs expounds it body and life for then Christ should speak non-sence when he saith Fear not them which kill the body but are not able to kill the soul Mat. 10. 28. That is fear not them that can take away the life of the body but are not able to take away the life of the life But he objecteth That the soul in Scripture is taken sometimes for the whosle man or living creature I grant it is so taken sometimes Synecdochically will it therefore â—ollow that it is never taken properly So this word flesh is sometimes tropically used for the whole man is therfore never used properly He tells us cap. 44. That this window gives entrance to the dark doctrine of eternal torments of purgatory of walking ghosts and exorcisms The doctrine of eternal torments is
speaks against I must needs confess there is not so much as some could take upon them yet to deny all coercive power is to deny the commission which this great King Luke 14. gave to his servants that they should compel those in the high-waies to come to his supper And albeit ministers are called fisher-men and not hunters yet fisher-men use some force in drawing their fish to the shore and indeed none can come to me saith Christ except the Father draw him as for his doctrine of dissimulation in matters of Religion both with God and man I dare not assent thereto for God who is the God of truth loveth truth in the inward parts he that is not with him is against him who gathereth not with him scattereth Linnin and Woolin in the same garment different seeds in the same ground an ox and an ass at the same plough are not pleasing to him Pulcra est concordia cordis oris If to think one think and speak another did argue Catalin to be an evil-man shall it not argue the like in a Christian Aliud in lingua promptum aliâ—d in pectore clausum habere When he â—ells us cap. 42. That Christs commission to his Disciples and Apostles was to proclaim his Kingdom not present but to come He is mistaken for the Apostles commission was to proclaim that the Kingdom of heaven was at handâ— {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the perfect tense shews that it was already come or at hand Mat. 3. and 4. And he sheweth Luke 17. 21. That the Kingdom of God was within them And Luke 11. 20. That the kingdom of God was come upon them If then this kingdom of Christ was not to come till after the resurrection how could it be said to be then at hand Whereas already there are 1652 years past besides what are to come When he saith cap. 42. â— That the Apostles had no power to make laâ—s but to perswade that they did counsel and advise but not command that their precepts were invitations and callings not commands that they might be without sin dissobeyed And much more to this purpose he â—peaks absurdly for how can he make precepts to be counsels and not commands Is not praecipio and mando all one Are not the ten Commandments ten precepts Are they to be called counsels did not the Apostles make laws and enjoyn them to be observed Acts 15. St. Paul doth not counsel but command the Thessalonians to work with their own hands 1 Thes. 4. 11. He hopes they will do the things he commands them 2 Thes. 3. 4. Timothy is to command as well as to teach 1 Tim. 4. 11. He must command the rich men of this world 1 Tim. 6. 17. The Apostle puts a difference between counsel and command when he saithâ— that concerning virgins he had no command but gives his counsel in that case 1 Cor. 7. 25. Now that Christ and his Apostles may be disobeyed without sin is a sinful opinion for Christ tels us that if he had not come and spoken to the Jews they had not had sin but now they have no cloke for their sin John 15. 24. St John writes to his brethren that they might not sin 1 John 2. 1. to wit if they obey and observe what he writes otherwise they must needs sin Disobedience is not onely a sin but as Samuel saith it is as hainous as the sin of witchcraft or idolatry He makes a needless difference cap. 42. between a minister and a servant That servants are obliged by their condition to what is commanded them whereas ministers are obliged onely by their undertaking But indeed these words servant and minister are promiscuously used for if servants are obliged by their condition to what is commanded them then ministers are servants for this obligation lieth upon them And if ministers are obliged by their undertaking then servants are ministers for what they undertake they are obliged to perform Christ Mat. 20. 26 and 27. useth the words {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} for the same thing And so he is called somtimes {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and somtimes {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and this word Diaconus is given sometimes to the meanest servant sometimes to the Magistrate as Rom. 13. somtimes to Preachers somtimes to Church Officers called Deacons Ambassadors are called also by this name and they are said {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to serve or to be Deacons He will have Chap. 42. Princes to be called Shepherds or Pastors because they are to teach the people But indeed they are called Pastors from feeding not from teaching neither is it the office of a King to preach or administer the Sacramentsâ— No man taketh upon him saith the Apostle this honor but he that is called of God as Aaron was he should have said As Moses was if he had been called to perform the Prâ—ests Office Therefore Christian Soveraigns are not instituted to teach by vertue of their Baptisme as he saith for Baptisme is a Sacrament of our regeneration and of our admission to be members of Christs bodyâ— by it Princes and Subjects are washed from sin but not instituted to preach the Emperour hath no more power to perform the Priests officeâ— or to preach by vertue of his Baptisme then his meanest subject And if the Kings Baptisme doth not authorize him to â—ach at all much lesse to teach what doctrine he will and to exercise absolute Power over his subjects as Mr. Hobbs saith For absolute power is in God onely they are tyrants not lawfull Princes that will claim absâ—lute power over their subjectsâ— And if it be Baptism that investeth Princes with power over their subjectsâ— what power hath the Turk the Persian the Magor the King of Chinaâ— the great Cham over their Subjects who were never baptsed and to allow Princes power to teach what they will is to make them absolute lords not onely over our bodies and goods but over our souls also and to enâ—lave our understandings to their wills When he saith cap. 42. In that Urim and Thummim was given to the high Priest it was given to the civil Soveraign for such next under God was the high Priest in the Common-wealth of Israel He contradicts himself for this high Priest to whom Urim and Thummim was given first was Aaron whom not long before he subjected to Moyses cap. 40. where he saith That not Aaron buâ— Moyses alone had next under God the Soveraignity over the Israelites and that not onely in causes of civil policy but also of religion Here we see how he makes and unmakes the Soveraignity of Princes and not onely doeth he make Moyses for his time but also the Scribes and Pharisees who sate in his chair that is to â—ay expounded his law supreme civil Soveraigns whereas the legislative power and civil Soveraignity was in the Romans by right of conquest which