The Leviathan found out, or, The answer to Mr. Hobbes's Leviathan in that which my Lord of Clarendon hath past over by John Whitehall ...

THE LEVIATHAN FOUND OUT.

MOnsters in Nature, usual pro∣ductions of Excess or De••ect of Matter, upon Festivals and Iollities are exposed to shew for the Pleasure of the Spectators and Gain of the Possessors. Monsters in Policy, usual Productions of Excess or Defect of Government (Tyranny or A∣narchy) are in Times of Danger and Conspiracy to be exposed for the Pleasure of the Wi••e and Settled, and for the Benefit of those that are Unstable, and subject to embrace novel though errone∣ous Opinions. Examples of the first have been frequently produced, but the Year 1651 (a time when our Nation groaned under the Dissolution of all Li∣gaments of our ancient Government,

having nothing in it like the Sun-shine of Authority, save the Tyranny of the Sword) only produced such an Example of the latter, I mean Mr. Hobbes's Levia∣than, as no Antiquity ever I believe saw nor no Posterity when exposed will e're approve of; which I imagin will be the delight of the Wise, and benefit of o∣thers, not obstinately bent upon Errors•• Upon this conceit, and the rather in this juncture, have I undertaken Mr. Hobbes in his Leviathan, who I can compare to nothing better than the Title of his own Book, I mean the Leviathan, for there is not his like upon the Earth, Iob 41. 33. And when I have done, I hope the greatest of his Scholars will not dare to say that I have wrong'd him in the Title of mine. Censure I expect, not only because there are many who think, the easiest advance of their own Wit is to depress others, whereby they may be taken into the Mouths of Buffoons, the Worlds Would-be-Wits, (who in defect of Learning and Sence draw regard by mouthing and noise) where∣by they may be made ridiculous; but also in respect of the many apparent Objections against this Undertaking,

as first, that my Studies have been bent another way; secondly, my confidence to attaque Mr. Hobbes, so great in reputa∣tion (why I know not) for Parts and Learning, that many of his detestable Errours and monstrous Opinions have been embraced, and are daily undertaken to be defended, not only by many that would seem witty in the World by dis∣coursing and maintaining things, because not learned in their Catechisms, but likewise by those (I hope but few) that desire to retain the reputation of Wise and Prudent. Thirdly, that my Lord of Clarendon, so eminent in Parts and Wisdom, hath written in answer to Mr. Hobbes before; yet I hope no one will be so violent against me for this, ••which I thought the greatest Objection ••gainst this Undertaking) when 'tis con∣••idered, upon the perusal of his Lord∣••hip's Work and mine, that I have ••ntermeddled with nothing his Lordship ••hought worth his Answer, only that ••hich his Lordship hath either wholly ••mitted, or mentioned as absurd, and so ••ast over: Besides, the great Intent of ••is Lordship, as I suppose, was to an∣••wer Mr. Hobbes in his Civil Politicks,

and erecting of Governments, which, as his Lordship hath shewn, are so full of contradictions in themselves, and incon∣sistencies to all manner of Method and Peace, in any Christian, or indeed Pagan Commonwe••lth, that 'tis not possible ••or me to say more, who have been so little conversant in things of that tran∣scendent Na••ure, in which his Lord∣ship hath testified to the world himself so great a Master, at the King's most happy Restoration. So then, to that which his Lordship pleased not to think worth his Answer, in Mr. Hobbes his L••viathan, I shall apply my self, ••aking the entire Sentences, which are not too tedious, or the true Sence (so far as he is intelli∣gible) of such as be, with the addition of any thing that he shall explain himself in upon the same place. But if Mr. Hobbes hath in any place said that, which he in another remote contradicts, (as he hath often done) I hope no one will say, that his H••resies, Errors, or Blasphemies, ought to be spared, and not laid open to the world, for the sake of the contra∣diction, considering, that 'tis not neces∣sary that every one that reads a Chapter or Sentence, and may receive the

infection naturally resulting from it, should read or consider that which is manifestly to the contrary, thereby to make him consider, and prepare him for an Antidote or Enquiry; and in things of this nature Mr. Hobbes is very frequent. And to give an instance of this, he page 268. denies absolutely the personal Exi∣stence of the Divinity of God the Son and Holy-Ghost, as I shall shew in i••s place, and yet p. 204. he calls the two second Persons God the Son and Holy-Ghost. Now I hope no good Man will say, that the denying of the God-head of the se∣cond and third Person in the Blessed Tri∣nity is therefore not to be exposed, and answered with such severity as is proper for such monstrous though old Opinions, because Mr. Hobbes in another place con∣tradicts himself. Nay, I think the Fa∣brick of his Civil Politicks (which I sup∣pose was the Drift of his Book) is founded upon things incompatible; for he saith, p. 88, 89. That the People upon submission to their Prince, contract one with another to submit themselves to him, (and indeed all their properties, which is the labour of his Work) and cannot be obedient to any other without his permission; and that the

Prince makes no Covenant with the People: And yet p. 114, 174. he saith, That that Subjection lasteth no longer than his Power to protect himself and them, and then they are absolved, and may submit to any one else that can protect them; forgetting the con∣sult of the P••••••ces permission, which he spake of p. 88, 89. which permission be sure no People shall ever have from their Prince to desert him, and then how can the People be absolved from their con∣tract, the Prince having made no cove∣nant as he saith with them? Which I leave any reasonable Man to judg of, whe∣ther it be not impossible. This Absurdity I believe Mr. Hobbes little thought of at the time of writing his Book, bending his Mind as I suppose to the establishing a new Government, to be then erected, and the advance of himself in it, when our King was murthered, and his Royal Son beaten from his Rights, whereby they were uncapable to protect us. I shall not stay upon this, but refer my Reader to my Lord of Clarendon, who hath I think, as to all Matters of this nature, made such a Creature of Mr. Hobbes, that I can think him capable of no other Name than Leviathan. Only let me observe,

what Stuff this is, when search'd to the bottom, to ground any Government upon: First, it is to give the Property of the People to the Prince, (like a dear Son of Sibthorpe and Manwaring) which will make them not only weary of his Government, but also to ••••deavour to throw it off, that they may have some∣thing to call their own: And in case their Governour shall be imprisoned by a Popish Plot, or by any Invasion or Rebel∣lion, though but for a Week, be made otherwise uncapable to exercise his Au∣thority, the Subjects are absolved (which nick'd with Oliver Cromwel then, and the Papists now) from their Allegiance: Which is so monstrous an Opinion, that 'tis only to say, That Subjects may de∣sert their King or Governour when he hath most need of their Assistance; which is undoubtedly against all the Laws of Reason as well as Charity: For 'tis as if Mr. Hobbes should have said, That our obligation to our Benefactors lasted no longer than their power to do us good, and that we might desert them in their adversity, whose prosperity we reaped so much advantage from. And 'tis little less than to say, That a Son may desert

his Father, and is absolved from his Obe∣dience, when his Father is fallen into poverty. This Doctrine (••ly and Iesui∣tical) in short is to set the Prince against the People, and the People against their Prince, to the ruin of them both, in English, to the ruin of his native Coun∣try; for 'tis to decoy the Prince into the hatred of his Subjects, and to teach the Subjects to desert their Prince at their own will and pleasure, they only being left Iudges when their Prince is unca∣pable to protect; for be sure, as I said before, no Prince will ever say that he is uncapable to protect, when he is sure thereupon to be deserted by his Subjects, and thereby made no Prince at all. This Doctrine makes Mr. Hobbes's learned train of Thoughts, mentioned p. 10. work wonderfully in me, viz. the Crime, the Officer, the Prison, the Iudge, and the Gallows; for Mr. Hobbes could not but know, that it is the greatest Interest of a Prince to support the Property of his Subjects, that they might rejoyce in their subjection, and consequently desire to stand by him in his greatest Necessities, and redeem him by their Blood and For∣tunes (as the People of England are now

resolved) from any unhappiness that might befall him, and thereby restore him and themselves into their mutual happiness. I think in this last matter I have been so far from wronging Mr. Hobbes, though I have not repeated his very words in several parts of his Book, that (tis plain) his particular pages make his opinion look much worse than any thing I have said. And I intend not to tye my self in every place to particular Repetitions, which would be too tedious; but I challenge any Man when I have done, to say either in this, or any subsequent matter, that I have wronged Mr. Hobbes in the least, (though I believe many will doubt whether the Positions be any English mans, they are so gross, till read in his Book) in that which I shall repeat of him in words or substance. And to lay more weight upon Mr. Hobbes than he hath laid upon himself, would be further to load the oppressed, and like laying Felony to a Man's charge, that was really guilty of high Treason. And as I shall lay nothing falsly upon Mr. Hobbes intentionally, so shall I not quarrel with every thing in his Book; for there are many things which

shew Mr. Hobbes a Man of tolerable parts, though little in it shews him a Man willing to converse and digest his noti∣ons, whi••h would have freed him from the delivery I suppose, not only of so many gross, but supercilious Errors; besides, no Book was ever so false, but had some Truths and Orthodoxality in it, and that may be seen in the Alcoran, and the Mass Book. Neither shall I often quarrel with Mr. Hobbes's Book in things, the truth or falshood of which, are of no moment; but with his gross and dange∣rous Errors, or that which tends to sup∣port them. As for his Liberty and Neces∣sity, I shall not ingage in, hearing tis fully answered by a Learned Bishop al∣ready, no more than with what my Lord of Clarendon hath been pleased to answer; and other Writings against Mr. Hobbes's Leviathan did I never hear of, or see so directly to fall in with Mr. Hobbes, page after page. He (p. 1.) calls Nature, The Art whereby God hath made, and governs the World. Here at first he is got into such a Rapture, that he hath lost his Reason: for how God can be said to make the World by the Art called Nature, is incon∣ceptible; for that the Nature of things

suppose the preexistence of those things in which Nature must exist, and indeed is nothing else but an Energy or force given to things at the Creation, for the acting of such thing•• as they are adapted to; whether of Generation, or otherwise, and is subsequent to the thing made. And this Position of Mr. Hobbes is but another manner of saying, That God did not make the World by the Word of his Power, but had some Instrument preexistent to work with; which is his first attack upon the honour of his Maker.

Mr. Hobbes, p. 2. saith, That what the Passions of a Man, as Fear, &c. are in hims••lf, he may judge what are the Passions in ano••her on the like occasion. But cer∣tainly, common experience teacheth every considering Man the contrary: for who knows not that knows any thing of the difference of th•• Constitutions, That one fears, &c. that which another doth not, and that under the very same circum∣stances? For doth any Man think, that because he dares not get upon his Horse back, that therefore another dare not. This would be one way to lose him; but such inconveniencies I believe Mr. Hobbes never thought of, only ven∣tured

the conceit, supposing himself in∣fallible.

Mr. Hobbes, p. 3. saith, That the ap∣pearance of the objects of sence to us is fancy, which is the same waking that dreaming; and p. 5. saith, That Imagination and Memory are but one thing, which for divers consi••erations hath div••rs Names. These assertions I should not trouble my self to shew the unreasonableness of, no more than with his condemning all the Uni∣versities of Christendom, p. 4. with im∣propriety of Speech, grounded upon the position of Aristotle, (the greatest Na∣tural Philosopher that ever the World produced) viz. That Sence is caus••d by a Species resulting from the object, and yet shews no reason for his contrary conceit. Whereas had Mr. Hobbes had any modesty, or so much learning in the Law, as in other places he pretends to, he would have thought it hard to explode an old opinion without a better reason, and would have known that a prior Possessi∣on is the best Title against all but him that hath right. This tends only to disparage the way of Learning, but I am afraid his saying that Sence is Fancy, and me∣mory Imagination, strikes higher, and

that thereby he intends to enervate the authority of the Scriptures, (which he so much endeavours through his Book) if not utterly to supplant them; which will make him the easier task hereafter to maintain, that only that is Canonical Scri∣pture which is authorized by the civil So∣veraign, as he affirms, p. 199, 205, &c. For the Argument lies thus; It must be agreed on all hands, that the things done and delivered to us in the Scriptures, were for the most part but the things they who deliver'd them saw and remembred; which is a great ground-work of the Scriptures Authority. Then, h•••• p••sito m••y Mr. Hobbes, and his Disciples say, If the Relators of the Scriptures only saw and remembred these things to be so, they only fancied them and im••gined them; and what a Man phancies or ima∣gins, may be, or may not be. But tis most plain, that seeing is one thing, and phancy another; memory one thing, and imagination another. As for instance, before I saw Mr. Hobbes's Leviathan, I fancied and imagined by wh••t I heard, that it was an ill Book; but when I had seen and read it, and remembred the Contents of it, I was certain that it is

as full of contradictions, execrable, de∣testable, and damnable Opinions, as a Toad is of Poyson. So I hope it appears, that the Authority of the Scriptures is not lessened by this conceit of Mr. Hobbes, which in it self is contrary to sence; but that every good Man will think, that the Pen-men of them had a better certainty than phantasie and imagination.

Mr. Hobbes, p. 7. saith, That Witches Witchcraft is not any real Power, but that they are justly punished for the false belief they have, that they can do such mischief joyned with their purpose to do it if they can. I will not controvert with Mr. Hobbes, whether there have ever been Witches or no. Neither should I controvert with Mr. Hobbes the dueness of their punish∣ment, which is death, and that only (as he saith) for belief they can, and their desire to do mischief; only in this he meddles a little with our profession of the Law, (and I could wish for the sport-sake he had dipt a little more into it than he hath in his Book.) But this let me tell Mr. Hobbes, that no Man ever was by our Law put to death for believing he could, and desiring to do mischief; for the case of high Treason goes farther

than belief and desire; and Mr. Hobbes would think it hard else, especially in this case I shall put him, viz. when Mr. Hobbes only believed he could, and desired to write such a Book as the Leviathan, (which tended in the year 1651. to keep both Church and State subverted, or to resubvert them, if re∣stored) had it been known, the Law of the Land would not have taken his life for it; but when his Book was published by him, and the mischief had spread it self, had the Law been unmusled, he would scarce have scaped with his life, except his Pocket or Legs had proved better than ever I perceived his Head. But why Mr. Hobbes should be so much against ill desires in this page, as to make them capital, when in p. 26. he denies any Iniquity to be in them, as I shall shew in its place, is not to be answered: save that Mr. Hobbes must be allowed to for∣get himself in the space of 19 pages.

Mr. Hobbes condemns the Schools in p. 8. and I will refer it to any reasonable Man, whether he condemn them for any thing that is rational or sensible. And p. 10. he saith, That the best Prophet na∣turally is the best Guesser. I suppose he

means the best natural Prophet, and so his ill methodised words may be true; but '••is false to say (as I shall shew anon) that the Prophets of the Old and New Testament were only Guessers, that is, only fancied and imagined what they wrote was true.

Mr. Hobbes, p. 11. saith, That there is no Idea or Conception of any thing we call In∣finite. This he follows with a blaming the Philosophers and School-men, for saying there is, and indeed presseth this Position with a company of words, that are enough to make any Man's Head to run round, that is not used to Mr. Hobbes's Notions, that m••ke often a great noise, and signifie nothing, which will appear fully in this Paragraph: Where he confesseth a God, but denies us any (in effect ) conception of him, (and p. 16. he saith, ••hat Infinite is a Negative word.) So there's an end, if Mr. Hobbes say true of praying to, and worshipping God; for what we can have no Concep∣tion of, we can never Worship; for such a thing is nothing as to the worshipper, and consequently cannot be worshipped, nothing being uncapable to be passive. 'Tis true, we cannot conceive the infinity

of God terminatively, that is, the extent of it, which are terms contradictory; but we may conceive a God or B••••ng that is infinite, that is to say, a G•••• that can do or doth know every thi••g, and is not bounded or stopt by any p••••ticular, so that he can go no farther; ••••t we cannot know how far that Pow•••• or Knowledge doth extend. This Po••••tion Mr. Hobbes grounds much upon a former Notion of his, which one would not easily think he would have made such a wicked and unreasonable use of, (viz.) That what∣ever we conceive, hath been first perceived by sense. Which Tenet is very plausible and true as to our reasonings from matter of Fact, whereby we create in our selves deductions appertaining to Sense and Reason, and the government of our Con∣versations with Men and things that we can definitively know; but what is this to things above definitive Knowledge? For what we cannot definitively know, is not the object of Sense, and yet we may conceive there may be something done or known that we cannot do or know, and a power or knowledge capable to do and know, as far as 'tis possible for any thing to be done or known, though we know

not the extent of the Capacity either of the Agent or Patient, and this we call in∣finite Power and Knowledge. I think Mr. Hobbes in his Paragraph is setting up the Athenians unknown god, which they ignorantly worshipp'd, but St. Paul decla∣red him unto them, and I have so good an opinion of St. Paul that he would de∣clare nothing but what was conceptible; nay Mr. Hobbes himself in his 12 page ap∣proves very well of the word Infinitive (though he buggards at the word Enti∣ty) as useful; but I would know of any rational Man of what use the word Infinitive is, if we can conceive nothing by it; for if we cannot conceive in∣finite, or a thing that is infinite, what do we do with the word infinitive, that sig∣nifies something not bounded, that is infinite. And now I am upon his con∣demning the word Entity, which he saith as well as Intentionali••y and Quid∣dity are insignificant words of the School, p. 12. Because I see Mr. Hobbes hath no infinite capacity, I will tell him the best I can, that Metaphysics may not be quite exploded by arrogant Ignorance, what is meant by Entity and Quiddity; and as for Intentionality I do not remem∣ber

it to be a word used in Philosophy, it being near 20 years since I left Oxford, or read any thing of that kind; but as to Entity (much the same with Quid∣dity) 'tis a word to express our concepti∣ons by of the nature of any thing, though no such thing was in being. As a Man may conceive the nature of a Dog under such shapes and qualities, though there was no such creature; and the general Answer for this upon the ••uestion Quid∣dity is Entity, the parti••••lar Caneity. And further to illustrate i•••• we may con∣ceive a Man of an Opinion that there are no such persons in the Godhead as God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; or of an Opinion that all the World past and present were fools and mistaken, and that he only could give just measures to Words and Learning, and subvert all things, though in reality there was no such Person; and this the Schools would call Atheisteity, Arroganteity. And if Mr. Hobbes or any one else should con∣ceive a new Leviathan, before 'tis made, the Schools would call it Leviathaneity, and after Mr. Hobbes his death Hobbeity: but 'tis not good for Mr. Hobbes to write such an other Book, lest the Lawyers,

though they be so ignorant as he saith they be, p. 50. be ready with a Penaity, and the Kings Majesty (who hath suffer∣ed so much by Mr. Hobbes's first Book) be not so ready with a Pardoneity, which on such an occasion I believe Mr. Hobbes would own as an Entity, though told him by a Schoolman, and that a material Entity.

Mr. Hobbes, p. 19. saith, That the words a Free Subject are words without meaning, and this he saith in his Chapter of Rea∣son, where one would not expect such Nonsence (only 'tis an Abridgement of his Doctrine tending to set Prince and People together by the Ears). For, I say, I am a Free Subject, and 'tis as good sence as ever Mr. Hobbes spoke in his Life. For I am a Subject of the Kings, and free, I bless God, to enjoy my Property and Liberty according to the Laws of my Native Country. And observe, that the Egyptians, nor their Lands, were not Pharaohs be∣fore Ioseph bought them for Pharaoh.

Mr. Hobbes, p. 20. quarrels at any ones saying, That Faith (and Sanctity, p. 169.) are infused or inspired; for saith he, No∣thing but Body can be breathed into any thing. This is I think rather better Di∣vinity

than Philosophy. For in Divini∣ty it may be true, quoad hunc, (viz.) that Mr. Hobbes had never any Faith or Sanctity infused into him, especially con∣sidering that he denies the existence of the Person of the blessed Spirit in an other place. But I would know, if Faith cannot be infused, and if any Man be admitted by Mr. Hobbes to have Faith, how he came by it; certainly not as Mr. Hobbes saith, p. 169. By education or external helps, for we see many virtu∣ously brought up, void not only of Faith but common Civility: Nay Mr. Hobbes so far in that p. 169. contradicts himself, as to say, That God by outward means work∣eth them in his Elect. So God is the in∣fuser though he work by means, and the 2 Cor. 3. v. 5. is an express Text, That we are not sufficient of our selves to think any thing, but our sufficiency is of God. Now if we cannot think, how should we be∣lieve, but that Grace is given us of God of whom is our sufficiency. And the 2 Cor. 12. v. 9. Gods grace is said to be sufficient for St. Paul; if it be God's grace how came St. Paul by it, except it be infused? And Luke 17.5. The Apo∣stles prayed for the Increase of their

Faith, which must be by Infusion increa∣sed, or no way that I can imagin; and 'tis plain the Apostles expected the in∣crease of it not by Education or other External helps. But Mr. Hobbes his Phi∣losophy in this place never can be true, for a Body can never be breathed into a Body, for that would be to make two Bodies in the same place, which Mr. Hobbes disallows. This is much like him in the next page, where he calls the words Transubstantiate, Consubstantiate, Hypo∣statical, the canting of Schoolmen, and words that signifie nothing; and p. 22. his calling Metaphors Ignes fatui, and their end Sedition, and all this with∣out any colour of Reason; although Metaphors are so frequently used in Scri∣pture, as Abraham calls himself Dust and Ashes, and Abraham never rebelled a∣gainst God his King (as Mr. Hobbes elsewhere styles God to be). And Saint Paul calls himself the Prisoner of Iesus Christ; and Mr. Hobbes in his Book of∣ten uses Metaphors, which I will allow him if they be like the rest, and do tend to Rebellion.

Mr. Hobbes saith, p. 24. That there is nothing simply or absolutely Good but as Men

account things so to themselves, or as they are made so by the Person representing the Common Wealth, or by an Umpir•••• This is the best part of Mr. Hobbes his Divinity. But I would know of Mr. Hobbes, whe∣ther there was any such thing as a Law to the Children of Israel, or other peo∣ple, before the Decalogue. If Cain had lain with his Mother, there being no positive Law to prohibit it at that time, that we know of, had it been no sin? Or how came the Heathen to be a Law unto themselves, 2 Rom. 14. when they had not the express Law or Decalogue, ex∣cept there is something Good or Evil of it self simply and absolutely? For a Law supposeth a transgression, and in this place it must be intended the Law of Nature, for they had it in themselves, which only can reflect upon what is Good or Evil by Nature, that is simply Good or Evil. This Doctrine is as dan∣gerous as false, for it tends to incourage Men inclinable to be vitious in several wicked Desires, Words or Actions, which they find the Law of the Land doth not extend to punish, nor the Scri∣ptures plainly or expresly forbid. And Mr. Hobbes might have remembred ••hat

there is such a thing as unnatural Lust (that is Lust against the Law of Na∣ture) spoken of in Scripture. But this is as true as his calling in the next page sud∣dain Courage, Anger.

Mr. Hobbes saith, p. 26. That the desire of Riches in it self is to be blamed or allowed, according to the means by which those Riches are sought. And p. 151. he hath a Tract much to the same purpose, And p. 62. saith, That desire and other passions of Man are in themselves no sin. Mr Hobbes but two pages off was against any sin, till there was a positive Law; now he is for making Covetousness no sin though it be by a positive Law made so (viz.) the tenth Commandement, (as other passi∣ons are forbidden by other Commands) which saith expresly, Thou shalt not covet what is thy Neigbours. Now the desire of Riches saith Mr. Hobbes is not the sin but the means by which they are sought. So the sin, as he saith, only lies in the act of acquiring, not in the desire which the tenth Commandement expresly contra∣dicts. As if he should have said, if you pick not your Neighbours pocket you may desire his Money. If you cut not the Husbands throat you may lust after

his Wife; nay for ought I know he may intend, that you may actually lie with her, if you do it not by force or fraud. (Though Mr. Hobbes saith, p. 179. That not only unjust facts but intentions are in∣justice.) These Positions of Mr. Hobbes's against sins of desire and other passions, makes an end of all sin of thought, though Rom. 2. 1, 2. be a Text expresly, as I think, to the contrary, and though our Saviour elsewhere saith expresly, That he that looks upon a Woman to lust after her, hath committed Adultery with her in his Heart, Matth. 5. 28. But to this Mr. Hobbes may perchance say, That heart-Adultery is no sin. And 'tis no matter what he ••aith in matters of Religion, when to bring Re∣ligion it self into contempt, defines it, (viz.) A Fear of Power invisible, feigned by the Mind, or imagined from Tales public∣ly allowed; not allowed, Superstition; and when the Power imagined is truely such as we imagin, true Religion. And with this he ••ccords, p. 51. So that Mr. Hobbes in other words calls Religion (which is the Apprehension in a good Christians mind of his duty to serve the great God, and his hearty performance of the same,) first, only a fear, no love in the case. And

secondly, of a Power invisible, let it be of God or the Devil. Thirdly, this fear saith he is fained by the mind (which excludes reality) or imagin'd from Tales public∣ly allowed, that is, stories people generally believe, no matter whether true or false, and when the Tales are not approved of 'tis no Religion, as he saith, but Supersti∣tion; and when the Power we fancy or imagin is truly such as we imagin it, then 'tis true Religion. So if the Indians by Mr. Hobbes his rule fancy the Devil is able to do them hurt, then theirs is true Religion. Well done Mr. Hobbes, for he hath made Religion in general much like his own, and that except I be de∣ceived is none at all, and this without vouchsafing a Reason of such an idle conceit. And let Mr. Hobbes say what he can, or any one for him, this Para∣graph tends only to draw wicked or un∣wary Readers into contempt of Religion, and to make a mockery of it; which must tend to their Eternal misery, and to keep them from that beatifical visi∣on which Mr. Hobbes page 30. without Sence or Reason calls a word of the Schoolmen, and unintelligible.

Mr. Hobbes, p. 32. saith, That when we believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God, we believe the Church or a Prophet, (ex∣cept some immediate revelation intervene,) so far as 'tis possible to know what he means. He saith, That if we believe not the Scri∣ptures, the affront is done to the Church or a Prophet, and not to God, as the not belie∣ving the Stories of Livy concerning the gods, the affront is done to Livy and not to the gods. This is to undermine the Scri∣ptures before he comes to blow them up. But let Mr. Hobbes look the 5th of Ephes. and he shall find, that the Church hath handed down the Scriptures to us so uni∣ted to Christ, and the Union so firm there expressed between Christ and the Church, that he must needs conclude, that any affront done to the Scriptures must necessarily be done to Christ and to God. And I do affirm against all the conceited Irreligionists in the World, that the Scriptures would have been the Word of God, and the Rules of Salvation, although our blessed Saviour had not ap∣pointed any Church to have handed them down to us; not that I say every cavilling Atheist would have assented to them. But then as Mr. Hobbes plentiful∣ly

urges in his Book, How shall we know that they are the Word of God? And of this I shall say something more hereafter. But at present, say, that I think 'tis suf∣ficiently satisfactory to any rational Chri∣stian, that they are the Word of God, be∣cause they teach us our misery by sin, to which our mortality is so subject; our Redemption by Christ, and appoint us a Pious and Virtuous way of living here, and the way to an happy immortality hereafter. Besides, what rational Man can suppose, that the good and wise God would leave mankind without a guide to a blessed immortality, and what guide is there like this? So that any Man that is not frantick or resolved to quarrel with every thing other people assent to, but must say, that God is the Author of them; and consequently the disbelief of them is an affront done to God if we deny them, and not to Man only. And I think good King Iosiah and all Iudah with him belie∣ved the Law to be the Word of God, and thought the contrary would be an affront to God, upon less or at least upon less inviting grounds, 2 Kings 21. than we ought now to believe the vo∣lume of the Bible to be so. But if we

believe not the Fables of Livy concer∣ning the gods, the affront is only done to Livy and not to his gods, for they were no gods at all; and so Mr. Hobbes's Example is at best but a fallacy, which he is very frequent in; and I have so much charity for him as to believe, that 'tis not always out of design, but some∣times caused by his want of a clear Iudgement; for Mr. Hobbes cannot but know, that a juggling Cock is often hit.

Mr. Hobbes after a long discourse of the passions, the absurdity of which is not worth the answering, p. 38. saith, That the Scriptures, by the Spirit of God in Man, mean a Mans Spirit inclined to god∣liness. And for this he cites Exod. 28.3. which is nothing to his purpose, though not so much against him as other Texts are. As 31. Exod. 3. which saith expres∣ly, I have fill'd him with the Spirit of God, to work; which as Mr. Hobbes saith, Is Mans Spirit inclined to godliness. And the 51. Psal. 11, 12. where David prays, That God's Spirit may not be taken from him, but that he may be upheld by it; is as Mr. Hobbes saith, David's own Spirit; without doubt David thought it God's

Spirit, or he would have called it by an other name; and I believe David knew as well as Mr. Hobbes how to express himself. So to make this Opinion suffi∣ciently ridiculous, look Iudges 15. 14. where 'tis said, The Spirit of the Lord came mightily on Samson, and the cords brake, and he kill'd the Philistines; that is saith Mr. Hobbes, Samson's Spirit was inclined to godliness. And from hence Mr. Hobbes may raise this Observation, That a mans godliness makes him able to pull cords asunder, which perchance Mr. Hobbes trusted to when he wrote his Le∣viathan.

Mr. Hobbes saith, p. 38, 39. That all those that our Saviour is said to cast Devils out of were nothing but mad Men. And I will deal plainly with Mr. Hobbes and tell him, that none but mad Men think so. For was he only mad that was torn by the evil Spirit before he came out of the Man possessed? Or were they only mad that were possessed by the Devils, 8. Matth. 31. when the Devils spake, and after Christ permitted them to go into the herd of Swine, and why ran the herd of Swine thereupon into the Sea? To this Mr. Hobbes may say, That

they were mad Swine to do so. And in the 12. of Matth. 27. our Saviour saith, If I by Beelzebub cast out Devils, by whom do your children cast them out? Here 'tis agreed, both by our Saviour and the un∣believing Iews, that our Saviour did cast out Devils, therefore the Men were something else besides mad, out of whom Devils were cast. And why Mr. Hobbes should be wiser, or undertake to be so, than either the Iews or our blessed Lord and Saviour, is an hard matter to know; except it be that after his labour to bring Religion and the Scriptures in∣to contempt, now thinks by a side wind to debase our Saviour in his Miracles, (whereof one of the most eminent was his casting out Devils) before he strike at his Godhead.

Mr. Hobbes in his tenth Chapter hath much to do with Power and Honour, and saith, That good success is Power, p. 41. and to flatter is to Honour, p. 42. and that an action whether just or unjust, if great and difficult, is Honourable, p. 44,45. Of which last I will give an Example, If two high-way Men rob six honest Men, or a Ruffian ravish a Woman of great Qua∣lity, 'tis Honourable. And this I have

Mr. Hobbes's warrant for. But in short I repeated these last sentences to shew his vain humor.

Mr. Hobbes saith, p. 50. That Ignorance of the causes of Iustice disposeth a Man to make custom and example the rule of his actions, and to judge that just or unjust of the punishment or example of which they can produce an example; or (as the Law∣yers, which only use this false measure of Iu∣stice, call it) a precedent. Thus far he. I thank Mr. Hobbes that whilst he is con∣demning the vices of the Lawyers ar∣gues us possessors of one virtue, and that is modesty in regarding what was said or done by others before; which had Mr. Hobbes had the least sh••re of, I think he would never have put forth his Leviathan; and we ought to thank him for affording us so good company in our sufferings of ill Language, as Religion in general, and our blessed Lord and Savi∣our in particular; yet see the charity of the Lawyers since to Mr. Hobbes in be∣ing mainly instrumental in the Act of Oblivion, which Mr. Hobbes, will call just, because as to him 'twas without precedent. But Mr. Hobbes, as in many other places, makes himself the sole au∣thority

in this matter; for why the word Precedent is so Barbarous a word, for what hath been done in matters of Iu∣stice I know not; for praecedo is to go before. But to tell Mr. Hobbes what use the Lawyers make of a precedent (or as some call it a president) is not to be better done than putting his own Case: as suppose Mr. Hobbes was now to be ar∣raigned for his Book (and that no Par∣don had intervened) so full of blasphe∣mous Opinions against God, the King, and his People. The Iudges would look to see the punishment of such a precedent Malefactor, the better to di∣rect themselves in such a Case, and if they could find no such Malefactor (it being impossible as I think) then they would judge what was the Law and punishment due in such a Case: Not ••hat they would condemn Mr. Hobbes, could they find a precedent, because of ••hat precedent, but they would first ex∣••min whether that precedent was agree∣••ble to the Law of this Nation, and ••n case it was they would proceed ac∣••ordingly, and in case it was not, would ••eject it and judge the Law without it. Where is then the false measure of justice

making use of a precedent? I think no one will say there is any, except he have a design, like Mr. Hobbes, to ruin the Law by making it odious, and thereby open a gap for a standing Army; which in probability would ruin both Prince and People: to the security of both which the Law is so main a bul∣wark.

Mr. Hobbes, in his Chapter of Religion, amongst a company (I hope the word is not Barbarous) of Notions, which only I suppose have sprung from his own whimsical Fancy, hath p. 54. this Paragraph, In opinion of Ghosts, ignorance of second causes, devotion towards what Men fear, and taking of things casual for Prognostics, consisteth the natural seed of Re∣ligion; which hath according to the differ∣ence of passions grown into different Cere∣monies. Now I absolutely deny, That the seed of Religion consisteth in any of these: But the first seeds of Religion were first sown in Adam by the Know∣ledge of the great God, who made him and all the World; and was capable to punish or destroy him and the rest of the World, as well as to bless, when it should be his good will and pleasure,

and from thence, together with his fa∣vours received, sprang the reasonable deduction or consequence in Adam (which was communicated to his po∣sterity) that it was his duty to serve, and please his Creator, that was capa∣ble at pleasure to destroy, or preserve him. Secondly, The seeds of Religion are in every Man either from this An∣cestral relation, or else from the very sence of mankind of a Power and Good∣ness above them; which is naturally implanted in them, as all other faculties are, that are natural; which begets in all mankind a Veneration towards that Power and Goodness; and this is it, con∣joyned with works, we call Religion. But the opinion of Ghosts, ignorance of second causes, Devotion to what Men fear and other casualties, are subsequent in the minds of Men to this natural seed of Religion, and are rather the Suckers than Seeds of Religion: But I confess that from these seeds many seve∣ral ways of Worshipping this God through Mens ignorance, have been set up in the World. Mr. Hobbes, I suppose by this conceit of making Ghosts and Ignorance, that is Fancy and Mistake

the seeds of Religion, thought he could the more easily prepare Men to be of any Religion or none, according to the sub∣sequent humor of Mr. Hobbes's civil Soveraign. For why ••hould People stickle for that whose ground is Fancy and Mistake? And Mr. Hobbes may make the natural seeds of Religion to be what he pleaseth, since in this Chapter, p. 61. 62, 63. he makes the effects of those na∣tural seeds none at all. For he saith, All Men by nature (till under a Gover∣nor) may do what they can each to others persons (as particularly in p. 64.) or goods, being in an estate of war by nature each against other. This is the substance of most of those leaves and particularly he saith, p. 63. That the notions of Right and Wrong, Iustice and Injustice, have there no place; and Where there is no common Power there is no Law; no Injustice. Force and Fraud are in War the two cardi∣nal Virtues; Iustice and Injustice are none of the faculties either of Body or Mind; if they were, they might be in a Man though but one in the World. With much such stuff as this is, although to do him right, he so far contradicts himself, p. 185. as to say, That Conscience ought

to govern where there is no Commonwealth. I thank Mr. Hobbes for instructing me in two cardinal Virtues, I never heard of before (viz.) Force and Fraud; which are two precedents the Lawyers (though so guilty as Mr. Hobbes saith, of false mea∣sures of Iustice) never make use of. But let us observe what turns upon these ex∣cellent hinges. First, That a Man may by nature do that to another that he would not have another do to him. He may take his Neighbours goods or life by deceit or violence, though he would not have an other take his; for would any Man have an other take his goods or life by fraud or violence? 'Tis impossible to humane nature to suppose it. Secondly, Observe that Cain's kill∣ling Abel was lawful; and that Oliver's Army might in the Year 1651. take all the propriety of the people of Eng∣land, as they had taken the King's; all Subjects according to Mr. Hobbes Positi∣ons, being absolved from their Allegi∣ance, and so were return'd into an estate of Civil War, each with other; there being no Governor at that time in Eng∣land set up, except the Army. This makes me think what a good Trade a

Captain of Horse of the same Faith with Mr. Hobbes might have had at that time; and what a lawful calling a High∣way Man was then of, and how much he might have deserved with a true Son of Mr. Hobbes's as an Apprentice. This, I suppose, was written to satisfie the Consciences of those Men that enjoyed most that they had at that time got by Force and Fraud; and I wonder they did not make Mr. Hobbes, for his healing Divinity, a Superintendent of Canter∣bury, with the power of a Troop of Horse to get as many other inferiour Ecclesiastical Lands into his Hands, as he could by force; or that they did not give Mr. Hobbes a Patent under the broad Seal of the Sword to cheat all he could for seven Years. But, I sup∣pose, the Souldiery then thought it no sin to cheat Mr. Hobbes of his due re∣ward, since by his own Doctrine it was Lawful for them to cheat all they could; and there Mr. Hobbes was catcht. But in this Chapter I perceive in Mr. Hobbes one virtue, that I seldom observe of him elsewhere, and that is that in this Chap∣ter he agrees in substance with himself in the precedent; and that is in making

natural Religion a meer Fancy, and a thing that can give no check to the natu∣ral vitious inclinations of Men, but that by Nature they may do what they please, according to his Position, That Iustice is none of the faculties of the Mind. 'Tis strange a wise God should create the ra∣tional Creature, Man, and not give him one of the best effects of reason, (viz.) Iustice, and a thing which tends so much to his own preservation; nay that Man should be created in the Image of God, and yet be wholly so unlike him in one of his great Attributes. And let Mr. Hobbes say what he will to the con∣trary, a Man may be unjust to himself, though there was no more Men in the World. As if Adam had cut off one of his limbs in Paradise, it had been in∣justice to himself, being unnatural, that is, against the Law of Nature. But how come the Gentiles, that have not the Law, and by Nature do the things contained in the Law, Rom. 2. 14. to be a Law unto themselves; if there be no∣thing in a Man's nature to restrain him from injustice? And if it was not ju∣stice the Heathens natural Law was conversant about, what was it? For

'twas that which was contained in the Law, which is the Decalogue; both parts of which relate wholly to justice, either to be done to God or our Neigh∣bour. But to conclude, The Positions in this his Chapter are much like the rest of his Book, that is, little but the empty speculations of his own irreligi∣ous Heart and shallow Head.

Mr. Hobbes, p. 64. saith, That Law and Right are inconsistent in the same mat∣ter. Certainly he said this, when he was not in his right Reason; for no∣thing is more apparent, that Right is worth nothing, except there be Law to recover it, and therefore they must go together; and in having of Law to recover Men's rights, lies the grand foun∣dation of peace, which is the greatest worldly happiness of mankind; and so are clearly consistent in the same mat∣ter.

Mr. Hobbes saith, p. 69, 89. That to make a Covenant with God is impossible, but by mediation of some one which God im∣mediately speaks to, or by the civil So∣veraign, for else we know not that our Covenants are accepted. Mr. Hobbes I perceive by this is very willing to re∣nounce

his Baptisme, and to say, That his Covenant by his Parents or Godfathers, to renounce the Devil and the Word, signifies nothing; yet I perceive he renounceth not his Name of Thomas. And I also see that Mr. Hobbes is willing to free himself of all Covenants of better obe∣dience at his coming to the Lord's Ta∣ble. But let him say what he will, it is the duty of every good Man to make Promises or Covenants of Obedience to God, and to perform them too; as every good Man doth at his coming to the Sacrament: and 'tis impossible to inte∣rest the civil Soveraign in all matters of that kind. 'Tis true that the Israe∣lites made a Covenant with God, by the mediation of Moses, but follows it therefore that no private Man can co∣venant with God without interesting the King as to the matters of his own Soul? 'Tis nonsence to say so, and no∣thing but the trick of giddy headed Peo∣ple to say, that because a thing hath been once on this manner, that therefore it can never be otherwise.

Mr. Hobbes saith, p. 71. That an Oath adds nothing to the obligation. That is to say in the Year 1651. when people, ac∣cording

to Mr. Hobbes's Positions, were absolved from their Allegiance, they ought not to regard the Oath which they had taken for it; whereby no scru∣ple might be left upon any Man's Con∣science in respect of his Oath to adhere to the King, or to act against him. But certainly all wise Men, and that in seve∣ral ages, have thought, and do think, that our obligation to our Prince, or any obligation made each with other, is stronger by an oath, as to oblige the Conscience, which guides every good Man, and the more unquestionably will be performed. And for that let any one look the 6th of the Hebrews 16, 17,18. v. and he will be satisfied that an Oath adds to the obligation; and wherein 'tis particularly said, That God confirmed his promise by an oath: and certainly if the obligation was confirmed by God's oath, the oath added something to it in re∣spect of God or Man: And if an oath add nothing, why did David swear, and say, He would perform? But this pretty Position of Mr. Hobbes in 1651. was to adapt the people for a new government, and 'tis very like that he was too fond of the notion to examin the truth of it.

Mr. Hobbes saith, p. 71. That the Defi∣nition of Injustice is no other than the not performance of covenant. If he had said, that the breach of all lawful covenants had been unjust, he had spoken truth. But there may be injustice without any covenant, and that even by the Law of Nature, as I have said before, and so I shall pass it over. And though Mr. Hobbes saith in this page, That before the breach of covenant can be unjust, there must be some coercive power, to compel Men equally to perform their covenants. I ab∣solutely deny it: For first, if a Man co∣venant though never so privately, and no witness present; yet he is bound to perform what he covenants to do, or else he breaks the Law of Nature in doing that to others, which he would not have others do to him. Secondly, David saith in his 15. Psal. They shall dwell in God's hill that swear to their own hurt and change not; Implying at least, that they will not go back from what they promise, though they might; yet Mr. Hobbes is resolved to give wicked Men their liber∣ty, if they can escape the lash of the Law. And though Mr. Hobbes saith in the next page, and often in his Book,

That where there is no Commonwealth, there is no propriety nor any thing unjust: yet 'tis only his saying so, and for which in no place he gives any reason; for pro∣perly Iust and Unjust were in the World before any such thing as a Common∣wealth was thought of: as Cain and Abel had their distinct properties, and offered accordingly, when there was no Commonwealth formed, that we know of; and in all probability there was none. But Mr. Hobbes thinks he may say what he will, or else he would not reproach my Lord Cokes opinion in the same page without giving any reason, or circumstantiating the thing with any connective sence. Which opinion he saith is (though 'tis much older than my Lord Coke) that when the Crown descends to one attainted of Treason, it avoids the attainder; and why it should not be so I know not; only Mr. Hobbes had a mind to shew his ignorance, in respect of Antiquity, and his arrogance to quarrel with any thing, because found in the Works of so learned a Man.

Mr. Hobbes saith, p. 81. When an actor doth any thing contrary to the Law of Na∣ture

by the command of the Author; if he be obliged by covenant to obey him, not he, being none of his action, but the Author breaketh the Law of Nature. The Eng∣lish of this I conceive to be, That when a Man covenants to do any thing wicked in it self, as to do that to an other, one would not have done to him (which Mr. Hobbes, p. 79. admits to be a Law of Nature) as to break ones trust with a third person; because he hath covenan∣ted with a second person so to do, is no fault in the actor, but in him that set him on. This opinion is so unreasonable that 'tis worth nothing but laughing at: For 'tis apparent that both the Actor and the Author are guilty, and the ma∣king a covenant to do a wicked thing is wicked, and cannot excuse the Actor from guilt. And is a Man's action less his action, because he hath covenanted to do it? 'Tis rather more his action, be∣cause he hath done it on that deliberati∣on and voluntary undertaking.

Mr. Hobbes saith, p. 102. That the Pa∣rent hath not dominion over the Child, be∣cause he beg at him, but from the Child's con∣sent either express or implied. But to do him right, in the next page he so limits

this, that he makes what he hath here said to signifie little or rather nothing. Yet this let me say, that a Parent upon the knowledge that he is such, hath the dominion over the Child, because he be∣got him; and ought to provide for the Child, although the Child never assent to it (which cannot be supposed in young Children) either expresly or im∣pliedly. And if it should not be so, why should Children be bound to honour their Parents by the Law of God; or by the Law Civil why should Parents be bound to provide for their Children? It must be either upon the account of generation or no way; for there is no other reason to be given for the said Laws.

As Mr. Hobbes before called Metaphors causes of Sedition, now p. 111. saith, That the reading Greek and Latine Au∣thors hath begotten in Men from their childhood an habit of favouring Tumults and controuling Soveraigns. This is like a Mahometan to discourage all kind of Learning; for he knew well enough that as many things are written of the Liberty of the People in other Langua∣ges as in Greek or Latine; which li∣berty

never was inconsistent with the true rights of Soveraignty, that ever I knew of. But Mr. Hobbes may be allow∣ed to say this, when he hath the confi∣dence to say, p. 108. That liberty and ne∣cessity are consistent; which I pass over as an absurdity by any capacity to be per∣ceived, and also because I hear a late Bi∣shop hath intolerably baffled him in that matter. Yet I cannot but observe that this Position is as good as his expositi∣on, p. 106. of Matth. 21. 2, 3. That be∣cause the people let the Asses colt go to serve our Saviour (which I think was miraculous) That therefore the King's word is sufficient to take any thing from any subject, when there is need, and the King is Iudge of that need. Ingenious Mr. Hobbes could find one argument for the Ship-money Case, and for the justifying of Sibthorp's and Man∣waring's Sermons, that I never heard of before. But the nonsence of the Ex∣position cannot be made more gross than it appears in it self, and so I pass it by, with a great many such extravagant and arrogant humors in this part of his Book; because my Lord of Clarendon hath suffi∣ciently exposed him in things of this kind.

Mr. Hobbes saith, p. 116. If a Corpora∣tion vote any thing not warranted by their Patent, this is not the act of any one that voted to the contrary, or is absent; though 'tis the act of the Body, and he that voted to the contrary is innocent; and if a pe∣cuniary mulct be laid upon the Body, no∣thing shall be taken, the innocent person hath share in, though a common stock. Mr. Hobbes I perceive thinks all he saith is Law as well as all is Gospel. Yet I think him not wise in this Paragraph to put the People into a way to cheat Caesar of his due; when in the last Chapter he gave Caesar so much more than ever any King of this Nation pretended to. For by this means taking the case as Mr. Hobbes states it; If a pecuniary mulct be laid upon a Corporation, the King can never know how to levy it upon the common stock; for saith he, If that person, a mem∣ber of the Body that voted contrary to the rest, hath any propriety in the common stock, (which I think is by the way impossible he should not have, as long as he is a member of the Corporation) then that stock is not to be medled with; and then it follows that the King cannot have his fine out of the common stock at all;

and Mr. Hobbes assigns him no other place to take it in, and consequently Mr. Hobbes hath left his Soveraign with∣out remedy for his right. But Mr. Hobbes ought to know, that if a Corporation run into a pecuniary mulct by any vote, (which is a case very unusual) that in that case, all the goods of the stock in general or of any particular Man of the Corporation is liable, as well he that voted one way as the other, (which the King's Officers cannot distinguish of) because that every Man that is a Mem∣ber of a Corporation doth come in vo∣luntarily, and consequently must be sup∣posed to submit himself to the actions of that Body, and intends to be bou••d, stand, and fall with them that are of it, as to all acts that are done by them as a Body; and therefore if the Body bor∣row money of a stranger, he that vo∣ted against the borrowing the money (though Mr. Hobbes, p. 117. say the con∣trary) is as well bound to the payment of it as he that voted for it.

Mr. Hobbes, p. 122. saith, That if a particular Man's Right be to be determined in an Assembly, he may make as many friends as he can, nay may hire them with money,

and 'tis not unjust, without a Law to the contrary. That is to say, A Man may bribe all the Iudges of his case that he can, and so he that hath the best Purse, not he that hath the best Right, must carry it; except the Iudges be so honest as not to take bribes, which must be supposed as lawful as the giving them. Mr. Hobbes though he ventured upon this Position could not but know how odious bribes are accounted in the Scri∣pture, as 1 Sam. 8. 3. where bribes and perverting of Iudgment go together. And a gift Deut. 16. 19. is called, The blinder of the Eyes and the perverter of Iudgment; and is expresly forbidden, Exod. 23. 8. But as Mr. Hobbes before had laboured to destroy all Religion, so now he is endeavouring to destroy all common Honesty; and dares say that which never any Man before durst, but was ashamed to own, though perchance he might be so wicked as to do it. And Mr. Hobbes gives no reason for this Po∣sition, but because, saith he, perchance Iustice cannot be had without it; that is to say, every Litigant may be wicked, because it may be some Iudges are. But though this opinion I believe hath been

as successful as any wicked opinion of Mr. Hobbes in all his Book, complying so much with Men's interests; yet he and every other Man ought to know, that a Man ought rather to venture the loss of his Right, than to do any thing repugnant to God's Word and common honesty, except Mr. Hobbes will inve all, and say, That 'tis better to gain some of the World, though he lose his own Soul.

Mr. Hobbes saith, p. 133. That the words, Repent and be Baptized, are in Scripture Counsil and not commands: So, by his Rule, we may neglect either Re∣pentance or Baptism without sin; but for this gives he no reason; Nay, he hath formerly allowed of the word Im∣perative, and yet now he will not allow of the Imperative Mood to bid or com∣mand; for 'tis Repent and be Baptized in English, and in Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which are Aorists of the Im∣perative Mood, and why then they should not be words of command, I know not; except because Mr. Hobbes in his new Models hath otherwise est••∣blish'd it. But observe Mr. Hobbes hi•• reason why 'tis no command; Because,

saith he, 'tis not to the benefit of God Almighty, but of our selves, that we do Excellenty argued Mr. Hobbes, for by the same reason we have no command up∣on us to obey any of God's Commands; for 'tis not for God's benefit but our own: Nay, we need obey none of them (as Mr. Hobbes frequently argues) be∣cause there is no Law enjoyns them, except where there is a Soveraign power that so commands. I suppose that his chief intent in this is to ease Men's Consciences, and to give wicked Men liberty to sin, having no command, as Mr. Hobbes here saith, from God to the contrary; what else should put this ••rotchet into Mr. Hobbes his Head, I know not. For if a Law be made for the good of the People, every Man is bound to perform it, and 'tis a com∣mand as well as an advise. The Peo∣ple asked St. Peter what they should do? Repent and be Baptised, saith he. And suppose a Child, being at the brink of River, should ask his Father what he should do; if his Father should bid him go over the Bridge, would it not be a command? And certainly Peter had as much Authority in matters of Faith, as

a Parent hath in common actions. But I think this Position of Mr. Hobbes's is as true as his saying, p. 135. That pas∣sion makes Men eloquent; which is con∣trary to experience, except he means by Eloquence making a Noise, as he hath with his Leviathan, without sence or reason.

Mr. Hobbes, p. 139. saith, That Cu∣stoms are not Laws, by virtue of prescri∣ption of Time, but by constitutions of their present Soveraigns. Here I suppose Mr. Hobbes principally aimed at the sup∣planting of our Common Law, and thereby make the readier way to bring all Men's Properties into incertainty and confusion; which was at the time 1651, the readiest means, and most plausible, to vest all in the Army, or him that should be turned up trump. For 'tis by the Common Law, that is, the general custom of the Nation, that most Men enjoy their Estates, either real or personal; now if length of time should not justifie that property, with∣out the constitutions of the Soveraign; and such constitutions could not be found, as 'tis most apparant they can∣not, down goes the Common Law, and

Property with it, and then let the strongest take all. Witty Mr. Hobbes! that can in a Treatise of Law lay down a Position that would destroy the Law of his native Country, and thereby make way for an arbitrary Power. But Mr. Hobbes, in the same Paragraph, makes a little amends for this; for though he had given the Common Law a box on one Ear to make it stagger, he hits it a clap on the other to set it upright again; for he saith, That when an unwritten Law shall be ge∣nerally observed, and no iniquity appear in the use of it, then it can be nothing but a Law of Nature, and obliges all mankind. Well said Mr. Hobbes; for now he makes every Custom (which an unwritten Law implies) unalterable by Act of Parliament; for an Act of Parliament against the Law of Nature is void. This was a perfect rapture of Mr. Hobbes's without consideration; for is any thing more apparent than that generally Cu∣stoms are no part of the Law of Na∣ture, which is universal, and that cu∣stoms of all Nations differ, according to the convenience of the several Peo∣ple; and that which is good for one

People (though the Law of Nature be the same to all) is ill for another; and that appears by the practices of all Nations that ever I heard of. But if Mr. Hobbes mean by the unwritten Law, the verbal command of his Soveraign, 'tis grosser nonsence than the other; for a Law of Nature, ex vi termini, can only be produced by Nature, and not by any humane Institution; Nature be∣ing previous to policy, and every thing being productive of its own Laws, or else they would be the Laws of others. But Mr. Hobbes saith excellent well, p. 143. That all he saith is not presently Law; and 'tis the greatest piece of mo∣desty I think in his whole Book; and if he had but added, that his Incon∣gruities had been innumerable, and not worth answering, in this Chapter, it had been fit to be ranked with his great∣est Truths.

Mr. Hobbes, p. 144. saith, That if •• Man, accused of a capital Crime, fly for fear of the event, seing his enemies Malice and Power and frequent corruption of Iudges; and maketh it appear upon his Trial he is not guilty, and be acquitted, yet by the Law he shall lose his Goods; and this,

••aith Mr. Hobbes, is against the Law of Nature. I cannot say but that a case may be made, that a general Law may seem severe in, but therefore is a gene∣ral Law against the Law of Nature, which is adapted to the generality of cases that may be supposed to happen; as in this case, 'tis adapted to persons flying, and not to the chance of every extraordinary, scarce to be supposed, par∣ticular. Yet even in that case the Law hath provided a remedy, and that is a power in the King to pardon upon such an occasion. But if Mr. Hobbes had not been resolved to quarrel with the Law of his native Country, he might more reasonably have said, That the Law in this particular is rational, because guilt makes a Man fly, and why should an innocent Man fly? And although one that fled may be acquitted upon his trial, yet it may be supposed that it was by reason that such a person had bribed the evidence or prosecutor, or the thing perchance might be so done in the dark, that although there was probable evi∣dence to commit him, yet there might not be sufficient evidence to convict him as to the capital punishment, al∣though

he had convicted himself as to the loss of his goods, by giving such evidence of his guilt against himself as flying was; and the person hath reason to acknowledge the mildness of the Law, that makes not his flying suffici∣ent evidence against his life and real estate, as well as personal: But to give an example of this; When Mr. Hobbes had written his Book, and was in France, he was (as my Lord of Cla∣rendon saith) sought for to be attach'd, but then he fled into England; would not any body swear that Mr. Hobbes knew himself guilty of the abominable Doctrines in that Book? Or why should he fly if he thought himself innocent? And if Mr. Hobbes had been catch'd and arraigned for it, and there had wanted Evidence to prove him the Author, yet would not his own flight have been an evidence of guilt against him; though perchance not of conviction as to Trea∣son and Blasphemy, in case the French Laws be as mild and gentle as the Eng∣lish? So I think the Law in this point is rather a probable sparing the guilty, than as Mr. Hobbes terms it a condem∣ning the innocent; and though he in∣veighs

so much against this Law in many peremptory words, (as is frequent with him upon all occasions) yet 'tis good for more innocent Men than he, that it be continued, lest the flight be ad∣judged evidence above all evidence, and a presumption of fact for absolute con∣demnation as well as for loss of goods, against which no proof shall be admit∣ted, and the person condemned, as it were, out of his own Mouth. And though Mr. Hobbes, in the next page, rails against the saying; That this is a presumption of Law, against which no proof shall be admitted; yet suppose a Man confess a fact (as the Amalekite to David) is it unjust to deny any proof to the contrary? I think scarce, admit the person be in his wits; and this fly∣ing is a confession of the fact, as far as 'tis possible for actions to be equally sig∣nificant with words. But Mr. Hobbes, to shew his farther Learning in the Law, saith, p. 145. That there is a Law written, that a Man expelled by force shall be re∣stored by force: When as the Law is, That he shall be restored by the Iustices and the Sheriff, which are Officers of Law, and in execution of their autho∣rity,

wherein there is no force, as force is commonly taken, and that is unwar∣rantable violence.

Mr. Hobbes, p. 149. saith, That a Man that hath no supernatural revelation of the will of God, is to obey for such the command of the Commonwealth. And this he dedu∣ceth from two Texts; one that where God saith to Abraham, I know thou wilt command thy Children, and thy House, to keep the way of the Lord: (which was only, as I conceive, God's witness of Abraham's fidelity to him). The other Text he cites, is the peoples saying to Moses, Speak thou to us, and we will hear, but let not God speak to us, lest we die: (which was only, as I think, and expres∣sion of the fear of the people at the mount of the Glory of God's Majesty, which before had been so terrible to them.) And upon these two basis'es it is, that he founds several assertions of this kind in several parts of his Book; In which for once I will deal with Mr. Hobbes by whole sale, as p. 149, 199, 205, 232, 237. are to the same purpose, and in p. 241, 252. he something ampli∣fies upon the Text, and saith, That he, at the time of his Book, would affirm no∣thing

that was novelty, or a paradox in Religion, but would attend the end of that dispute of the sword, concerning the authori∣ty by which all sorts of Doctrine are to be approved or rejected, (though to do him right, p. 186. he hath a whole Paragraph against this) and whose commands, both in speech and writing, must be obeyed by those that in••end to be protected. And further saith, p. 193. Except where God is tempo∣ral King, 'tis better to obey Man than God. And p. 249. saith, That the Laws of the Soveraign are to be obeyed in external acts and profession of Religion. And p. 360. saith, That we ought to pay Divine Worship to a Soveraign if he command it, but Men may believe otherwise. And p. 250. he saith, That none can take notice what is, or what is not the Word of God, but the Soveraign. And p. 322, 323. saith, That the Bible is only Law, where the Civil Sove∣raign hath made it so. And in several places he saith, That no Man ought to re∣gard Miracles or Prophecies, without super∣natural revelation, because he cannot tell whether they are said or done to deceive. And many other places to the same ef∣fect: Thus, he. When this present Turk was in danger of being murthered by

the treachery of the Captains of the Ia∣nizaries, to reduce the multitude to their obedience they did hang out Mahomet's banner, which many ran under out of Devotion, to be protected by it, and to defend Mahomet's Successor. But I dare say, none said more in defence of Mahomets Doctrine than Mr. Hobbes hath here done, nor yet I believe so much; and no wonder, a Renegado Chri∣stian being always observed to be worse than a Turk. And thus much he goes further, than I believe the generality of the Turkes will: for they will stick to Mahomet's Doctrine in the Alcoran, let the Grand Seignior say what he will, but Mr Hobbes is for changing as often as the power of the Sword shall command. And one would have thought, that no man had been so impious, in so high a measure to have affirmed, That 'tis better to obey the commands of Men than of God: whereby he lays all under the dictates of the Sword; and makes the truth of God wholly to depend upon the power of Men; especially as to external acts of Worship, and that he himself 1650. at∣tended to determin all. According to this Doctrine, if a Papist and been com∣mander,

we ought to have embraced Romish Idolatry; if a Iew had come to have been General of the Army, and had bidden him be circumcised, and by words renounce the Faith of Christ, he would have done it; If a Turk had been turned up trump, and bidden Mr. Hobbes go to Mecca and worship at Mahomet's tomb, he would have done it; If a Persian had proved uppermost, and had bidden him worship at Haly's shrine, and say Haly was a greater Prophet than Christ, he would have done it; Nay, he would have asked no petition of God or Man for 30 days, save of Darius, had he been in the days of Daniel: So I hope would no body else, for all the Example of Naaman, which Mr. Hobbes makes such use of, to justifie all exter∣nal acts of Idolatry: The Text is in the 2 Kings 5. 18, 19. where Naaman, after profession to serve no God but the true one; saith, When I bow my self in the house of Rimmon (my Master leaning on my hand) the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing; And Elisha said, go in peace. Therefore 'tis lawful in external acts to worship (as Mr. Hobbes saith, p. 271.) an Idol, and deny the true God in effect,

if we keep our Hearts close to him; and such an action, saith he, if done accor∣ding to the Law of a Man's Country, is not the Subjects act but the Soveraigns. But if the Devil take a Subject for his so doing, I would know, whether the doing by the Soveraign's command will redeem him. And as to the Text, it is impossible to plant the legality of Idola∣trous external Worship upon it; for the Prophet's bidding Naaman go in peace might be an Error in the Prophet, crea∣ted by his conceit that he should hinder the propagation of the Worship of the true God in Syria, if he should deny so great a Man ••his request; which was a failing in the Prophet's Faith in God: or perchance the Prophet only took the request to be, that he might bow in re∣verence to his Master, when his Ma∣ster bowed to Rimmon; as 'tis a custom amongst us, for Inferiours to rise from their seats, when Superiours do, out of respect to their Superiours, and whether way 'tis taken, no matter, for it can be no warrant for Idolatry when the Sove∣raign commands; and 'tis plain no otherwise can it rationally be under∣stood. But observe, the Prophet gives

not Naaman leave to bow to Rimmon but in the house of Rimmon, which may be done upon other accounts, and the words are constructive: who then, but Mr. Hobbes, would have founded the lega∣lity of external acts of Idolatry upon such a ground? Which is certainly, if there be any such thing in the World, a denying of God before Men, and that is the way to be denied before God in Heaven; Matth. 10. 32. Luke 12.8. and expresly, Rom. 10.8. Confession with the Mouth and belief in the Heart go to∣gether, and are made the prequesites to Salvation; and Mr. Hobbes admits, That confession with the Mouth is but a kind of External worship; and see the 3^d of Daniel, and there we find, that the three Children refused to Worship Nebuchad∣nezzar's Image, and rather chose the fur∣nace; and God in approbation of their so doing delivered them, by not suffer∣ing the fire to do them any harm, though it consumed their enemies; and Nebuchadnezzar was the Soveraign at that time that God had set over those three Children. And Daniel himself chose rather to be thrown into the Den of Lions, than to neglect the Worship

of God, according to the Statut made by Darius and his Princes, as 'tis in the sixth of Daniel. Now then, let any ra∣tional Man judge, what a strange crea∣ture Mr. Hobbes hath made of himself, to take a Text of Scripture to warrant external acts of Idolatry, which from the Text it self appears otherwise con∣structive; and is not capable to be taken in the sence he would have it, to war∣rant this cursed and damnable opinion; when there are these and many other plain Texts of Scripture against this con∣struction; though I am afraid that this gin hath caught near as many, as his as∣sertion of the lawfulness of bribes. But he thought he would secure himself in the Year 1651. let the Turk, a Iew, or the Devil wear the Sword, for he would do as they bid him; for he saith, All sorts of Doctrine are to be approved or re∣jected by the authority of the Sword; which will let in the Mahometan, Bannian, or Iewish Doctrine, to be, at any change of State, equally capable as the Christian to be approved as true, and so ought to be followed by Mr. Hobbes his rule; For, (saith Mr. Hobbes) how shall we know what are the commands of God, but by

supernatural revelation, (such I suppose he intends, as was to St. Iohn in the Isle of Patmos, and supposeth there is no such thing now) or by the command of the Soveraign, and who but the Soveraign can take notice what is the Word of God? Which I admit none can do so wicked as Mr. Hobbes, because their foolish hearts are hardned. But I would have Mr. Hobbes know, that the Books of the Old Testament were the Word of God, when there was no King in Israel, but every Man did that which was right in his own Eyes; and that the Books of the Old and New Testament were the Word of God, and so taken notice of, and obeyed by good Men, in the Year 1651. when there was no civil Soveraign to tell in England what was the Word of God, and what not; and the Epistles of St. Paul were the Word of God when he wrote them, although Christianity was then disowned by the Roman Empe∣rours: Nay, they are the Word of God, and would be in the furthest part of America, (for a word is a word though there be no Body to hear it) where 'tis supposed there are no Inhabitants, were they thither carrried. And 'tis but like

the rest of Mr. Hobbes his Philosophy to say, that the Existence or Being of things depend upon Political Instituti∣on, when as the Being of things ever was, and ever will be absolute, let a Soveraign be or not be, say or not say. But a civil Soveraign hath power to model things indifferent in themselves, and to put them into such conjunctions as may be for his own and the good of those he governs; but hath not power to alter the beings of things, or at his pleasure to make that not to be that is, or to be that is not. And as to Mr. Hobbes his desiring to know, how we may know what is the Word of God, I have said something to it before, I hope that is satisfactory to any but a cavilling Atheist, in my Answer to his p. 32. and shall say little more here; save, that suppose there was a Country in which the People were Christians for the most part, and the Soveraign a Mahometan, that the delivery of the Bible, as the thing believed to be Gods Word by the consent and approbation of those Christians, is a sufficient testimo∣ny of its being the Word of God, joy∣ned with the matter contained in it,

which is so apt to beget in every good Man a testimony that it is the Word of God; and we have a greater testimony, by the general consent of Christian man∣kind that hath ever admitted them, since written, or the greatest part of them to be so; besides, we have the im∣probability of the penmen of them to be corrupted, for which plentifully see the most Learned Dr. Stillingfleet's Origines Sacrae, and to the same Learned Book shall I refer my Reader as to the regard of miracles and prophesies; yet I will observe, that though Mr. Hobbes frequently saith, Miracles and Prophesies are not to be regarded without supernatural revelation, yet he saith, p. 187. That God reveals his Word by those that work Mira∣cles; which admits the credibility both of one and the other, without superna∣tural revelation; and is, in my opinion, like the rest of Mr. Hobbes his contradicti∣ons of himself.

Mr. Hobbes, being an excellent Man at all kind of Laws, saith p. 152. That the Ignorance of civil Law shall excuse a Man in a strange Country till declared to him. But Mr. Hobbes never tells whose part it is to watch all strangers that come in∣to

England, and to tell them the Law, lest the King's Subjects suffer loss, and the stranger offending be indemnified. And I believe few strangers will venture the punishment for breach of the Law, presuming to be justified by Mr. Hobbes his authority. And doubtless 'tis the duty of all Men to acquaint themselves with the Law of the place where they come, and expect protection, or else no State, Soveraign, or People, can be safe; but Mr. Hobbes is generally for Positions that tend to unhinge all the foundati∣ons of Government: yet Mr. Hobbes seems to say, which I cannot omit, That no stranger ought to endeavour the alterati∣on of Religion where he comes, (how con∣gruously to the precedent I leave others to judge) because 'tis against the Law of Nature; and this he doth say, or his words are not sence. But clearly, as the case may be, 'tis against the Law of Nature and of God not to indeavour to alter the Religion of a place by teaching; as suppose a true Christian should go into Aurenge Zebe's Country, he ought to teach the true worship of God, out of charity to their Souls, that they might be saved by Iesus Christ; 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

and out of charity to their Bodies, that the Heathen Women amongst them might desist from burning themselves at the death of their Husbands; and indeed, in this Position, Mr. Hobbes is more uncharitable than a Iesuite.

Mr. Hobbes saith, p. 156. That when a Man is in the power of the enemy, the ob∣ligation of the Law ceaseth, and obedience to the enemy is no crime. I suppose Mr. Hobbes means, that the obligation of all Law, both Natural and Civil, ceaseth, of which he treated just be∣fore; and this is but to say, that a Child being in the custody of his Fathers enemy, may (if so commanded by the enemy) kill his Father; or, to come closer to Mr. Hobbes, it is to say, that the murther of the old King was law∣ful by any Man that was under the power of the Army. O what comfort this was to those that did it! But Mr. Hobbes ought to know, that the Law absolutely Natural, as between Children and Parents, and the Law suppositiously Natural, as between the Subjects and their King, is everlasting and universal, and that Children and Subjects are bound by that Law not to

injure their Parents or Soveraigns, let what will happen to them, or into what ever Power they come; because that Nature never ceaseth (though sometimes it may be supprest) in any Man: Nature ever being in any thing, as long as the thing hath existence, as 'tis natural for a Tree to bud as long as 'tis a live, and for a Child or Subject to love his Parent or Prince as long as they are in this World, to which the destruction of either is exactly opposite and contrary to his Nature, and conse∣quently the doing of it is against that Law, and a damnable Sin. And further observe, that by this rule of Mr. Hobbes's, if a Papist get a Protestant into his pow∣er, that the Protestant may without sin worship a Crucifix or Wafer••cake, in case the Papist bid him.

Mr. Hobbes saith, p. 158. That a crime that hath been more frequently punish'd, is greater than that of which there hath been many precedent examples of impunity. By this Argument, Plunder (Military rob∣bery) was little less than lawful du∣ring the War, because seldom punish'd. And Duels, so contrary to the Nature of any civilized State, are lawful; and 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

the killing of Men in them, little less than warrantable, because so few have suffered for the fact of late days; but certainly the scape of offenders alters not the crime, things being the same let external accidents happen this way or that.

Mr. Hobbes saith, p. 163. That if a Subject deny his subjection, he may be pro∣ceeded against as an enemy, and suffer at the Soveraign's pleasure, let what Law so∣ever be ordained against Treason. There is no authority for this but Mr. Hobbes his saying so, and as little reason. For a Subject cannot cease to be a Subject when he pleaseth; (no more than a Son cease to be a Son at pleasure:) Nay, he can never cease to be a Subject to his natural Prince, except the Laws of the Empire he is born in so limit subjecti∣on; and therefore whatever such a Sub∣ject doth, or saith, he ought to be con∣demned or cleared by those Laws under which he was a Subject. And if this saying of Mr. Hobbes was true, no Man could tell who was a Subject to his Prince, and who not; who was to be Arbitrarily punish'd, and who not; but (God be blessed) there is no such thing

as Arbitrary punishment in England to be inflicted upon any person whatsoever, or in any case whatsoever.

Mr. Hobbes saith, p. 168. That 'tis a Seditious Doctrine to say, that every pri∣vate Man is judge of good and evil actions: but shews no reason for his saying so, neither can he. For 'tis most apparent, if he mean private particular Men's actions, every Man is judge of his own, and 'tis impossible for any Common∣wealth to take notice of them in par∣ticular; except Men act things contrary to Law, and then there are persons in all Nations appointed to take notice of the irregularity of those actions to punish them, and every Man must judge of his actions whether they are good or evil; that is against the Law of God or Man, or adventure the punishment. What else Mr. Hobbes should here mean than parti∣cular Men's actions, I know not, and then certainly 'tis nonsence for him to say, 'Tis Seditious for a Man to judge of the good or evil of his own actions. But this is as true, as his saying in the next page, That 'tis no sin for a Man to act against his Conscience where there is a Commonwealth; Although St. Paul, when

he was at Corinth and wrote to the Ro∣mans, who were all at that time under a Commonwealth, thought the contra∣ry, or else he would not have said, Rom. 14. 23. That he that doubteth is damned if he eat; certainly much more he is damned, that not only doubteth of the illegality of an action, but believeth that 'tis unlawful to eat, and is satisfied in his Conscience of it. And certainly from the reason of the thing, to act against a Man's Conscience must be a sin, because it is a daring to do that which is displeasing to God (whether the par∣ticular act in it self was displeasing to him or no) and consequently an affront to God, and a not setting a due estimate upon his Power and Goodness.

Mr. Hobbes hath several leaves toge∣ther, and in other precedent parts of his Book, been laying down Rules for a Government, and p. 176. saith, That those Principles of Reason which he lays down will make the constitution of his Go∣vernment, except by external violence, everlasting. And what those Principles are, my Lord of Clarendon (a Noble and equal Adversary, both to absolute Power and confusion) hath fully set forth,

and made sufficiently ridiculous. But Mr. Hobbes, after his long Treatise of an Earthly, comes to an Heavenly Sove∣raign, and that is God himself, and cites places of Scripture, p. 186. very devoutly, even before the Sword in 1651. had determined what was Scri∣pture, and what not. And the first on∣set Mr. Hobbes makes for erecting the Kingdom of God, is the telling us, that God's Kingdom over Vegitables and Beasts is but Metaphorical, for he only is properly said to Raign that Governs his Subjects by his Word and Promi∣ses, which things Inanimate (saith Mr. Hobbes) are uncapable of. But why he saith, That God is not properly but Meta∣phorically King of Beasts and Inanimates as well as Men, he gives no reason; and Psal. 47. 7. saith, That God is King of all the Earth expresly; if of all the Earth, then of Beasts and Inanimates: And 'tis further plain, that God is King of Vegitables and Beasts, for that he Rules them by his Word and Power, and provides for them as well as Men, and it is the property of a King to Go∣vern, and what he Governs he is King of, and may as well be said to be

King of these as of Men; the Word King being but a contraction of the Saxon word Cyning, which signifies Chief.

Mr. Hobbes saith, p. 187. That the right of Nature, whereby God Raigns over Men, and punisheth them for breach of his Laws, is derived not from Creating them, as if he required obedience as of gratitude, but from his irresistable Power; as if a Man had had power above all the rest, there had been no reason but that he should have Ru∣led according to his own discretion. And to irresistable Power (further saith he) the Dominion of all Men naturally adhe∣reth; hence it is, that God's Kingdom over Men, and his right of afflicting them at his pleasure, belongeth naturally to God not as Creator and Gratious, but as Omnipotent, and his right to afflict Men is not always from sin, but from his Power. Thus ends this abominable Paragraph, which I al∣most tremble at when I read it; yet he indeavours to confirm it by places of Scripture in the next page, (which by and by I shall come to) which makes me think it impossible for the Devil to raise any Heretick so abominable, but that he will find Texts of Scripture to

cite in favour of his Opinions; and if any Heretic ever deserved to be burn'd, certainly the Author of this Paragraph doth; it being a Text f••om which na∣turally ariseth these four Doctrines, first, That Mr. Hobbes or any Man else (if Mr. Hobbes here saith true) may with∣out ingratitude dethrone his Maker if he can; because Man is obliged to God, as he saith, only because of his Power. Secondly, That all right of Govern∣ment, or acting (which he makes the same) what any one pleaseth; is from Power. (There's an end of Dr. Gosdwin's Dominium fundatur in gratiae.) So that ten highway Men have right to take all they can get from any two other Men, because they are stronger. And any Sub∣ject may depose his King, if he be able, (good Doctrine for a Popish cabal) and as long as he is stronger than the peo∣ple may Rule them at his own discre∣tion. Thirdly, That it is consistent with the Nature of God to be cruel to Man, although Man had never offended him. Fourthly, That no gratitude is due to God by Man for Creating him, though he hath made him little lower than the Angels, in his own Image, and

Crowned him with glory and honour, and made him capable of being blessed for ever. The Impiety of all this is enough to put any Man into an amaze; But he must be out of an amaze that An∣swers Mr. Hobbes in this place, for ob∣serve how subtle he is, (being led by the instigation of the Devil) to put the right of Government and Power of puni••hment together, as if they were expressive of the same thing, and ne∣cessarily connext, it being impossible for a King to govern without a Power to punish; when as the right and the Power to act, may be as far distant as right and wrong, though frequently in Civil actions they are conjoyned. As for Example, When a Sheriff executes a Man for Murder, he hath both right and Power to do so; But when Sir Edm. Bury Godfrey was decoy'd into Somerset∣house, and there strangled with a twist∣ed Handkerchief, by Romish Priests and Iesuits, there was irresistable Power to do the fact, but no right to do it. So 'tis apparent, that this putting Power of punishment and a right of Govern∣ment together, is nothing but a falla∣cy; the Proposition having Truth in it

only pro hic & nunc, not universally. But to reason the case a little with Mr. Hobbes, as to Gods right of gover∣ning of us, because he is our Creator and gratious. Suppose a company of Men were here together upon Earth, and all of equal Power, and one in particular had conferr'd signal benefits upon all the rest, and they having no King or Governour were resolved to choose one from amongst themselves; Ought they not in gratitude (which I think little less than creates a natural right) to choose their Benefactor to that honour before any one else? Certainly they ought, in any sober Man's judgment. Why then is it not naturally right, that Men obey God out of love, because he hath done so much for them, as to create them in such a sublime State, and his continuing still to be gratious to them, (to which Mr. Hobbes to do him right agrees, p. 190.) as well as because he is Omnipotent, and by consequence hath Power to punish their disobedi∣ence. I might here say, That 'tis as natural for Man to obey his Creator, as 'tis for a Son to obey his Father; but that Mr. Hobbes before (so far as he is

intelligible) hath denied any obedience due to a Father upon the account of generation. Now since Mr. Hobbes for this Paragraph cites places of Scripture, even in the Year 1651. before the Sword had determined what was Scri∣pture and what not; let me cite some (now 'tis the Year 1679. and all Men have agreed the Bible to be the Word of God) to prove, that God hath a right to Rule as he is Creator and gra∣tious, and to shew the apparent false∣ness of what Mr. Hobbes hath said in this page•• Rom. 9. v. 20,21. clearly shews, that God as Creator hath power or liber∣ty, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies, to order his Creatures as he pleaseth, and that upon the account as Creator, for he is there compared to the Potter. 'Tis true, those Texts speak only of making of Men, and Mr. Hobbes is now upon the governing of Men; but observe, those Texts relate to the future state of Men, which God as Creator hath liberty or power to order as he pleaseth. And Isaiah 37. v. 26. There God saith by the Prophet, That he had formed the Earth, and brought it to pass that Sennacherib should lay wast Cities. Where observe,

That God's creating the World, and his Government of it, go together, which to my apprehension shews his right to Govern upon the account of creating. 'Tis true, irresistable power God is plea∣sed to make use of, to punish wicked Men, as in this last mentioned Chapter he is said to do, by putting an hook in Senna∣cherib's Nose, and a bridle in his Lips, and turning him back, like an unruly strong beast; but God rules his own People by love, and they obey him up∣on the account of his Goodness, (for the love of Christ constrains Men) and as he is their Creator, and thereby hath the right to govern them: But 'tis true, wicked Men obey him because they can∣not help it; yet from thence it follows not, that God hath not right to govern wicked Men as he is their Creator. And to stop Mr. Hobbes his mouth, let him read the 20. Exod. v. 2. 3, 4, &c. and he will find, that God tells the Israelites what he had done for them, and immediately ensues his commands; which clearly tells any rational Man, that God hath right to govern upon the account of his Goodness, and with this accords all the Chapters in Deutero∣nomy

that treat of obedience, and clear∣ly shew that 'tis due upon the account of God's goodness. But now I come to Mr. Hobbes his Texts of Scripture, which he cites for his opinion, and they as little justifie his opinion, as his opinion is agreeable to Truth. He introduceth his Texts by saying, that it stagger'd all sorts of Men, The prosperity of the wicked, and the adversity of the good, and particu∣larly David, Psalm 73. v. 1. 2, 3. which verses treat of David's wonder at the prosperity of the wicked, and never goes on to the 17. 18, 19, 20. verses, where David expresseth his satisfaction as to that matter. And then Mr. Hobbes proceeds to Iob's Expostulation with God about his afflictions, notwithstand∣ing his righteousness; and this, he saith, God answers not by arguments drawn from Iob's sin but his own power, and quotes, Iob 38. v. 4. where God saith, Where wast thou when I laid the foundati∣ons of the Earth? In which Text, I think (as well as the whole Chapter) Mr. Hobbes answereth himself, and shews God's Soveraignty by reason of his Creation; but Mr. Hobbes saith, this ap∣proved Iob's innocence; why I know

not, either from the Text or Context, and Iob saith himself, Chap. 40. v. 4. I am vile and cannot answer. And then Mr. Hobbes cites the saying of our Sa∣viour, 'tis the 9th of Iohn v. 3. That our Saviour saith, That neither the blind Man nor his Parents had sinned, but that the works of God might be manifest in him. Therefore he would conclude, that sin is not always the cause of punishment. Why? For no reason, but because God was pleased to make this Man without sight, (as he might have done all the World) that his son Iesus, our blessed Lord and Saviour, might afterwards work a Miracle upon him for the set∣ling the Gospel; Or it may prove, that God may make Man as he pleaseth, as the Potter may order the clay. Is this any thing to punishment at all? It is impos∣sible, for 'tis no punishment to be crea∣ted as God pleaseth; for punishment is a deprivation of some good a Man hath had, and 'tis no punishment for a Man not to have that which he never had, or had any right to till God gave it him; and Mr. Hobbes might as well have said, that 'tis a punishment for him not to be born to 1000 l. a year be∣cause

his Neighbour was, as that 'tis a punishment for a Man to be born with∣out Eyes, because his Neighbour was born with Eyes. One would wonder that any Man in his wits should cite so many Texts of Scripture, and so little to a purpose. And then, saith Mr. Hobbes, Though death entred by sin, yet God might have afflicted Adam though he had never sinned; and here Mr. Hobbes breaks off, without giving any shadow of reason or authority for his assertion. What God might have done by his Prerogative, I know not; but this I say, that I never read in the Bible of any affliction upon a people, but it was for sin, at least sin preceded; and all along the Bible, God lays the reason of his punishments upon his peoples sins, as well as the punish∣ments of other Nations upon their sins; and why then Mr. Hobbes should say, That punishments are not always from Men's sins, is impossible to find a sound reason; and admit God should lay some affliction upon an innocent person, were there any such, (which is absolutely, or the next to blasphemy to affirm) yet this would not be punishment, but an act of his Will and Power; and admit

he may do such a thing, it doth not therefore follow, that ever God did, as Mr. Hobbes hath affirmed, but not pro∣ved.

Mr. Hobbes saith, p. 190. That know∣ledge and understanding cannot be attribu∣ted to God; and to justifie himself, gives a definition of them, and that is, That th••y are nothing in us but tumults of the mind, raised by External things that press the Organs of the Body, and there is no such thing in God. I doubt when Mr. Hobbes wrote this he had a tumult in his mind, for any rational Man would think him mad, who confesseth a God, that notwithstanding shall deny God one of his great Attributes, and one so great, that without it all the rest would signi∣fie nothing, and that is Knowledge or Understanding; and this for no reason, but because God cannot be said to un∣derstand things in the same manner that we do, (admitting Mr. Hobbes his definition true, which is false, Tumult being an enemy to understanding) God having no organical parts. For is it not possible, that a Being more ex∣cellent should understand things in ano∣ther manner than one that is less excel∣lent?

'Tis rational to suppose it may. Besides, the Scriptures expresly ascribe knowledge to God; as amongst the rest, Amos 3. v. 2. Gal. 4. v. 9. expresly men∣tion God's knowledge. And to deny God's knowledge, is to deny God; that is, a Being infinitely wise. So that I may truly (if not improperly) chan∣ging the Text of Scripture say, that Mr. Hobbes acknowledgeth a God, but in words denies him. And in the next page, to prevent being confused in this matter, Mr. Hobbes saith, 'Tis a dishonour to God to dispute about his Attributes. Certainly then Mr. Hobbes is guilty of a greater dishonour to God, to deny his Attributes.

And in p. 192. Mr. Hobbes saith, That only those Attributes of God are to be al∣lowed in public worship, which the Sove∣raign ordaineth. So now 'tis uncertain whether he will allow him any Attri∣butes of perfection in public worship, or no; for in case the Soveraign prove as bad, or worse than Iulian, and com∣mand Injustice or Ignorance to be those Attributes, that are only to be allowed or used for signs of honour, (as he saith Attributes are) no other must be

used. And now he hath made the honour of God wholly to depend on the will of Man, that is the Soveraign; yet in this Mr. Hobbes grows a little better, for here (though before he had denied God his Attributes) he gives the Soveraign power to restore God's Attributes to him again. But what nonsence is this, that a Soveraign, that is a Man upon Earth and God Almighty his creature, should be said to have power to dispose of God's Attributes, who is the com∣mander of all the World. This is against the nature of Powers dispo••al, for he disposeth only that hath the su∣pream Power of disposing. And the sence of this, is the like Divinity of this, as well as of that which follows, and that is Mr. Hobbes his interpretation of the Text of Scripture, (viz.) 'Tis bet∣ter to obey God than Man; which he saith hath only place in the Kingdom of God by pact, and not by Nature. That is to say, (as I suppose that am a little acquainted with his language) when a people have made an express covenant with God to obey him, as the Israelites did by Moses, they ought rather to obey God than Man; but all

other people, over which God hath on∣ly a natural Kingdom, that have made no particular covenant (as none can now a days as Mr. Hobbes said before) with God, ought to obey Man rather than God. So now we may lawfully be Papists, Turks, Iews, Infidels, or any thing that Man commands us; and this place opens Mr. Hobbes to the life in what I have spoken to before about this matter; and so I shall say no more of it in this place.

Mr. Hobbes, p. 195. coming to handle the Nature and Rights of a Christian Commonwealth, calls our natural Rea∣son the undoubted Word of God. So I thank him that something he allows to be the undoubted Word of God, and that God hath not wholly left us with∣out his Word to direct us; though Mr. Hobbes would not allow us the Scri∣ptures to be so, without Man's appro∣bation. But I think Mr. Hobbes had done much better, if in this place he had set up the Light within us, and thereby turned Quaker, to be the un∣doubted Word of God; for then he would have had George Fox of his side: Or if he had said our sences had been

the undoubted Word of God, I should sooner have believed him; for that all mankind (as we see daily) is less apt to err in matters of sence than matters of Reason. And according to what Mr. Hobbes saith, If a Man's natural Reason tell him, that the World is eternal, à par∣te ante and parte post, 'tis the undoubted Word of God, and accordingly to be believed; for I suppose Mr. Hobbes will grant that God is to be believed: I not remem∣bring that ever Mr. Hobbes hath denied God his Truth, though he hath denied him Understanding and Knowledge. And by the same argument, if the Is∣raelites natural Reason had told them, that the Calf brought them out of the Land of Egypt, it was to have been be∣lieved even by Moses and Aaron: And if a Man's natural Reason should tell him, that for gain he might cut his Neighbours throat, we ought to believe it, for that the Word of God is in every place and part of it to be believed. But suppose a Man's natural Reason should tell him, that Mr. Hobbes his Le∣viathan is a Book not only full of Blas∣phemy but Nonsence, and particularly in this Paragraph, (where he goes with

a great deal of other unintelligible mat∣ter from calling Reason the Word of God, to say Reason is to be made use of in acquiring of peace, &c. and saying, When in Reason there is any thing contra∣ry to God's Word, the fault is either in ill interpretation or erroneous ratiocination, (which makes all he said signifie no∣thing,) would Mr. Hobbes admit, that this Man's Reason was the Word of God? No, I believe he would say, That there was a fault in this Man's ra∣tiocination; as I am sure there is in Mr. Hobbes's in the next page, where he saith, That God may speak to a Man by Dreams, Visions or Inspiration, but no other Man is bound to believe it; which taken as an universal proposition, makes an end of all belief in the Scriptures. But of this I have spoken before, and refer∣red matters of this nature, as well as the knowledge of a true Miracle or Prophet, to the Learned Origines Sacrae; which I hope any rational, or good Man, will rather read and regard upon that subject than Mr. Hobbes his Levia∣than: So little consistent with it self, or intelligible by any rational Man, besides the Errors and foolish Interpreta∣tions

of Scripture, and particularly of Deut. 13. v. 5. which saith, That a drea∣mer or a Prophet, that seeks to make Men revolt from God, shall be put to death; Mr. Hobbes saith, That that place is equi∣valent to revolt from the King. And al∣so his interpretation of the 1. of Gal. 1, 8. where Paul saith, That he that preacheth any other Gospel let him be ac∣cursed, that is, saith Mr. Hobbes, that Christ is King; and hence he infers, That all preaching against the Power of the King is accursed; which let it be as true as it will in it self, is such an unreaso∣nable inference, that 'tis not capable to be more exposed. But now I think up∣on it, 'tis probable Mr. Hobbes look'd into Scripture to find a Text which may maintain, that they were accursed in 1651. that Preached revolting from Oliver's Army; or that the said Army (who had the Power, and consequent∣ly was Mr. Hobbes his King, which he attended to determin matters of Re∣ligion) could not settle any thing for Scripture, or Religion, it pleased; or that Preached that any thing ought not to be observed of Mahomet's doctrine for Religion, that the Turk teacheth

within his Dominions, or that a Papist should teach, if uppermost. So now Mr. Hobbes hath done like a Scholar, as he may well think, to find a place in the Bible to prevent Preaching a∣gainst the Alcoran or Mass: Yet to do Mr. Hobbes Right, after his so many as∣sertions, that that only is to be acknow∣ledged as Canonical Scripture which the Civil Soveraign saith is so, and that in 1651. he attended the determina∣tion of the Sword to decide all Do∣ctrines, he saith, That he can acknowledge nothing to be Canonical Scripture, but that which the Church of England hath com∣manded to be acknowledged for such; and I think there is nothing so near an Or∣thodox opinion in all his Book: but I suppose he meant, that he would ac∣knowledge it to be so, only until the Sword had at that time determin'd it.

After Mr. Hobbes had laid down po∣sitive general Rules for enervating the Scriptures, in saying, That the Authority of them depended upon the determination of the Soveraign; now in his 33. Chap. he comes to the particulars of the seve∣ral Books of the Scriptures, and hopes

there I suppose to compleat the work: For he saith, That the several Books, espe∣cially of the Old Testament, were not writ∣ten by those that are commonly supposed to be the Penmen of them, but by others a long time after their deaths, (which, if true, may raise a scruple to the truth of them) only he saith, That he supposeth Moses wrote the greatest part of Deutero∣nomy, else that the Old Testament was penned generally by Esdras, for which he cites the Apocrypha, Esdras the 14th Chap∣ter; and when he hath done so, takes it for granted, that Esdras penned them after the captivity. To answer particu∣larly Mr. Hobbes in this, would require a very large Discourse, enough to tire out both Me and my Reader; besides I think it not worth my while to answer general assertions in matters of fact, which are contrary to the general ad∣missions of the most Learned Men, with long Discourses; but rather content my self with saying, that they are not to be credited, but rejected. Yet to that which Mr. Hobbes is particular in, I shall answer particularly. He saith, The Pentateuch was penned long after Moses death, and for this he cites the

12. of Genesis v. 6. which saith, That when Abraham passed through the Land to the plain of Moreh, the Canaanite was then in the Land: Which shews clearly, saith Mr. Hobbes, that this Book was writ∣ten after Moses time, because the Canaa∣nite was not displaced till after Moses death. But if Mr. Hobbes had well con∣sidered, and look'd into the 7th verse, he would have found that God promised Abraham the Land, in which at that time Abraham built an Altar unto the Lord; which was as it were a taking possession of the Land, and by God's gift he had a better right to it, as to futurity, than the Canaanite had: where∣upon Abraham by Faith look'd upon the future time, and saw the Canaanite dis∣placed, and knew that by force of God's promise the Canaanites antient right, to them and their posterity, was changed. So that the Canaanites as to the succession, might be rather said to have had the Land than that they had it, and so is the 48. Gen. 21. to be understood. Or may not the Text be rationally intended, that Moses said this to declare that the Canaanite was then in the Land, and not any other peo∣ple.

How unreasonable then it is, for Mr. Hobbes to change a general supposi∣tion, at the best but upon a doubtful Text of Scripture, and an Apocryphal story, I shall refer to any Man that hath his reason; and if reason be on my side, Mr. Hobbes ought to be so too, be∣cause he said before, that Reason is the Word of God. The rest of Mr. Hobbes his Texts to prove this, are nothing to the purpose, and so I pass them over. As to the Pen-men of the Books of the New Testament, he determins no∣thing, but saith, That they were made Canonical by the Church, and that the writers of them were indowed with God's spirit, in that they conspire to the setting forth the rights of the Kingdom of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Let me then ask Mr. Hobbes, why they need to be made Canonical, and to be approved or rejected by the Soveraign, or his re∣ciprocal Word, the Sword?

Mr. Hobbes said, p. 38. That the Scri∣ptures, by the spirit of God in Man, mean a mans spirit inclined to godliness; the falsness of which, I have upon that page spoken to. Now p. 207. he comes to treat of Spirits in general, what they

a••e, and saith, if I rightly understand him, (which I think is difficult in so perplex'd a discourse as he makes all over this his 34. Chapter) That they are bodies, for he saith, that substance and body are the same thing. And p. 17, 53, 214. saith, That all substances must be bodies, and that the words incorporeal sub∣stance joined together, are unintelligible, nonsence, and imply a contradiction: And so runs on further in his old vein of making positive affirmations, contra∣ry to the general received opinion of all Christian Men, without giving any reason at all for his so ••aying. But to reason the matter a little: why are the words incorporeal substance contradicto∣ries? Why may there not be a sub∣stance that hath no Body, as well as a substance that hath one? For substance is nothing but that which doth substare such and such qualifications as are pro∣per, and do belong to the being or na∣ture of the thing in which those quali∣fications are, and without which those qualifications could not be, for want of something to support them. As we may say that Iron, which is a corpo∣real substance, is hard, so we may say,

that a thing of a more subtle existence or substance is intelligent, rational, or wise; For that it may be equally capa∣ble to support these, as the Iron doth hardness, colour, or any other qualifi∣cation. Now then to say, that body and substance are the same thing, is only a positive saying, and if the words had been never thought on before, might as well signifie variously as the same. Then certainly 'tis a strange piece of confidence, to obtrude such a position upon the World without any possibility of reason, which is contrary to the sen∣timents of all Learned persons that ever I heard of. But if Mr. Hobbes ask me, what a Spirit is, if it be not a Body? I must say, that I can no more tell the likeness of it, than Mr. Hobbes, suppo∣sing he had never seen by some exter∣nal obstruction any thing, nor spoken with them that had, could have told what a like thing an Horse, or a grey Hound is; things incapable, and things obstructed, giving the same account of their proceedings. But 'tis apparent, that there is such a thing as a Spirit, for our Saviour saith, Luke 24. 39. Han∣dle me, and see, for a Spirit hath not Flesh

and Bones, as ye see me have. And if not Flesh and Bones, of what must a Spirit consist that is corporeal? I hope Mr. Hobbes will not say, that 'tis made like his deciding Sword, of Iron and Steel. But the apprehension that we can have of a Spirit is, that it is something that is no object of our Senses, and so not Mathematically descriptable, but an ob∣ject of our Understandings; which ap∣prehend that a good Spirit is wise and knowing, and that an evil Spirit is sub∣tle and cunning. But what shall we say then of Mr. Hobbes his Spirit, (that is his Soul) which is neither wise, sub∣tle, nor cunning? To this I shall only say, that I think 'tis no Body, by reason it hath actuated every part of his Body, and been in the same for near 80 Years together, which it could not have been had it been Body, for this would be to make several Bodies in one place at the same time, which Mr. Hobbes disallows of. So then, the Soul of Man must be something that is not Body, that is as we call it Spirit or Spiritual substance, created by God in Man, as Life was breathed into Adam and all other living creatures. But Mr. Hobbes, after his

Philosophical discourse concerning the corporeousness of a Spirit, cites Texts of Scripture to shew what the meaning of Spirit is there: His first is, Gen. 1. 2. where 'tis said, That the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the Waters. This, he saith, is meant a wind wrought by God, because motion is attributed to it, and con∣sequently place, and nothing can be moved that changeth not place; or hath not dimen∣sion, and whatsoever hath dimension is Body. Admirable Philosophy! For mark the Argument, motion and place belong to Bodies, therefore nothing but a Body can have motion or place. Suppose a Man should reply upon Mr. H••bbes and say, Ears belong to an Ass, therefore nothing but an Ass can have Ears: what a trouble would this be to Mr. Hobbes, to be made an Ass by his own Argument; which supposeth all things to be the same, to which any one cir∣cumstance or qualification equally be∣longeth. But fully to answer Mr. Hobbes, motion in this place of Scripture is in∣tended, as I think, of the special and extraordinary operation of God's Spirit, (though some Interpreters take it, I confess, to be a wind impulsed by God's

Spirit, like Gen. 8.1.) upon the Waters, and not to denote God's moving from place to place as Bodies do; for in that sence neither motion nor place can be attributed to God, who is every where, but in no place either circumscriptively or definitively, as Bodies are. But it follows not therefore, that God by his Spirit cannot extraordinarily act in one place more than another, without be∣coming a Body, as he did in the crea∣tion upon the Waters. And 'tis not sence to say, that of necessity dimensi∣on m••st belong to that which hath motion or place; because that Bodies that have motion and place have di∣mension; for 'tis to make a general conclusion of the Being of a thing, from a particular qualification, and that would be to make Men Beasts, and Beasts Men, as I hinted before. But I confess, that the word Spirit in Scri∣pture and common discourse hath vari∣ous significations, as Mr. Hobbes hath plentifully discoursed; but what that makes to the impossibility of a sub∣stance being incorporeal, I know not, neither do I think it conceptible. And I cannot agree with Mr. Hobbes, in his

several quotations of Scripture that mention our Savour, who was indowed with God's Spirit, and 'tis abominable to question it, and several eminent Per∣sons, as Gideon, &c. to be indowed with God's Spirit; that those places, as he saith, only mean, that our Saviour and others had special virtues for such purposes (but that God had not inspired his Spirit into them) to inable them to perform such and such things; as when he cites the 6. of Iudges v. 34. which saith, that the Spirit of the Lord came upon Gideon, that is, saith Mr. Hobbes, Gideon had courage to defend God's people. And this let me add, that if it was barely courage in Gideon, it was the strangest courage that I ever read of (except that of Ionathan) to at∣tack so great an host, as that of Midian was, with only 300 Men, and the arms of them nothing but Trumpets, Lamps, and Pitchers. But if this In∣terpretation of Mr. Hobbes was true, Oliver Cromwel, or any other valiant Man, might be said to have God's Spi∣rit as well as Gideon, although we do not find that so much as any of Da∣vid's Worthies, in the repetition of their great acts, are said to have it;

when we cannot suppose, but that they had as much courage as Gideon, and up∣on that account might as easily have been said to have God's Spirit, if by God's Spirit in such Men is only meant courage. What folly then is it for Mr. Hobbes to affirm this, having no warrant for it but his own fancy? To which he hath given so great a latitude, as in this Chapter most damnably and prophanely to make nothing of the bles∣sed Spirit of God, but a Ghost, as p. 209. which in other places he makes the companion of Goblins, both which he takes to be, as indeed they are, the imaginations of distempered brains, such as Mr. Hobbes his was when he wrote this interpretation of places of Scri∣pture of this kind; when in p. 58. he saith, That the Scriptures mean by the Spirit of God in Man, a Man's Spirit in∣clined to godliness; and here he saith, they mean the particular virtues Men are in∣dowed with for such purposes; and whe∣ther this be not the next thing to a con∣tradiction, I shall refer to any one that hath so much virtue and godliness as to speak true: for a godly Man, that is, one devout towards God, may not be

indowed with any other virtue. And then Mr. Hobbes comes to Texts of Scri∣pture concerning our Saviour, as to this matter, it is Luke the 4th v. 1. and Matth. 4. 1. that express our Saviour to be full of God's Spirit: This, saith Mr. Hobbes, was a zeal to do God's work, but (saith he) to say God was fill'd with God, is improper and insignificant. And this last I shall be beholding to Mr. Hobbes for hereafter, when I come to p. 268. where Mr. Hobbes denies the ex∣istence of God the Holy Ghost, and the Godhead of the Son, for here he confesseth the Godhead of both of them. But to return to this page I am now upon; Mr. Hobbes is certainly upon a wrong ground (though I will not say how the blessed Spirit of God is com∣municated or infused into Man, or was in our blessed Saviour) to suppose, that God the Holy Ghost must be infused in∣to the Godhead of the Son, and that the Godhead must be full of the God∣head, for our Saviour had an humane Nature, which he might not out of his good pleasure indow with all the graces of God's Spirit upon the assum∣ption, but sufferr'd it rather to attend

the blessed Spirit for the plenitude of them; and this is agreeable to all the Interpreters of those Texts that ever I saw, except Mr. Hobbes his Leviathan. And Mr. Hobbes saith further, That in these last mentioned Texts the word Spirit either signifies a real substance, (which he said before must be a Body,) or else me∣taphorically signifies some extraordinary abi∣lity. This I mention to shew, that ta∣king Mr. Hobbes together he calls God the Holy Ghost a Body; though hereafter p. 268. he denies him any real existence at all.

Mr. Hobbes in this Chapter cites many Texts, to prove that Angels have Bo∣dies and dimensions, as those that went to Lot into Sodom, and other like. This I shall not dispute with Mr. Hobbes, though 'tis more probable and agree∣able to the opinion of the generality of the World, that they assumed Bo∣dies upon those particular occasions by the direction of God Almighty. But then with another argument, he thinks to make it sure that Angels have Bo∣dies, because Hell-fire is prepared for the Devil and his Angels, and fire, saith he, can only work upon a Body. I suppose

Mr. Hobbes means our fire can only work upon a Body, and then mark the strong consequence; Ergo, God cannot make any other sort of fire that can work upon something not Body. Mr. Hobbes might as well have said, that if we never had had any fire, God could not have made such a thing as fire. Nay, Mr. Hobbes in this place confesseth, That the evil Angels shall not be consu∣med in this fire; and this shews 'tis a fire not like ours, and so Mr. Hobbes hath answered himself, in which faculty he is the happiest Man that I ever knew. But to come closer to Mr. Hobbes, he I think would be troubled to make out, that our fire cannot work upon a thing that is immaterial; for it follows not, that because it burns wood, it will burn nothing that is not in the same manner substantial. But after all, what is this (taking it as Mr. Hobbes would have it, that Angels have Bodies and dimensions) to prove that the words incorporeal substance imply a contradicti∣on? That is, in plain English, there is no substance but hath a body, that is to say, the great God of Heaven and Earth (though Mr. Hobbes speaks plain only

concerning Angels) hath a Body, and con∣sequently, as Mr. Hobbes saith, hath dimen∣sions and consequently is finite and not infinite. So Mr. Hobbes may in time deny all the Attributes of God, for before he hath denied his Knowledge, and now his Infinity by direct consequence. But whe∣ther Mr. Hobbes never thought of this sequel, as I have so much charity for him (knowing his weakness in other places) to believe he never did, or whether the Atheism was so gross that Mr. Hobbes durst not speak out plain, I shall leave to the Reader to deter∣min.

Mr. Hobbes now comes to tell what the meaning of the words Kingdom of God signifie in Holy Scripture, as he calls it properly; which he defines to be, p. 217. God's dominion over a people by special contract; As the people of Israel were subjects, by the special covenant made by God with Abraham, as in Gen. 17. whereby Abraham and his Seed were obliged to obey God's positive Law, as by an oath of Allegiance; for to the Moral Law they were obliged before. This I suppose Mr. Hobbes in∣tends for a foundation of God's distinct

Kingdom, as will appear by and by, never distinguish'd from his general Do∣minion before, that ever I heard of; neither is there any cause to distinguish it now, as he doth, by necessary sup∣position, or else all he saith signifies nothing. But methinks this is too slen∣der a foundation for such a work, and the supposition (that is, that Abraham and his Seed were not obliged to obey God's positive Law before that special covenant) is false: For without doubt God's Dominion over the Earth, as he is stiled Lord of all the Earth frequently in Scripture, puts a duty, not only up∣on all the Seed of Abraham, but all the Seed of Adam, to obey his positive Law as well as the Moral Law, in case that positive Law be appropriated to them, either in general, or to any of them in particular, as the Ceremonial Law was appropriated to the Iews, and there needs no special contract to oblige any sort of Men to obey whatever God commands; for he is Lord and Creator of all the Earth, and the disposer and orderer of all things in it, and hath a right to do so, which Mr. Hobbes ac∣knowledgeth, p. 187. and saith, 'Tis na∣turally

upon the account of his Power, that God reigneth and punisheth the breach of his Laws; and this Mr. Hobbes saith with∣out any limitation. So before I give a further answer in this, Mr. Hobbes must be reconciled to himself. But Mr. Hobbes goes on in this his fabrick, and after several Texts cited, that the Iews were God's peculiar people, boldly concludes, p. 218. That by the Kingdom of God, is pro∣perly meant a Commonwealth instituted (by consent of those that are to be subject there∣to) for their Civil Government; which properly was a Kingdom, wherein God was King, and the High Priest his Viceroy. And for this, thanks to his grace, he vouchsafeth a reason, (which he never did that I remember before for any of his crotchets) which is, That the Iews in Scripture are called an Holy Nation. Now holy, saith Mr. Hobbes, signifieth that which is God's by special, not general right. Put this into a Syllogism, and let us see how natural the consequence will be: By an holy Nation in Scri∣pture is meant a peculiar Nation to God; But the Iews are an holy Nation: Ergo by the Kingdom of God is proper∣ly meant a Commonwealth. If Mr.

Hobbes had made this Syllogism, any one would swear that Mr. Hobbes, al∣though he railed against Aristotle, had never read him, or else not understood him. And 'tis not less absurd out of a Syllogism, than 'tis in; for what hath an holy Nation, which are God's peo∣ple because they serve him in the way of Piety, (which respects mainly their future state) to do with a Common∣wealth, and God's being Monarch upon Earth, which he hath left in the Crea∣tion to the government of Men? But Mr. Hobbes p. 218. cites divers Texts of Scripture to confirm his Position; of which Texts I shall only answer two, which seem to bear most in his advan∣tage, and the first is, 1 Sam. 12. 12. where 'tis said, upon the Israelites desiring a King, that God was their King. Hence Mr. Hobbes collects, That God was their King, and governed the Civil State of the Commonwealth, and that the high Priest was his Viceroy. I shall agree with Mr. Hobbes, that God so far governed the State of the Commonwealth, as to ap∣point who should govern it; but 'tis most apparent, that he no otherwise go∣vern'd it, than by appointing who

should govern, as he doth in all Com∣monwealths, (for by him King's reign.) For there was a certain time when there was no King in Israel, and God ap∣pointed sometimes Iudges, Chiefs, (that is Kings) to govern them: between which Iudges there was intervals; and I would know, what temporal Iuris∣diction God exercised over them in those intervals, or at that time when there was no King: Certainly none that we ever read of in holy Writ, and 'tis rea∣sonable to suppose God exercised none; for that the people of Israel were then grievously oppressed, and so continued sometimes for••y Years, before a delive∣rer rose up; which they needed not to have done, if God had undertaken the temporal government; for that God by his Power was able to have deliver'd them, which we see he never did, but by a temporal Governor; in the time of which Governor, the high Priest was not God's Viceroy, but rather the Go∣vernor's, and the 17. Deut. 9. & 12. v. clearly makes the Priest and the Iudge, which should then afterwards be diffe∣rent persons, and different Emploiments. So 'tis most apparent, that God was no

otherwise the temporal King of the Israelites, than he was King of all the Earth; nor the high Priest, as high Priest, his Viceroy; though the Israe∣lites were his chosen people, as to Re∣ligious worship. And as to the 1 Sam. 8. 7. which Mr. Hobbes cites, where God said to Samuel (when the people asked a King) They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me; that I should not rule over them: it is no more, but that God was angry with them, for not taking such a Governor as he was pleased to set over them, as Samuel then was, and Baruck, Ieptha, and Samson had been; but that they would have one, not only of their own choosing, but also a••ter the similitude of other Nati∣ons, which God had rejected, and had chosen them for his peculiar people; and so in that sence they may be said to reject God, in that they rejected those he did set over them. As to Mr. Hobbes his other places of Scripture, I think them nothing to the matter, and so I shall pass them over, as he saith he doth many more places for this purpose not cited, but instead of citing them sli∣ly (as I think) claps his hands at the

Clergy, p. 219. and saith, 'Tis a wonder no more notice is taken of this, but that it gives too much light to Christian Kings to see their right of Ecclesiastical government. To this I will answer for the Clergy of England, that those that are not infected with a spice of Popery, as I am afraid some such there are, (God make them fewer) or some for want of due consi∣deration, always acknowledge the King for supream Head of the Church, and by that Title pray for him, and not by that sleighty Title of Supream Moderator of the Church; and the English Clergy, if some few do otherwise, are no more to be blamed for this, than the English Souldiers were in the blessed Reign of Queen Elizabeth to be blamed in Hol∣land, because Stanly and York delivered Towns up to the Spaniard; or English Writers, because one English Man hath written such a Book as the Leviathan, who after his Learned Discourse of the Kingdom of God comes to tell us, p. 219. what the Kingdom of Grace is, and saith, Those are in it that promise obedience to God's government (I suppose he means temporal of which he hath been treating before) to whom, saith he,

God hath gratis given to be his Subjects hereafter, which is called the Kingdom of Glory. Now certainly the Kingdom of Grace, by all Men before Mr. Hobbes, was taken to be God's Spiritual govern∣ment; which he exerciseth in the Hearts of good Men, by his commands, threats, and promises; to which if they yield obedience, in and through the mercies of our blessed Saviour they are made inheritors of the Kingdom of Glory. And what a quibble this is of Mr. Hobbes, from the word gratis to change the sence of the Kingdom of Grace, I shall refer to any intelligent person.

Mr. Hobbes coming in his 36. Chapter to treat of ••he Word of God and the Prophets, comes to shew what Word signifies in Scripture; of which I do think he hath given a true account in several Texts, but is not able in any kind of Truth to hold out long: For p. 224. he saith, That the Word of God, in several Texts of Scripture, signifies (which I never observed in any) such words as are consonant to the dictates of right Reason; and the first Text he cites is 2 Chron. 35. 22. where 'tis said, That

Iosiah harkned not to the words of Necho from the mouth of God; which, saith Mr. Hobbes, were but the dictates of Rea∣son. This is most palpably unreasona∣ble; for there was no reason for Iosiah to forbear fighting with Necho (the Kings of Iudah having beaten as great Kings as the Kings of Egypt, and the Iews being then in a powerful conditi∣on) when he came into his Country with a great Army. So this Text must either be intended, that the words of Necho were but what God had told him, or that they were revealed to Io∣siah to be God's mind by some Prophet, which most Interpreters take to be Iere∣miah; nay Mr. Hobbes himself cites Es∣dras for this last Interpretation, but saith, That in this he approves not an Apo∣cryphal writer; though before, when he had a mind to invalidate the Scriptures, by making the Penmen of them uncer∣tain, seemed strongly to incline, that Esdras was the Penman of them after the Captivity, (when it might be sup∣posed the certain Truth was lost) and that only from the Authority of the Book of Esdras; whose Authority, or rather Interpretation, he here rejects.

And then Mr. Hobbes goes on to cite several other Texts of Scripture to prove, that in Scripture by the Word of God is meant the dictates of Reason or Equity, as Ierem. 31. 33. and other pla∣ces, where God saith, He will write his Laws in their Hearts. Which places, by all other Men I think, have been inter∣preted the operation of God's Spirit upon the minds of Men, by inclining them to obey his Laws, after God had taught them by his Prophets or Ministers. And there is no cause to call that rea∣son, or the proceed of reason, which the Scripture terms the operation of God. A Man bringing reason (or an aptitude to it) into the World, and so he doth not that which God effects in him after he is in the World.

Mr. Hobbes, p. 238. saith, That a private Man hath Power to believe, or not believe Miracles, Thought b••ing free; but, saith he, when it comes to publick confession, the pri∣vate reason must submit to the publick. Now by his Rule, though a Man do not believe lying wonders, yet he may say he doth, if any one will believe Mr. Hobbes. In short, this is much like his precedent Doctrine of practice, and

serves to authorise the grossest hypocri∣sie in the World, in case the publick, which he calls God's Lievtenant, say con∣trary to his belief. This will make Mr. Hobbes safe, either in Turky, though he be a Christian; or at Rome, though he be a Protestant. Yet Mr. Hobbes ought to remember, that in holy Scripture, belief in the Heart, and confession with the Mouth, go together. But this conceit of Mr. Hobbes puts me in mind of a sto∣ry of Bernier's, a French Man, who when he travail'd into the Mogol's Coun∣try, happening to be Physician to Da∣nech-Men-Kan, chief Minister of State, was sent by him to see a Mahometan Miracle, and discovering the cheat of it (which the Priests of that Temple observing) was forced to cry, Wonder; Wonder, as the custom there is, in token of assent, and immediately to take Horse, for fear of being knock'd on the Head because of his discovery. Now that which Bernier did do out of present fear, Mr. Hobbes here gives an express tole∣ration ••or, and lays it down as univer∣sally lawful. Of this I shall say no more, only refer my reader to my Lord of Cla∣rendon upon this place, who hath exposed him sufficiently.

After Mr. Hobbes hath been labouring to make Religion nothing, the authority of the Scriptures doubtful, and indea∣vouring to deprive God of the honour of his greatest (if any excel) attributes. Now in his 38. Chapter he comes to de∣prive Man of his hopes of a great part of his eternal felicity, and saith, p. 239. concerning the place wherein Men shall enjoy eternal life, which Christ hath obtained for them, That several Texts (he there cites) seem to make it on Earth: which afterwards he con∣cludes upon, p. 241. with the mortality of the Soul till the Resurrection. I must confess, that I wonder that any Man in his wits should raise such an opinion from Texts that look no••hing like it, which I will refer to any sober Man. So I shall not trouble my self with any of them, save the 3d of Iohn 13. which saith, That no Man hath ascended up into Heaven, but the Son of Man, which came down from Heaven. Whereupon Mr. Hobbes saith, That by the way he observes, that these are not the words of our Savi∣our, though the words before are, but of St. Iohn himself; for Christ was not then in Heaven. And now the implication

from this, as I suppose is, that if none but Christ shall ascend (which is meant by hath ascended in this place, Christ be∣ing then on Earth) then the place of eternal Life for Men shall be on Earth. This looks pretily, but hath nothing of an objection in it against Man's going into Heaven for eternal Happiness•• when the Text is compared with what went before in the Chapter. For there was a discourse between our Saviour and Nicodemus about his being born again, and Nicodemus asked, how these things should be? Our Saviour replies, vers. 12. If you believe not when I tell you Earthly things, how will you believe when I tell you of Heavenly things? And then comes the 13th verse, which saith, No Man hath ascended, &c. which are plain∣ly the words of our Saviour, being they refer to the precedent discourse; and are no more than if our Saviour had said, No man can tell these Heavenly things which I speak of (and 'tis like were mysteries belonging to the King∣dom of God not to be revealed) save my self, who came down from Heaven, when I took the humane Nature upon me. And 'tis not improbable, that he

spake this to give Nicodemus to under∣stand, that he was God as well as Man. And as to Mr. Hobbes his other Texts to prove, That the future state of the blessed shall be upon Earth; I think them only set down for number or sound sake, and so I shall pass them over. And as to the Text in Iob to prove the mortality of the Soul, till the Resurrection, 'tis this, That Man lieth down, and riseth not till the Heavens be no more. Which receives a short answer (viz.) that 'tis meant on∣ly of the Body of Man. But now to confute Mr. Hobbes, I shall only lay down some few Texts of Scripture. First, as to the place of happiness eternal, to prove that it is in Heaven, and that our Bodies may ascend thither, as 'tis plain the Bodies of Enoch and Elias have al∣ready done, and why not ours as well as theirs? And 1 Thes. 4. 17. saith, That we which are alive, and remain, shall be caught up together with them (that is, the dead in Christ as the verse precedent ex∣presseth it) in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we be ever with the Lord. How shall we be with the Lord; upon Earth? No 'tis plain in the Heavens, which is signified by the

clouds; and this further shews the pos∣sibility of our Bodies ascending; for the Text saith expresly, joyned with the pre∣cedent verse, That we shall be caught up in the clouds. I shall cite but one Text more, and so leave Mr. Hobbes and his new opinion to stare one upon another: It is 2 Corin. 5.1. where the Apostle saith, For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the Heavens. This is so full in all the parts of it aginst Mr. Hobbes, that I think it impossible for any evasion to be made out of it in be∣half of Mr. Hobbes his opinion. But Mr. Hobbes, though he be unkind to the Saints, is very kind to the wicked, (and this I think ought to be ranked in the front of his Domestic Politics) for he saith, p. 242. That Earth is the place for the damned: And p. 243. saith, That fire in Scripture, which is mentioned as a punishment in several Texts, is to be taken metaphorically, and may be exprest in proper terms; which, he saith, p. 244. is no more but vexation of mind to see others happy, and that the condemned per∣son shall not be ever in it, but dye, never

to live again. (And now Mr. Hobbes li∣ving or dying may think he hath made himself a safe bargain.) What can more incourage wicked Men to go on in their sins than this? Or not to value, whe∣ther they assent or no to Mr. Hobbe's his damnable Doctrines, both of belief and practice? But the rational or argu∣mentative part of this I shall pass over, because my Lord of Clarendon hath said so much upon this matter, and only cite some few Texts of Scripture, to sa∣tisfie any Man that the place of future torment is not upon Earth, and that the Soul of Man is immortal, whether it be the Soul of a wicked person, or a righteous, as well before as after the re∣surrection. The first is Matth. 5. 30. which saith, 'Tis better that one of thy members perish than that thy whole body should be cast into Hell, (and the wicked shall be turn'd into Hell, and all the Na∣tions that forget God) which, as the Learned Mr. Hobbes saith, is as much as should be cast upon the Earth, where 'tis already. And to shew that there is now, and was then, such a place as Hell, look Prov. 15. 11. where 'tis said, that Hell and destruction are before the

eyes of the Lord, that is, he knows what the wicked there suffer. To end this, see Mark 9. 44•• 46, 48. where 'tis said, the worm dieth not, (that is the lash of Con∣science) and the fire is not quenched; speaking of a Man's being cast into Hell. So then, if the worm dies not, the sub∣ject of that worm must live, that is, the wicked person; and the fire of Hell is said to be as everlasting; For 'tis not quenched, which must be intended never shall be quenched. And to stop Mr. Hobbes his Mouth, as to the eternity of punishment and reward, look Matth. 25. 46. These shall go into everlasting pu∣nishment, but the righteous into life eter∣nal. And that the Soul lives after the death of the Body until the resurrecti∣on, see, Eccl. 12. 7. where Solomon spea∣king of Man's dissolution, saith, The dust (that is the Body) shall return to the Earth, and the Spirit to God that gave it. And Acts 7. 59. Stephen when sto∣ned said, Lord Iesus receive my Spirit. These two Texts must be intended of living Spirits, for what should God do with dead Spirits, which are nothing, who is God of the living, and not of the dead? None of which Texts Mr.

Hobbes takes any notice of, save that in Mark of the worm not dying. To which he saith, 'tis metaphorically to be understood; and this answer would serve for any thing else, as well as this. I shall pass the rest of Mr. Hobbes his ab∣surdities in this Chapter about these mat∣ters, save one at the latter end, where he jumps again into setting the place of Men's eternal happiness upon Earth, and p. 246. cites Isaiah 33. v. 20, 21•• 22, 23, 24. to be full in the matter; which is so far from the matter, that it is only Scripture to signifie God's destruction of the Assyrians, and the Iews deliverance from them. But whether the punishment be by fire, or without, I shall not argue, (though the Texts say it is, which are better authority than ever I heard to the contrary) only I hope no Man will venture upon the punishment which is everlasting, Matth. 25. 46. presuming upon Mr. Hobbes his assertions to be true. Neither do I think any good Man will think the merits of our bles∣sed Lord and Saviour the less, for what Mr. Hobbes in this Chapter saith, who after he hath been endeavouring to make all Religion a foppery, to set up

Idolatrous worship, to debase our Sa∣viour in respect of his miracles, to make the credibility of the Scriptures questionable, to deprive God of his At∣tributes, now comes p. 248. to under∣value the sufferings of our Saviour; and saith, That the sufferings of our Sa∣viour were no satisfaction or price for sin, whereby Christ could claim right to a par∣don for us from his offended Father, but that price that God in mercy was pleased to demand. And this he further explains himself in, p. 261. I acknowledge that the sufferings of our Saviour were all that God demanded as a satisfaction for sin, but when our Saviour had perfor∣med what God did require, it was an absolute satisfaction. And this is clear reason in the transactions of Men: when the debt is paid by ones self, or an other, or that is paid that is required, there is a full satisfaction, and the prisoner, or he that paid the debt may of right claim his discharge. So may Christ of right claim a pardon for us from his Father, when the satisfaction for sin is paid: For although there was no reason that our Saviour should suffer for us, but meer mercy, as 'twas God's mercy to accept

of Christ in our stead; yet 'tis great Reason, that when he hath suffered for our sins, he should of right claim to have us delivered from the punishment of them. And he was the true Scape∣goat that carried all our sins into the Land of forgetfulness. And Matth. 1. 21. He shall save his people from their sins, that is, by his merits defend them from his Father's wrath: With which Text agrees 18. Matth. 11. 1 Tim. 1. 15. He came to save sinners; and multitudes of Texts to this purpose. And besides, God when he first promised Christ to mankind said, That he should break the Serpent's head; that is, by his own effi∣cacy, for he was God as well as Man, and that gave power to effect, and va∣lue to satisfie. But Mr. Hobbes his con∣ceit had been good, in case that after a sinner had lain in Hell seven years, God had said, this is enough, and had freed him. Here 'tis true the sinner could not have claimed a right to a pardon for what he had suffered, but that suffering was all that God was plea∣sed in mercy to demand; for that a sin∣ner can never make a full satisfaction for his sin. But here we cannot but

suppose God the Father and his Inno∣cent Son as it were making (I speak it with reverence) a contract: The Father as it were saying, If you'l suffer, I will take it as a satisfaction for Man's sin; And his Son saying, I will (for he vo∣luntarily laid down his life, it was not taken from him, and those sufferings God would not dispense with) suffer for sinners, or in their stead. Certainly now he hath suffered, he may of right claim a pardon for sinners. But as to this matter I wave further Discourse, there being so many Treatises upon it.

Mr. Hobbes, p. 250, 251. saith, That the Israelites obligation to obey Moses, was only from their desire and promise at mount Sinai, Exod. 20. 18. where they said, Speak thou to us, and we will hear; but let not God speak to us, lest we die. Cer∣tainly any rational Man would wonder at such a fancy, when 'tis apparent, that Moses was God's messenger by the many miracles wrought by his Hands, both in Egypt, from whence he led them, and at the red Sea, where they were miraculously saved and the Egyptians drowned, and by many other miracles before they came to

mount Sinai. And upon that account (as so apparently sent by God) they were bound to obey Moses, or disobey God himself; and this promise at mount Sinai was only to free them from the terror they had undergone before. But that which Mr. Hobbes drives at in this conceit may be to persuade Men, that they need not obey any of the Prophets, Apostles, or Ministers of the Gospel, since, without their express promise so to do. And so further labours to ener∣vate the authority of the Scriptures and Gospel Ministry. But as Mr. Hobbes gave Moses a smaller authority in this than one would have expect••d, so in p. 252. he gives him and all succeeding Monarchs a greater trouble than 'tis reasonable to impose upon them; For he saith, That all Soveraigns are the sole interpreters of God's commands, and that no man ought to proceed further in the in∣terpretation of Scripture, than the Sove∣raign limits. So that a Sover••ign ought to be either a more exact Divine than ever I heard of in the World, to in∣terpret all places of Scripture that a question is demanded of, or else of a most exact and quick Iudgment, to limit

others how far they shall go. And sup∣pose a Soveraign prove a fool, or like an ill Steersman always turning the boat round, uncertain in his resolves; who must interpret the matter then•• But I shall pass this over without more saying, as one of the chances of Mr. Hobbes his fancy.

Mr. Hobbes p. 263. saith, That the end of Our Saviour's c••ming into the World was to restore unto God the Kingdom, cut off from him by the rebellion of the Israelites in the election of Saul. So far he hath renounced all Salvation by Christ. But to do him right, he saith afterwards, That our Saviour had an other imploy, and that was to Preach that he was the Mes∣siah, and in case the Nation of the Iews should refuse him, then to call to his obe∣dience the Gentiles. So now he seems only by the accident of the Iews refu∣sal, to exclude them from Salvation, and by the same accident only to make the Gentiles capable of mercy. Now is any thing more plain in the World, than that he came into the World to satisfie God's justice for the sins of the World, and with intent to bring in the Gentiles as well as the Iews, and to

make them one sheepfold under himself the great Shepherd? And that appears from the first promise of him, viz. That the Seed of the Woman should break the Serpents Head, that is, should take away that misery from the Seed of the Wo∣man, which the subtlety of the Serpent had brought upon it; and I suppose Mr. Hobbes will not say amidst his new found unreasonable Doctrines, That the Gentiles as well as the Iews were not the off-spring of Eve. And he was the blood of the everlasting covenant, and the great Shepherd of the Sheep spoken of Heb. 13. 20. And Iohn 1.29. he is called the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the World; and this was before he was rejected by the Iews. And all the Prophesies of our Saviour in the Old Testament express our Saviour's bringing in the Gentiles, and the intent of God to do so, as Isaiah 49. 22. I will lift up my Hand to the Gentiles, and set up my Standard to the People; and this was before our Saviour's coming into the World. Texts for this I shall cite no more, it being a thing so plain against Mr. Hobbes; and one would wonder ever such conceits without ground or

reason should come into any Man's Head.

Mr. Hobbes, after a great deal of stir about the Trinity, and the Unity of that Trinity, which is hard to make any thing of, or rather impossible, by reason his opinion was concealed, comes p. 268. to tell us his opinion in these words fol∣lowing (viz.) To conclude, saith he, the Doctrine of the Trinity, as far as can be gathered directly from the Scripture, is in substance this: That the God who is al∣ways one and the same, was the person re∣presented by Moses, the person represented by his Son incarnate, and the person re∣presented by the Apostles: As represented by the Apostles, the Holy Spirit by which they spake is God; as by Moses, the Father is God; as represented by his Son, (that was God and Man) the Son is God. These are his very words. So observe, he ab∣solutely denies in this the personal ex∣istence of the two last Persons in the Trinity. And 'tis in short to say, as others have said before me, that there is but one Person under different con∣ceptions. And the inference is direct and natural, for, saith Mr. Hobbes, God was in three respects represented, which excludes the real existence of three Di∣vine

Persons in the Godhead, and only supposeth three Persons that represented this one God, not that there are three Persons in the Godhead, or that are God; for no one is said to represent, that is the Person represented. Now to illustrate this, the King of England is represented by the Lord Deputy of Ireland, by the Viceroy of Scotland, and by his Governor of the Island of Iersey; But still 'tis the energy of the one Per∣son of the King that actuates them all, and there are not three Persons of the King, nor any of those three Persons are the King; no more are there three Persons in the Godhead, if we will be∣lieve Mr. Hobbes; who makes the three Persons in the Trinity, but three Names to express one only Person of God. So 'tis all one, as if he had said, the Son is not God as a distinct Person from the Father, but that the only one Per∣son of the Godhead was come into Man: or at best had taken the Virgins Son into it; or, that he had said, the Person of the Holy Ghost was not God as a distinct Person from the Father, but that the only one Person of God inspired the Apostles. So then clearly

here is a denial of the two second Per∣sons in the Trinity, for if there be only one Person, there is not three in the Trinity. But Mr. Hobbes in this hath the confidence to say, That this his fancy is all that can be gathered from Scripture concerning the Trinity: And that he may meet with his match, I will say the con∣trary; and I doubt not, but my autho∣rities for my opinion will prove better than his. It is said in 1 Ioh. 5. 7. There are three bear record in Heaven, the Fa∣ther, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. So this is clear, that the Godhead is three Persons, not as 'tis represented at three different times upon Earth, but as it is three di∣stinct Persons in Heaven. So this makes an end of Mr. Hobbes his conceit, that there are only said to be three Persons in the Godhead, to be made out by Scripture in respect of the three repre∣sentations upon Earth; for they are in this Text said to be three in Heaven, and all three are said to be in action, that is, to bear record; which shews they are several and distinct Persons. And the 3d of Titus 4, 5, 6. v. clearly shews the Trinity of the Persons really ex∣istent;

which Texts are (viz.) After the love of God our Saviour toward Man appeared, By his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renew∣ing of the Holy Ghost: Which he shed on us abundantly, through Iesus Christ our Sa∣viour. Here is God the Father that saves his people by regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost; and 'tis through Iesus Christ our Saviour: So what can be plainer (besides the Scri∣ptures that speak of the descent and mission of the Holy Ghost) that the Godhead hath three Persons in it, in another manner than as it was repre∣sented by Moses; for here is God the Father fully set forth a part, that through mercy he saved us; and God the Holy Ghost in another manner set forth, than represented by the Apostles, for this is spoken of the renewing of the Holy Ghost in all believers; and Iesus Christ the meritorious cause of our Salvation, which he could not have been, but as he was both God and Man, and Mr. Hobbes calls him so in this Chapter. So that Christ, as Christ, Mr. Hobbes makes meer Man, (as he stiles him and would make him, Chap. 38. though otherwise

calls him in this Chapter) for he makes him•• only the representer of God, as Moses was; and the Holy Ghost Mr. Hobbes saith in effect, is nothing, for he saith that that denomination was attri∣buted to God, as he was represented by the Apostles: So that the Holy Ghost was only an Attribute of God. But besides all this, Mr. Hobbes spoke before, upon his reliance upon the Church of England as to matters of Faith, and that the Civil Soveraign is to appoint what is to be taught for Doctrine. And the Church of England, and our Soveraigns, have establish'd Athanasius his Creed to be read, and as necessary to Salvation to be believed, and that Creed, as well as the begining of the Litany, is expresly against Mr. Hobbes; for it saith, That there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and ano∣ther of the Holy Ghost; which Creed and Litany speak them in themselves three distinct Persons, and as such are prayed to, without interesting Moses or the Apostles in the matter; and agree to my interpretation of Scripture. So for once I hope, without boasting, I may say I have got the better of Mr. Hobbes.

Indeed this opinion of his is like the rest of the abominable and damnable whimsies of his own brain, and ought to be ranked in the front of them. And to give Mr. Hobbes a little over weight, I will refer it to any rational Man, whether Mark 1. 10. Ioh. 1. 32. do not absolutely shew the distinction of the two second Persons in the Trinity; where 'tis said, That the Spirit of God descended from Heaven like a Dove, and abode upon Christ. Now taking Christ to be God, (as Mr. Hobbes frequently calls him in this Chapter) what was the Spirit that abode upon him, but a distinct Person in the Godhead, and Heb. 3. 7. conjoined to Psal. 95. 7. to which it relates, may fully conclude Mr. Hobbes: For the former Text saith, That the Holy Ghost said, To day if ye will hear his voice; which last words are the words of the latter Text in the 95. Psalm. So 'tis apparent, that in David's time (which I hope Mr. Hobbes will allow to be be∣fore the Apostles time) there was an Holy Ghost. So I will leave Mr. Hobbes, in hopes he will live long enough to recant this opinion.

Mr. Hobbes saith, p. 282. That the four first of the ten Commandments were parti∣cular to the Israelites, but the six latter obliged all mankind, being but the Law of Nature. I shall agree with Mr. Hobbes, as to the six latter, that they are but what Nature dictated before: But as to the four first, I would know a reason, why they were not obligatory by the Law of Nature, at least secondarily; that is to say, obligatory by Nature up∣on all Men that know there was one, and only one living and true God, (as all Men may see there is by the things that he hath made) which knowledge makes it as natural, as to the three first Commands, for us to be bound by those Laws, as 'tis for a Man naturally to be bound not to injure his neighbour. As for Example, Is it not as natural for the Creature to worship his Creator, and not to set up false gods to deprive him of his honour, and not to use his Name irreverently, as 'tis for a Man not to desire or take that which is an other Mans? 'Tis more natural, if we will believe what Mr. Hobbes said before, (viz.) That by Nature all Men were in an estate of Civil War, and might catch what

they could, and in that state, all force and fraud were cardinal Virtues; but certainly never was any state or condition so, where it was a cardinal Virtue to wor∣ship any god but the true one, or to be irreverent to his Name. But Mr. Hobbes his conceit is good in this place for one thing, and that is, that after he hath been blaspheming God, and taking from him his Attributes, and giving Men a toleration as to external acts, or con∣fession, to acknowledge any thing for God; that here he gives a reason for all that he said, as to us Gentiles, for we may do or say what we will, no•• being Iews, in respect of God Almigh∣ty, for that there is no Law, if we will believe Mr. Hobbes, to oblige us Gentiles to the contrary; The four first Com∣mands not being by the Law of Nature obligatory to any Man; and being par∣ticular to the Israelites, as made at mount Sinai. Now the Nature of a particular Law, is only to oblige that particular people for whom 'twas par∣ticularly made, and those were the Is∣raelites in this case, if Mr. Hobbes be an authentick Author. And as to the fourth Command I think, though the

day be changed, yet that in substance is as obligatory as the other three are by the Law of Nature; for 'tis as natural to set a time a part for the worship of God, as 'tis to worship him; and since God hath limited the Iews a whole day, why should not we take that as our pat∣tern? For 'tis as natural to take God for our pattern in this, as in other things, (Be ye holy as I am holy.) And we have not only his Command to the Iews for a pattern, but his own Example of rest∣ing the seventh day, and sanctifying it; upon the knowledge of which, why should it not be natural for Men to keep holy one day in seven? For the Law of Nature is twofold, either pri∣mary, without any prerequisite, as 'tis natural for a thing that hath life to move; Or secondary, when something is requisite to give liberty to Nature to work; as for Example, Men love their Children naturally, but they must know first that they are their Children, before they love them as such: For if a Father had never seen his Child from his birth till ten years of age, and then should accidentally meet him, he would love him no better then any other;

but after he was acquainted by undoubt∣ed circumstances that it was his Child, then naturally would result an emanati∣on of affection: So after we know that there is only one God, and that he hath appointed one day in seven for his ser∣vice, though to another people, (which day he sanctified and rested upon, Gen. 2. 3.) why is it not natural for us to serve him, (all mankind having an inbred awe towards something above them) and that on one day in seven, according to his example? Not but that I admit, that the fourth Command as to the precise seventh day was ceremo∣nial, and is determin'd since the time of our Saviour.

Mr. Hobbes, after he hath denied the personal Divinity of our Saviour, now comes to tell us, p. 286. That our Savi∣our, nor his Apostles, had any power to make Laws, and that they that broke any of his dictates, did not sin in it; but died in their sins, not being pardoned for their offences to the Laws of their respective Countries, or of Nature. And for this he cites Iohn 3.18. which saith, They are condemned al∣ready, not that they shall be condemned, saith he. And this conceit Mr. Hobbes

grounds upon our Saviours saying his Kingdom is not of this World, and he that hath no Kingdom, saith Mr. Hobbes, can make no Laws; so our Saviour's pre∣cepts obliged not. And now one would think Mr. Hobbes might rest sa∣tisfied; for after as he thought he had robbed Christ of his personal Godhead, now he robs him of his Authority to make Laws, and so all the wicked in the World are obliged to him for setting them free from the Gospel, in case they will but go into any part of the World to live where the Gospel of Christ, or his Apostles, are not made Canonical by the Law of that Country. But in short, to answer Mr. Hobbes is to give the true interpretation of the words of our Saviour, Ioh. 18.36. where he saith, His Kingdom is not of this World; which is no more, but that he designed not to take away the Romans Iurisdiction, in respect of the external acts and punish∣ments of Men; but doth it therefore follow, that he that was Lord of the whole Earth, (who Mr. Hobbes said be∣fore represented God) had no power, by his Word and Doctrine to oblige the Consciences of those that submit∣ted

to the Truth of them, or to leave those without excuse that refused, and that under the penalty of eternal Mise∣ry? And that we may see that he took upon him to make Laws, look Ioh. 14. 15. 1 Ioh. 2. 3. & 3. 22, 24. which all speak of Christ's commands, and that it was the token of peoples love and obedience to him that they kept them; and in another place Christ saith, A new command I give unto you, that ye love one another. If Christ had no Au∣thority to make Laws, why are his words called commands, even by him himself? For had they been only di∣rections, or beseechings, he and the Apo∣stles would have stiled them so. Nay, Mr. Hobbes saith, p. 308. That the Com∣mand, is the stile of a Law. So that 'tis clear our Saviour had power to make Laws, which he executed upon the Consciences of Men, which was the Kingdom of Heaven at hand, preached of by St. Iohn, although he was not pleased to exercise a Temporal Iurisdiction, and we may suppose it was to shew the extraordinary Spirituality of his Govern∣ment; in which sence he may be said to be King of the Iews, though his

Kingdom was not of this World. And as to Mr. Hobbes his Text out of Ioh. 3. 18. whereby he would prove, that those that obeyed not Christ's commands were not guilty of a sin, but were condemned already for sin, as he saith, against Nature or the Laws of their Country; Mr. Hobbes cites so much of the Text, and no more than he thinks to his purpose, and 'tis one of the pi∣tifullest shifts in all his Book; for the latter end of the verse saith, the words were spoken of Men condemned already for not believing in Christ, (not for dis∣obeying the Laws of their Country.) Now who would trust such a juggler, that hath the confidence to cite part of a verse to prove that which the residue proves the contrary? But hence 'tis ma∣nifest that wicked Men and Seducers grow worse and worse.

And now Mr. Hobbes, p. 300. falls upon Cardinal Bellarmine, and continues battering of him many pages together, about the Supremacy of the Pope over the Church: I think it might be a greater question and harder to resolve, whether Cardinal Bellarmine or Mr. Hobbes was the archer Heretick: That

making more God's than one, and this denying the one only God his Attri∣butes, and the existency of two of the Persons in the Godhead: That being a Papist and the worshipper of false gods, as a Wafer-cake and Pictures, Angels and dead People; This a worshipper of no God at all, a Stock, or a Stone, when the Soveraign commands, or when he shall change a Chistian for an Heathenish soil: That being obstinate in his Religion; and this ready to change, as to external acts, when the Soveraign bids him? This question I leave to better judgments to decide.

Mr. Hobbes, p. 323. saith, That there is nothing in Scripture, from whence may be inferr'd the infallibility of the Church. If Mr. Hobbes mean the particular Church of Rome, I shall agree with him; for as to so much as I know of it, 'tis as full of Errors and unreasonable Tenets as the Quakers, or Mr. Hobbes his Book: But as to Christ's Church in general, I would have Mr. Hobbes look Ephes. 5. 35, 36, & 37. v. and he will find that Christ hath purified his Church, that it might be without spot, &c. that is, with∣out Error. And in the same Chapter he 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

will find how Christ and his Church are one, as a Man and his Wife are, and that Christ loves it and cherisheth it; which either must be intended in keep∣ing it from Errors, or I know not what those Texts signifie. For if Christ suf∣fer it to run into Error, it will be ruined or run into decay; and God will deal with it, as he threatned to the particular Churches in the Revela∣tions, except they did amend. And Christ saith, Matth. 16. 18. That the gates of Hell should not prevail against it. And 1 Tim. 3. 15. calls the Church the pillar and ground of the Truth. Besides many more Texts of this kind; but these are sufficient to shew Mr. Hobbes his confidence, or ignorance, to s••y, That the Scripture contained nothing in it from whence might be inferr'd the infalli∣bility of the Church: see then how dan∣gerous it is to believe Mr. Hobbes. Yet from this Position he infers in the next page, That Christians do not know the Scri∣ptures to be the Word of God, only believe it. He might as well have said, that Christians do not know that there is a God, only believe it, and 'tis like this he may aim at: Or he might have

said, that I know not (having never travell'd thither) there is such a place as Spain, only believe it. One part of this Proposition of Mr. Hobbes is true, (viz.) That the Scriptures are believed to be the Word of God. But the ignorance of Mr. Hobbes lies in this, That in mat∣ters of fact, which our senses have not perceived, or we have not been at the transaction or institution of, the best evidence the thing is capable of (that is, unquestionable testimony) is suffici∣ent to make us know, and that in such things knowledge and belief are the same. As when we say, I believe in God the Father Almighty, &c. It is the same with, I know that there is such a person in the Trinity as God the Fa∣ther, and so of the rest of our Creed. But when we have not had full testi∣mony, and something may be for ought we know undiscovered that may alter the matter, then belief and knowledge are no more the same than Is and may be. But to make Mr. Hobbes the ex∣ample in the matter, we will suppose that he before a pardon had been in∣dicted of high Treason for indeavou∣ring

to subvert by his Book the anti∣ent Government of this Nation, both in respect of the Subjects subjection to their King, and the Peoples proper∣ties; and twelve Men had been of the Iury in Middlesex, none of which we will suppose stood by when he wrote the Book, but had testimony, all that the matter was capable of, to prove that he did write it, and there∣upon the Iury had found him guilty, and Mr. Hobbes had had Iudgment ac∣cordingly; certainly he would have thought, that the belief of the Iury, and the knowledge of the Iury in this matter had been the same. The case differs not (mutato nomine) as to the Scriptures, for that we believe and know them to be the Word of God, they having been delivered to us by unquestionable persons, and all the Te∣stimony the thing is capable of. But of this I said a little before, and to avoid a tedious Discourse, shall refer my Reader for a perfect satisfaction to the Learned Dr. Stillingfleet's Origines Sacrae, and to one of the Sermons of the Excellent Dr. Tillotson, another of

our not only Learned, but firm Prote∣stant Divines; who are the rather to be regarded, because they have neither feared to stand the Ire of a cloud full charged with Popery, or provided themselves (by an halting Sermon) a shelter against the rain: whose con∣trary are enough not only to fright Christians from the Altar, but to make Men abhor the offerings of the Lord: And if any such be that will not repent, let them not despair, but dye.

Mr. Hobbes, p. 324. saith, That the only Article of Faith, which the Scripture makes necessary to Salvation, is this, that Iesus is the Christ. If an other Man had said this, I should have taken little notice of it, because I should have sup∣posed that he had meant, that Christ was the corner Stone and Captain of our Salvation. But I doubt Mr. Hobbes saith this to incourage Men in Idle∣ness and Ignorance, which the Papists say is the Mother of Devotion. And though Mr. Hobbes was so much against Bellarmine in his last Chapter, yet he is so much a Papist in this (that he

may taste of all Errors) that he uses but the same saying here that Papists use against Reading of the Scriptures, and whether he intend it so far, or that the notion was set down by chance, is doubtful. But 'tis plain in our Creed,) and by the Doctrine of our Church, which Mr. Hobbes allows of) that there are other points neces∣sary to Salvation besides this. As we must believe in God the Father and the Holy Ghost as well as in God the Son; and this Mr. Hobbes acknowledg∣eth in p. 328. only under his own limi∣tations, which are hard to be under∣stood. But then p. 331. he strains my Faith upon one Article he lays down; For he saith, That he hath in all his Treatise of Christian Politicks, now run through, alledged no Text of Scripture, but in such sence as is most agreeable to the scope of the Bible; which I confess I cannot believe, or if he believes him∣self I shall change my opinion of him, and instead of thinking him the gran∣dest Heretick, think him the weakest person that ever laid pen to paper, or at least that ever had any reputation

in the World, for so doing; except it be admitted me, that he is given up to believe a lye in matters of Reli∣gion; and I pray God he be not.

Mr. Hobbes after his saying, p. 244. That the punishment of the damned should not be everlasting, now he comes to p. 343. and goes over it again, (the fear of the contrary I doubt running in his mind) and begins to interpret Scri∣pture concerning the immortality of the Soul in general, which he saith, may have an other interpretation than is usual, and first cites the 12. Eccles. 7. which saith, Dust to dust, and the Spirit to God that gave it; which, saith Mr. Hobbes, ought to be interpreted, That God only knows what becomes of Man's Spirit, and not Man; and so of another Text he cites. Hence he in∣fers, That because God only knows what becomes of Man's Spirit, that therefore the Spirit of Man lives not after the death of the Body till the resurrection. First, The Interpretation is expresly against the Text, and absurd. Second∣ly, The Inference is nonsense; for doth it follow, that because God

knows where the Spirit of Man is, that therefore 'tis not with God him∣self? It is just as if I should say to a Man, you know where your coat is, and from thence I should infer, that he hath it not upon his back. So I hope no Body will much heed his in∣terpretation of Scripture. But then p. 345. he tells us, That in the resurrecti∣on, the Righteous shall have glorious and spiritual Bodies, and eternal; but saith, that 'tis not manifest by Scripture that the Wicked shall have glorious and spiri∣tual Bodies, or that they shall be as the the Angels of God, neither Eating, nor Drinking, nor Ingendring, or that their life shall be eternal; and so the repro∣bate, saith he, shall be in the estate Adam was in after he had sinned, and Marry and give in Marriage, only shall have no Redeemer. I hope now Mr. Hobbes hath perfected his safe bargain he before had begun, let his opini∣ons be never so gross as to God and Religion; for he shall be still upon Earth and in no worse a condition than Adam was in after his fall, and that was, for ought we know, free

from torment, or indeed any trouble of mind, save fear, and only at th time when he heard God in the Garden. But Mr. Hobbes hath not I thank him left us so much in the dark, for he goes on to the particulars of the fu∣ture torment, which, he saith, are eat∣ing and drinking (I suppose he means an appetite to eat and drink, when he hath no Money in his pocket) and in∣gendring: I suppose he means, that he is cruelly afraid of a luxurious Wife, or else that he hath been unneighbour∣ly dealt with in his Youth, and is afraid of the same hereafter: For other∣wise cannot I imagin the torment of eating and drinking and ingendring. And further he goes on, and saith, That the wicked shall not always personal∣ly be in this torment, but dye after a time, and their Children shall succeed in the same torments. And all this he seems to collect from Luke 20. v. 34, 35, 36. which saith, The Children of this World marry, but they that shall be accounted worthy to obtain that World nei∣ther marry, nor dye any more. Hence he infers, That because the Children of this

World (that is people now alive) do marry, and those in Heaven do not mar∣ry, that therefore the reprobate (which he would have understood by the Children of this World) may marry: which is nonsence, and without ground: 'tis ••rue that wicked Men in Scripture are termed the Children of this World, but they are not those that are al∣ready in Hell, but those that are like∣ly to be so except they repent. And observe further, from the last mentio∣ned Text, which saith That the righte∣ous dye not; that he insers from thence, That the wicked must dye in a future state. This sufficiently exposeth it self. But the substance of this his Dis∣course I have answered in speaking to his 38. Chapter, which I now for that cause pass over; and for that my Lord of Clarendon hath spoken something to this, which I have omitted. But on∣ly this let me say, that I hope no Bo∣dy will be incouraged into a wicked life, presuming Mr. Hobbes saith true, in respect of the smalness or rather no punishment hereafter; for 'tis apparent in this, that he hath talk'd like a mad∣man,

and in few places of his Book hath he in matters of concern spoken true.

Mr. Hobbes, Chapter 45. drawing near an end of this wicked Work, is drawn so dry, that he is forc'd upon repetitions, and falls again upon the Philosophy of Sight which he had spo∣ken of in the beginning of his Book; and saith, That for want of his under∣standing in it, the Iews, and all the rest of the World, have been mistaken about Daemons, and then falls again to the corporeity of Spirits, which I have answered before. And here I shall observe a notable Collection of Mr. Hobbes, from a Text of Scripture which saith, that the Iews said to our Saviour, Thou hast a Devil. Hence he seems to infer, that there was no such thing as Devils (because our Saviour had none) in any of those our Saviour is said to cast the Devil out of, but that it was a mistake of the Iews; and those people said to have Devils were only troubled with some extraordinary or ill Disease. So, see this Learned Gentle∣man holds his old method of arguing,

That because our Saviour had not a Devil, therefore no other Man had, and because the wicked Iews were mistaken, as to our Saviour's having a Devil, that therefore the good Iews and Penmen of the Scripture, were mistaken, as to any one else having a Devil. But this I pass, having spoken to it before, only by the way observe, that Mr. Hobbes coming again to Spi∣rits saith, That the meaning of our Sa∣viour's being led by the Spirit into the Wilderness, and his carrying from place to place, was a vision: So Mr. Hobbes, a∣gainst the letter of so many Texts, condemns the opinion of all Divines I ever met with, just as a little before all Philosophers about Op∣ticks.

Mr. Hobbes, p. 360. saying, That 'tis not Idolatry to pay Divine worship to a King, if he command it by terror of pu∣nishment (which I have spoken to be∣fore) saith here, That 'tis no casting a stumbling block before his Brother, for that his Brother cannot argue from thence, that he, let him be never so Wise and Learned, approves it, but doth it for fear,

(though to do Mr. Hobbes right he in p. 362. saith the contrary.) One would wonder, that any Man that admits of such a thing as a stumbling block in his Brother's way, in a Religious sence, and that was not distracted, should say so; for what can be a greater in∣couragement to another to be Idola∣trous, than his seeing his Wise and Lear∣ned neighbour do the thing. Certain∣ly it cannot be supposed, that there can be a greater, and 1 Cor. 8. 10, 11, 12. v. is expresly against Mr. Hobbes; which saith, That the weak Brother, seeing one sit at meat in the Idols Tem∣ple, is imboldned to eat things offered to Idols, whereby he may perish; which is there said to be a sin against Christ. And how shall a Man know (admit∣ting it was lawful, as 'tis not, to be Idolatrous upon the account of fear) whether it be done for fear, or no. 'Tis generally impossible, and not to be supposed. And Mr. Hobbes, in this page, prosecuting his Idolatrous Do∣ctrine, saith, That to worship God in a peculiar place, or to turn a Man's face to an Image or determinate place, is not to

worship the Image or place; but to acknow∣ledge it holy, that is, set apart from common use; and is not Idolatry, except done by a private authority. I would now have any Man living tell me, whe∣ther any Papist ever said more (as much as Mr. Hobbes is against Bellar∣mine) in justification of their using of Pictures or Crucifixes, or the Hea∣thens of their falling down before Stocks and Stones, than he hath here done; for my part I never did. For I never heard, but that the Papists say they use them to put them in mind; and the Heathens, as I have read, say, That they do not imagin that Stocks or Stones can do them any good, as gods, or that they are gods. But if this, allowed by Mr. Hobbes, be not Idolatry, I would know what is, and against the second Command. But Mr. Hobbes here implies a Learned di∣stinction, for he saith, This is Idolatry, if the Image be used by private Authori∣ty; but I suppose he means, 'tis not Idolatry if set up by publick Authority. For he instances where 'twas lawful, upon the appointment of God Almigh∣ty,

(which he said before was King of Israel) and saith, '••is no more Idola∣try, than it was for the Israelites before the brazen Serpent to worship God, or for the Iews to turn their faces towards Ie∣rusalem, or for Moses to put off his shooes, or for people to worship God in the Churches.

Mr. Hobbes did well to condemn Ari∣stotle, for that Aristotle hath taught his Scholars to condemn Mr. Hobbes. For such consequences did never Man in Bethlehem put together, as he hath in this Book frequently, and particularly here. For doth it follow, because God, the Law maker, can dispense by his Word with any of his Commands, as this of the second Command, (admit the instances Mr. Hobbes puts would hold) that therefore any Authority up∣on Earth can, which was not the Law maker: This is to make Man in God's stead. And in a familiar instance to say, that because the King, Lords, and Commons, can by an Act dispense with a Law, or make one particular action Legal acted against that Law; that therefore every Master of a Family

can do it; which consequences are ab∣••urd. And he might as well have said, that because God might lawfully command Abraham to kill his Son, that therefore a King may lawfully com∣mand any of his Subjects to do the ••ame. But the instances Mr. Hobbes useth are not to his purpose; for the Israelites were only to look up to the bra∣zen Serpent (when stung) by God's command, and this God made the means of their cure, as he might have made the looking up to an O••k Tree to have been, and there was no wor∣shipping of God before it allowed, that ever we read of; nay, after the Israelites burnt Incense to it, it was broken to pieces. And Moses putting off his shooes was likewise by God's particular command, upon a particular occasion; as likewise God made a par∣ticular grant to Solomon for the peoples praying with their faces towards the Temple, when they should be in a strange Land; and the worshipping in Churches is but going into a conveni∣ent place to serve God, which is set a∣part for that purpose. Now then let

let any one judge, whether it be law∣ful for any person upon Earth to au∣thorize the use of Images in the wor∣ship of God, from that which Mr. Hobbes hath said; and whether setting an Image apart for Divine worship be not Idolatry within the second Com∣mand, let it be done by any Authori∣ty whatever. 'Tis plain against the se∣cond Command, and no Authority can Authorize it.

Mr. Hobbes, coming in his 46. Chap∣ter to the Kingdom of darkness, makes much of it to consist (which one would not e••sily have dream'd of) in Philosophy; and particularly rails a∣gainst Aristotle, and takes his antient priviledge to say this without giving the least shadow of reason: perchance hoping to make himself all the World over as great as Aristotle is in Oxford, and to bring in a new word of confu∣tation (viz.) Hobbes'•• Ipse dixit•• But methinks he deals severely with Philo∣sophy, to hang, draw and quarter it, by saying 'tis guilty of frighting Men from obeying the Laws of their native Country, as he doth p. 373. without

telling why; which with submission to Mr. Hobbes is a falser measure of Iustice, than ever I knew the Lawyers use; for they hear a Delinquent, and tell him a reason why they condemn him. But this is to shew Mr. Hobbes a dex∣trous Mahometan, that after he hath indeavoured to extirpate all true Re∣ligion, now, as in other places, he would do as much for humane Lear∣ning, or else he would never call Phi∣losopy the subject of the Kingdom of darkness. And in this Chapter he comes to the debate again, how fire should work upon a Soul: Whether it will or no, I shall not determin, and the pos∣sibility of it I have answered before, and so pass this over.

Mr. Hobbes, p. 377. to shew himself as Erroneous in Politicks, as he hath hitherto proved in Divinity or Philo∣sophy, tells us, That 'tis an other o•• Ari∣stotles sayings (viz.) That in a well or∣dered Commonwealth, not Men should go∣vern, but the Laws. And from this Mr. Hobbes railing at the absurdity, in∣fers, That words and paper affright no Bo∣dy, but the Hands and Swords of Men.

And from this I collect, that 'tis not convenient for Mr. Hobbes to write any more Books of Controvesie, till he grow better at a distinction. For 'tis true, that the Law is a Politic thing, and can act nothing of it self, without some∣thing that is natural conjoined to it; but notwithstanding 'tis properly called the Action of the Law, though the Execu∣tion be by Men's Hands; because 'tis the Authority of the Law that impowers them; and through its efficacy they are justified in their actions. As a Corpo∣ration, which is a thing of Politic in∣stitution, can really act nothing, yet notwithstanding the act of those they impower, is said to be their act, though done by others Hands. And 'tis plain what Aristotle (if he say so, as I believe he doth, 'tis so well said) means, viz. That a well ordered Commonwealth is governed, not by the uncertain will of the Soveraign, but by Laws establish'd by the Soveraign power to make Laws; in which consists, as my Lord of Cla∣rendon hath shewn, the greatest happi∣ness both of Prince and People. If Mr. Hobbes said this out of ignorance I am sorry for him; but if he said it to

cologue with Oliver's Army in 1651, and to persuade them into that arbitrariness, which afterwards they exercised (and the Popish party have aimed at since;) I will leave any Englishman to judge what he deserves from all lovers of their na∣tive Country. But Mr. Hobbes, though he hath been so violent against Aristotle, the Philosophers, and School-men in general, as the Authors of Sedition, yet p. 380. is as positive for Copernicus, and would have the Earth it self turn'd up∣side down in Nature, (just as he hath been indeavouring to deal with the Po∣licy of it) and saith, Navigations make it manifest, but tells not how, and that all Learned in humane Sciences acknowledge that there are Antipodes; and that Years and Days are determined by the motion of the Earth. This one now would won∣der at, that a Man should affirm, that all Learned Men agree that Years and Days are determined by the motion of the Earth; when I think, there are but few Learned Men but hold the contrary; and I confess for this opinion could I never hear any one convincing argu∣ment. Besides, to reject an old opinion, without a better reason for a new one,

is difficult and strange. But this I will pass over, it being a thing plentifully discoursed in Print.

Mr. Hobbes, after his 47. Chapter, which is his last, and in which he hath spoken much against the Priestly being above the Kingly Office, as I think all good Protestants will admit, comes af∣ter all to a review and conclusion, (which as my Lord of Clarendon hath well observed, is but the poison of the whole Book suck'd into a narrower com∣pass) and in the end of it saith, That he hath finish'd his Discourse, without ap∣plication or other design; and so shall I mine, only referring it to the judgment of any Learned Divine, whether Mr. Hobbes can ever more deserve Pulpit anger, and so much credit in wicked∣ness, as to be there stiled the Debaucher of the Nation; or to the judgment of any good and sober Man, whether Mr. Hobbes so far participates of the na∣ture of the Leviathan, as to have not his like in all the Earth.

FINIS.