TO THE
SOBER AND DISCREET READER.
It made St. Chrysostom tremble whenever he reflected on the proportion, which those that went the narrow way, bore to those which marched in the broad, how many were the called, and how few the chosen, how many they were that were created for and in a capacity of eternal beatitude, and how few attained it. This consideration certainly would make a man look upon the Holy Scriptures, among Christians, as the greatest indulgence of heaven, being all the directions it hath been pleased to afford poor man in so difficult a journey as that of his eternal bliss or misery. But when a man cometh to look into those transcendant writings, he finds them to be the works of a sort of innocent harmless men, that had little acquaintance or familiarity with the world, and consequently not much interested in the troubles and quarrels of several countries; that though they are all but necessary, yet were they written occasionally, rather than out of design; and lastly, that their main business is, to abstract man from this world, and to persuade him to prefer the bare hope of what he can neither see, hear, nor conceive, before all the present enjoyments this world can afford. This begat a reverence and esteem to them in all those who endeavour to work out their salvation out of them. But if a man, not weighing them in themselves, shall consider the practices of those, who pretend to be the interpreters of them, and to make them fit meat for the people; how that instead of renouncing the world, they endeavour to raise themselves into the greatest promotions, leisure, and luxury; that they make them the decoys of the people, to carry on designs and intrigues of state, and study the enjoyments of this world more than any other people: he will find some grounds to conclude, the practices of such men to be the greatest disturbance, burden, and vexation of the Christian part of the world. The complaint is as true as sad; instead of acquainting the credulous vulgar, with the main end of their functions, and the great business of their embassy, what a great measure of felicity is prepared for them, and how easily it may be forfeited; they involve their consciences in the briars of a thousand needless scruples, they spin out volumes out of half sentences, nay, out of points and accents, and raise endless controversies about things, (were men free from passion and prejudice), in themselves clear enough: and when they have canvassed their questions, till they are weary themselves, and have wearied hearers and readers, and all they have to do with, every one sits down under his own vine, and hugs his own apprehensions; so that after all their pains, bandings, and implacable adhesion to parties, the inconvenience remains still, and we as far from any solid conviction, as at first setting out.
The controversies betwixt Rome and the Reformation are long since beaten out of the pit, by other combatants of their own brood; so that if we speak of Protestant and Catholic, they are in a manner content to sit down with their present acquests: for as to conviction, he certainly is a rare proselyte, at whose conversion, interest, humour, discontent, inclination, are not admitted to the debate.
But to come yet nearer our purpose, let us consider our own fractions of fractions of religion here in England, where if that saying, that it is better to live where nothing is lawful, than where all things, be as true in religion as policy, posterity may haply feel the sad consequence of it. What, I pray, is the effect of so many sermons, teachings, preachings, exercises, and exercising of gifts, meetings, disputations, conferences, conventicles, printed books, written with so much distraction and presumption upon God Almighty, and abuse of his Holy Word? Marry this: it is the seminary of many vexatious, endless, and fruitless controversies, the consequence whereof are jealousies, heart-burnings, exasperation of parties, the introduction of factions and national quarrels into matters of religion, and consequently all the calamities of war and devastation. Besides, they are good lawful diversions for the duller sort of citizens, who contract diseases for want of motion; they supply the building of pyramids among the Egyptians, by diverting the thoughts of the people from matters of state, and consequently from rebellion.
They find work for printers, &c. if the parties interested are troubled with the itch of popularity, and will suffer themselves to be scratched out of somewhat by way of contribution to the impression. Hence is the stationer’s shop furnished, and thence the minister’s study in the country, who having found out the humour of his auditory, consults with his stationer, on what books his money is best bestowed; who very gravely, it may be, will commend Cole upon the Philippians before the excellent, but borrowed, Caryl upon Job. But as to any matter of conviction, we see every one acquiesces in his own sentiments, every one hears the teacher who is most to his humour; and when he hath been at church, and pretends to have sat at his feet, comes home and censures him as he pleases.
To be yet a little more particular, what shall we think of those vast and involuble volumes concerning predestination, free-will, free-grace, election, reprobation, &c., which fill not only our libraries, but the world with their noise and disturbance, whereof the least thing we are to expect is conviction; every side endeavouring to make good their own grounds, and keep the cudgels in their hands as long as they can? What stir is there between the Molinists and Jansenists about grace and merits; and yet both pretend St. Augustin!
Must we not expect, that the Jesuits will, were it for no other end but to vindicate that reputation of learning they have obtained in the world, endeavour to make good their tenets, though the other were the truer opinion? Is truth then retired to that inaccessible rock that admits no approaches? Or are we all turned Ixions, and instead of enjoying that Juno, entertain ourselves with the clouds of our own persuasions; of which unnatural coition, what other issue can there be but Centaurs and monstrous opinions? To these questions I shall not presume to answer, but in the words of this great author, who answering the charge of impiety laid upon the holding of necessity, says thus; If we consider the greatest part of mankind, not as they should be, but as they are, that is as men, whom either the study of acquiring wealth and preferment, or whom the appetite of sensual delights, or the impatience of meditating, or the rash embracing of wrong principles, have made unapt to discuss the truth of things, I must confess, &c.
Certainly we have some reason to expect an effectual cure from this man, since he hath so fortunately found out the disease. Now if he in so few sheets hath performed more than all the voluminous works of the priests and ministers, and that in points of soul-concernment and Christian interest, as predestination, free-will, grace, merits, election, reprobation, necessity, and liberty of actions, and others, the main hinges of human salvation; and to do this, being a person, whom not only the averseness of his nature to engage himself in matters of controversy of this kind, but his severer study of the mathematics, might justly exempt from any such skirmishes; we may not stick to infer, that the black-coats, generally taken, are a sort of ignorant tinkers, who in matters of their own profession, such as is the mending and soldering of men’s consciences, have made more holes than they found; nay, what makes them more impardonable, they have neither the gratitude nor ingenuity to acknowledge this repairer of their breaches, and assertor of their reputation, who hath now effected what they all this while have been tampering about. I know this author is little beholden to the ministers, and they make a great part of the nation; and besides them, I know there are many illiterate, obstinate, and inconvincible spirits: yet I dare advance this proposition, how bold soever it may seem to some; that this book, how little and contemptible soever it may seem, contains more evidence and conviction in the matters it treats of, than all the volumes, nay libraries, which the priests, jesuits, and ministers have, to our great charge, distraction, and loss of precious time, furnished us with. Which if so, I shall undertake for any rational man, that all the controversial labours concerning religion in the world, all the polemical treatises of the most ancient or modern, shall never breed any maggots of scruples, or dissatisfactions in his brains, nor shall his eyes or head ever ache with turning them over; but he shall be so resolved in mind, as never to importune God Almighty with impertinent addresses, nor ever become any of those enthusiastical spiritati, who, as the most learned Mr. White says, expound Scripture without sense or reason, and are not to be disputed with but with the same success as men write on sand, and trouble their neighbours with their dreams, revelations, and spiritual whimsies. No! here is solid conviction, at least so far as the metaphysical mysteries of our religion will admit. If God be omnipotent, he is irresistible; if so, just in all his actions, though we, who have as much capacity to measure the justice of God’s actions as a man born blind to judge of colours, haply may not discern it. What then need any man trouble his head, whether he be predestinated or no? Let him live justly and honestly according to the religion of his country, and refer himself to God for the rest, since he is the potter, and may do what he please with the vessel. But I leave the reader to find his satisfaction in the treatise itself, since it may be I derogate from it by saying so much before it. This book, I doubt not, will find no worse entertainment than the Leviathan, both in regard of its bulk, and that it doth not strike so home at the ministers and Catholic party as that did. And yet here we must complain of want of sufficiency or ingenuity to acknowledge the truths or confute the errors of that book; which till it is done, we shall not count the author an heretic. On this side the sea, besides the dirt and slander cast on him in sermons and private meetings, none hath put anything in print against him, but Mr. Rosse; one who may be said to have had so much learning, as to have been perpetually barking at the works of the most learned. How he hath been received beyond seas I know not, but certainly, not without the regret of the Catholics; who building their church on other foundations than those of the Scriptures, and pretending infallibility, certitude, and unity in religion, cannot but be discontented that these prerogatives of religion are taken away, not only from tradition, that is to say, from the church, but also from the Scriptures, and are invested in the supreme power of the nation, be it of what persuasion it will.
Thus much, Reader, I have thought fit to acquaint thee with, that thou mightest know what a jewel thou hast in thy hands, which thou must accordingly value, not by the bulk, but the preciousness. Thou hast here in a few sheets what might prove work enough for many thousand sermons and exercises; and more than the catechisms and confessions of a thousand assemblies could furnish thee with: thou hast what will cast an eternal blemish on all the cornered caps of priests and jesuits, and all the black and white caps of the canting tribe; to be short, thou art now acquainted with that man, who, in matters of so great importance as those of thy salvation, furnishes thee with better instructions, than any thou hast ever yet been acquainted with, what profession, persuasion, opinion, or church soever thou art of; of whom and his works make the best use thou canst. Farewell.
pm hrdbl
TO THE
LORD MARQUIS OF NEWCASTLE.
Right Honourable,
I had once resolved to answer my Lord Bishop’s objections to my book De Cive in the first place, as that which concerns me most; and afterwards to examine his Discourse of Liberty and Necessity, which, because I had never uttered my opinion of it, concerned me the less. But seeing it was your Lordship’s and my Lord Bishop’s desire that I should begin with the latter, I was contented so to do, and here I present and submit it to your Lordship’s judgment.
And first I assure your Lordship I find in it no new argument neither from Scripture nor from reason, that I have not often heard before, which is as much as to say, I am not surprised.
The preface is a handsome one, but it appeareth even in that, that he hath mistaken the question. For whereas he says thus, If I be free to write this Discourse, I have obtained the cause: I deny that to be true, for it is enough to his freedom of writing, that he had not written it, unless he would himself. If he will obtain the cause, he must prove that before he writ it, it was not necessary he should prove it afterward. It may be his Lordship thinks it all one to say, I was free to write it, and, It was not necessary I should write it. But I think otherwise. For he is free to do a thing, that may do it if he have the will to do it, and may forbear, if he have the will to forbear. And yet if there be a necessity that he shall have the will to do it, the action is necessarily to follow: and if there be a necessity that he shall have the will to forbear, the forbearing also will be necessary. The question therefore is not, whether a man be a free agent, that is to say, whether he can write or forbear, speak or be silent, according to his will; but, whether the will to write, and the will to forbear, come upon him according to his will, or according to anything else in his own power. I acknowledge this liberty, that I can do if I will; but to say, I can will if I will, I take to be an absurd speech. Wherefore I cannot grant my Lord the cause upon his preface.
In the next place, he maketh certain distinctions of liberty, and says he meaneth not liberty from sin, nor from servitude, nor from violence; but, from necessity, necessitation, inevitability, and determination to one.
It had been better to define liberty, than thus to distinguish. For I understand never the more what he means by liberty; and though he say he means liberty from necessitation, yet I understand not how such a liberty can be, and it is a taking of the question without proof. For what is else the question between us, but whether such a liberty be possible or not?
There are in the same place other distinctions: as a liberty of exercise only, which he calls a liberty of contradiction, namely of doing not good, or evil simply, but of doing this or that good, or this or that evil respectively, and a liberty of specification and exercise also, which he calls a liberty of contrariety, namely a liberty not only to do good or evil, but also to do or not do this or that good or evil.
And with these distinctions his Lordship says he clears the coast, whereas in truth, he darkeneth his own meaning and the question, not only with the jargon of exercise only, specification also, contradiction, contrariety, but also with pretending distinction where none is: for how is it possible that the liberty of doing or not doing this or that good or evil, can consist, as he says it does in God and good angels, without a liberty of doing or not doing good or evil?
The next thing his Lordship does, after clearing of the coast, is the dividing of his forces, as he calls them, into two squadrons, one of places of Scriptures, the other of reasons, which allegory he useth, I suppose, because he addresseth the discourse to your Lordship, who is a military man. All that I have to say touching this, is, that I observe a great part of those his forces do look and march another way, and some of them fight amongst themselves.
And the first place of Scripture, taken from Numb. xxx. 13, is one of those that look another way; the words are, If a wife make a vow, it is left to her husband’s choice either to establish it or make it void. For it proves no more but that the husband is a free and voluntary agent, but not that his choice therein is not necessitated or not determined to what he shall choose, by precedent necessary causes.
For if there come into the husband’s mind greater good by establishing than abrogating such a vow, the establishing will follow necessarily; and if the evil that will follow in the husband’s opinion outweigh the good, the contrary must needs follow: and yet in this following of one’s hopes and fears, consisteth the nature of election. So that a man may both choose this, and cannot but choose this, and consequently choosing and necessity are joined together.
The second place of Scripture is Joshua, xxiv. 15. The third is 2 Sam. xxiv. 12, whereby it is clearly proved, that there is election in man, but not proved that such election was not necessitated by the hopes, and fears, and considerations of good and bad to follow, which depend not on the will, nor are subject to election. And therefore one answer serves all such places, if there were a thousand.
But his Lordship supposing, it seems, I might answer, as I have done, that necessity and election might stand together, and instance in the actions of children, fools, or brute beasts, whose fancies, I might say, are necessitated and determined to one; before these his proofs out of Scripture, desires to prevent that instance, and therefore says that the actions of children, fools, madmen, and beasts, are indeed determined, but that they proceed not from election, nor from free, but from spontaneous agents. As for example, that the bee, when it maketh honey, does it spontaneously; and when the spider makes his web, he does it spontaneously, but not by election.
Though I never meant to ground my answer upon the experience of what children, fools, madmen, and beasts do; yet that your Lordship may understand what can be meant by spontaneous, and how it differeth from voluntary, I will answer that distinction, and show that it fighteth against its fellow arguments.
Your Lordship therefore is to consider, that all voluntary actions, where the thing that induceth the will is not fear, are called also spontaneous, and said to be done by a man’s own accord. As when a man giveth money voluntarily to another for merchandise, or out of affection, he is said to do it of his own accord, which in Latin is sponte, and therefore the action is spontaneous; though to give one’s money willingly to a thief to avoid killing, or throw it into the sea to avoid drowning, where the motive is fear, be not called spontaneous. But every spontaneous action is not therefore voluntary, for voluntary presupposes some precedent deliberation, that is to say, some consideration, and meditation, of what is likely to follow, both upon the doing, and abstaining from the action deliberated of; whereas many actions are done of our own accord, and are therefore spontaneous, for which nevertheless, as my Lord thinks, we never consulted nor deliberated in ourselves. As when making no question nor any the least doubt in the world, but the thing we are about is good, we eat and walk, or in anger strike or revile, which my Lord thinks spontaneous, but not voluntary nor elective actions, and with such kind of actions, he says necessitation may stand, but not with such as are voluntary, and proceed upon election and deliberation. Now if I make it appear to your Lordship, that those actions, which, he says, proceed from spontaneity, and which he ascribes to children, fools, madmen, and beasts, proceed from election and deliberation, and that actions inconsiderate, rash, and spontaneous, are ordinarily found in those, that are by themselves and many more thought as wise, or wiser than ordinarily men are, then my Lord Bishop’s argument concludeth, that necessity and election may stand together, which is contrary to that which he intendeth by all the rest of his arguments to prove.
And first your Lordship’s own experience furnishes you with proof enough, that horses, dogs, and other brute beasts, do demur oftentimes upon the way they are to take, the horse retiring from some strange figure that he sees, and coming on again to avoid the spur. And what else doth a man that deliberateth, but one while proceed toward action, another while retire from it, as the hope of greater good draws him, or the fear of greater evil drives him away.
A child may be so young as to do what it does without all deliberation, but that is but till it have the chance to be hurt by doing of somewhat, or till it be of age to understand the rod: for the actions, wherein he hath once had a check, shall be deliberated on the second time.
Fools and madmen manifestly deliberate no less than the wisest men, though they make not so good a choice, the images of things being by disease altered.
For bees and spiders, if my Lord Bishop had had so little to do as to be a spectator of their actions, he would have confessed not only election, but art, prudence, and policy, in them, very near equal to that of mankind. Of bees, Aristotle says, their life is civil.
Again, his Lordship is deceived, if he think any spontaneous action, after once being checked in it, differs from an action voluntary and elective: for even the setting of a man’s foot, in the posture for walking, and the action of ordinary eating, was once deliberated of how and when it should be done, and though afterward it became easy and habitual, so as to be done without forethought; yet that does not hinder but that the act is voluntary, and proceedeth from election. So also are the rashest actions of choleric persons voluntary and upon deliberation: for who is there but very young children, that hath not considered when and how far he ought, or safely may strike or revile? Seeing then his Lordship agrees with me, that such actions are necessitated, and the fancy of those that do them determined to the action they do, it follows out of his Lordship’s own doctrine, that the liberty of election does not take away the necessity of electing this or that individual thing. And thus one of his arguments fights against another.
The second argument from Scripture, consisteth in histories of men that did one thing, when if they would, they might have done another; the places are two: one is 1 Kings iii. 10, where the history says, God was pleased that Solomon, who might, if he would, have asked riches, or revenge, did nevertheless ask wisdom at God’s hands: the other is the words of St. Peter to Ananias, Acts v. 4: After it was sold, was it not in thine own power?
To which the answer is the same with that I answered to the former places, that they prove there is election, but do not disprove the necessity, which I maintain, of what they so elect.
The fourth argument (for to the third and fifth I shall make but one answer) is to this effect; If the decrees of God, or his foreknowledge, or the influence of the stars, or the concatenation of causes, or the physical or moral efficacy of causes, or the last dictate of the understanding, or whatsoever it be, do take away true liberty, then Adam before his fall had no true liberty. Quicquid ostendes mihi sic incredulus odi.
That which I say necessitateth and determinateth every action, that his Lordship may no longer doubt of my meaning, is the sum of all things, which being now existent, conduce and concur to the production of that action hereafter, whereof if any one thing now were wanting, the effect could not be produced. This concourse of causes, whereof every one is determined to be such as it is by a like concourse of former causes, may well be called (in respect they were all set and ordered by the eternal cause of all things, God Almighty) the decree of God.
But that the foreknowledge of God should be a cause of any thing, cannot be truly said, seeing foreknowledge is knowledge, and knowledge depends on the existence of the things known, and not they on it.
The influence of the stars is but a small part of the whole cause, consisting of the concourse of all agents.
Nor does the concourse of all causes make one simple chain or concatenation, but an innumerable number of chains, joined together, not in all parts, but in the first link God Almighty; and consequently the whole cause of an event, doth not always depend on one single chain, but on many together.
Natural efficacy of objects does determine voluntary agents, and necessitates the will, and consequently the action; but for moral efficacy, I understand not what he means.
The last dictate of the judgment, concerning the good or bad, that may follow on any action, is not properly the whole cause, but the last part of it, and yet may be said to produce the effect necessarily, in such manner as the last feather may be said to break a horse’s back, when there were so many laid on before as there wanted but that one to do it.
Now for his argument, that if the concourse of all the causes necessitate the effect, that then it follows, Adam had no true liberty: I deny the consequence; for I make not only the effect, but also the election, of that particular effect necessary, inasmuch as the will itself, and each propension of a man during his deliberation, is as much necessitated, and depends on a sufficient cause, as any thing else whatsoever. As for example, it is no more necessary that fire should burn, than that a man or other creature, whose limbs be moved by fancy, should have election, that is liberty, to do what he hath a fancy to do, though it be not in his will or power to choose his fancy, or choose his election and will.
This doctrine, because my Lord Bishop says he hates, I doubt had better been suppressed, as it should have been, if both your Lordship and he had not pressed me to an answer.
The arguments of greatest consequence, are the third and the fifth, and they fall both into one, namely: If there be a necessity of all events, that it will follow, that praise and reprehension, and reward and punishment, are all vain and unjust; and that if God should openly forbid, and secretly necessitate the same action, punishing men for what they could not avoid, there would be no belief among them of heaven and hell.
To oppose hereunto I must borrow an answer from St. Paul, Rom. ix. 20, 21. From the eleventh verse of the chapter to the eighteenth, is laid down the very same objection in these words: When they, meaning Esau and Jacob, were yet unborn, and had done neither good nor evil, that the purpose of God according to election, not by works, but by him that calleth, might remain firm, it was said unto her (viz. Rebecca) that the elder should serve the younger, &c. What then shall we say? Is there injustice with God? God forbid. It is not therefore in him that willeth, nor in him that runneth, but in God that showeth mercy. For the Scripture saith to Pharaoh, I have stirred thee up that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be set forth in all the earth. Therefore whom God willeth, he hath mercy on, and whom he willeth he hardeneth. Thus you see the case putcase put by St. Paul, is the same with that of my Lord Bishop, and the same objection in these words following:
Thou wilt ask me then, why does God yet complain, for who hath resisted his will?
To this therefore the Apostle answers, not by denying it was God’s will, or that the decree of God concerning Esau was not before he had sinned, or that Esau was not necessitated to do what he did; but thus: Who art thou, O man, that interrogatest God? Shall the work say to the workman, why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same stuff to make one vessel to honour, another to dishonour? According therefore to this answer of St. Paul, I answer my Lord’s objection, and say, the power of God alone without other helps is sufficient justification of any action he doth. That which men make amongst themselves here by pacts and covenants, and call by the name of justice, and according whereunto men are accounted and termed rightly just or unjust, is not that by which God Almighty’s actions are to be measured or called just, no more than his counsels are to be measured by human wisdom. That which he does, is made just by his doing it; just, I say, in him, though not always just in us.
For a man that shall command a thing openly, and plot secretly the hindrance of the same, if he punish him that he so commandeth, for not doing it, it is unjust. So also, his counsels are therefore not in vain, because they be his, whether we see the use of them or not. When God afflicted Job, he did object no sin unto him, but justified his afflicting of him, by telling him of his power: (Job xl. 9:) Hast thou, saith God, an arm like mine? (Job xxviii. 4): Where wert thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? and the like. So our Saviour, (John ix. 3) concerning the man that was born blind, said, it was not for his sin, or for his parents' sin, but that the power of God might be shown in him. Beasts are subject to death and torments, yet they cannot sin: it was God’s will they should be so. Power irresistible justifies all actions, really and properly, in whomsoever it be found; less power does not, and because such power is in God only, he must needs be just in all actions, and we, that not comprehending his counsels, call him to the bar, commit injustice in it.
I am not ignorant of the usual reply to his answer, by distinguishing between will and permission, as that God Almighty does indeed sometimes permit sins, and that he also foreknoweth that the sin he permitteth, shall be committed, but does not will it, nor necessitate it.
I know also they distinguish the action from the sin of the action, saying, that God Almighty does indeed cause the action, whatsoever action it be, but not the sinfulness or irregularity of it, that is, the discordance between the action and the law. Such distinctions as these dazzle my understanding; I find no difference between the will to have a thing done, and the permission to do it, when he that permitteth can hinder it, and knows that it will be done unless he hinder it. Nor find I any difference between an action and the sin of that action; as for example, between the killing of Uriah, and the sin of David in killing Uriah, nor when one is cause both of the action and of the law, how another can be cause of the disagreement between them, no more than how one man making a longer and a shorter garment, another can make the inequality that is between them. This I know; God cannot sin, because his doing a thing makes it just, and consequently, no sin; as also because whatsoever can sin, is subject to another’s law, which God is not. And therefore it is blasphemy to say, God can sin; but to say, that God can so order the world, as a sin may be necessarily caused thereby in a man, I do not see how it is any dishonour to him. Howsoever, if such or other distinctions can make it clear, that St. Paul did not think Esau’s or Pharaoh’s actions proceeded from the will and purpose of God, or that proceeding from his will, could not therefore without injustice be blamed or punished, I will, as soon as I understand them, turn unto my Lord’s opinion: for I now hold nothing in all this question betwixt us, but what seemeth to me, not obscurely, but most expressly said in this place by St. Paul. And thus much in answer to his places of Scripture.
TO THE ARGUMENTS FROM REASON.
Of the arguments from reason, the first is that which his Lordship saith is drawn from Zeno’s beating of his man, which is therefore called argumentum baculinum, that is to say, a wooden argument. The story is this; Zeno held, that all actions were necessary; his man therefore being for some fault beaten, excused himself upon the necessity of it: to avoid this excuse, his master pleaded likewise the necessity of beating him. So that not he that maintained, but he that derided the necessity, was beaten, contrary to that his Lordship would infer. And the argument was rather withdrawn than drawn from the story.
The second argument is taken from certain inconveniences which his Lordship thinks would follow such an opinion. It is true that ill use might be made of it, and therefore your Lordship and my Lord Bishop ought, at my request, to keep private what I say here of it. But the inconveniences are indeed none, and what use soever be made of truth, yet truth is truth, and now the question is not, what is fit to be preached, but, what is true.
The first inconvenience he says, is this; That the laws, which prohibit any action, will be unjust.
2. That all consultations are vain.
3. That admonitions to men of understanding, are of no more use, than to children, fools, and madmen.
4. That, praise, dispraise, reward and punishment, are in vain.
5, 6. That counsels, acts, arms, books, instruments, study, tutors, medicines, are in vain.
To which arguments his Lordship expecting I should answer, by saying, the ignorance of the event were enough to make us use the means, adds, as it were a reply to my answer foreseen, these words: Alas! how should our not knowing the event be a sufficient motive to make us use the means? Wherein his Lordship says right, but my answer is not that which he expecteth: I answer,
First, that the necessity of an action doth not make the laws, that prohibit it, unjust. To let pass, that not the necessity, but the will to break the law, maketh the action unjust, because the law regardeth the will, and no other precedent causes of action. And to let pass, that no law can possibly be unjust, inasmuch as every man maketh, by his consent, the law he is bound to keep, and which consequently must be just, unless a man can be unjust to himself. I say, what necessary cause soever precede an action, yet if the action be forbidden, he that doth it willingly may justly be punished. For instance, suppose the law on pain of death prohibit stealing, and that there be a man, who by the strength of temptation is necessitated to steal, and is thereupon put to death, does not this punishment deter others from theft? Is it not a cause that others steal not? Doth it not frame and make their wills to justice?
To make the law, is therefore to make a cause of justice, and to necessitate justice; and consequently, it is no injustice to make such a law.
The intention of the law is not to grieve the delinquent, for that which is past, and not to be undone; but to make him and others just, that else would not be so, and respecteth not the evil act past, but the good to come; insomuch as without the good intention for the future, no past act of a delinquent could justify his killing in the sight of God. But you will say, how is it just to kill one man to amend another, if what were done were necessary? To this I answer, that men are justly killed, not for that their actions are not necessitated, but because they are noxious, and they are spared and preserved whose actions are not noxious. For where there is no law, there no killing nor anything else can be unjust; and by the right of nature, we destroy, without being unjust, all that is noxious, both beasts and men; and for beasts we kill them justly, when we do it in order to our own preservation, and yet my Lord himself confesseth, that their actions, as being only spontaneous, and not free, are all necessitated and determined to that one thing they shall do. For men, when we make societies or commonwealths, we lay not down our right to kill, excepting in certain cases, as murder, theft or other offensive action; so that the right, which the commonwealth hath to put a man to death for crimes, is not created by the law, but remains from the first right of nature, which every man hath to preserve himself; for that the law doth not take the right away in the case of criminals, who were by the law excepted. Men are not therefore put to death, or punished, for that their theft proceedeth from election; but because it was noxious and contrary to men’s preservation, and the punishment conducing to the preservation of the rest, inasmuch as to punish those that do voluntary hurt, and none else, frameth and maketh men’s wills such as men would have them. And thus it is plain, that from the necessity of a voluntary action, cannot be inferred the injustice of the law that forbiddeth it, or the magistrate that punisheth it.
Secondly, I deny that it maketh consultations to be in vain; it is the consultation that causeth a man, and necessitateth him to choose to do one thing rather than another: so that unless a man say that that cause is in vain which necessitateth the effect, he cannot infer the superfluousness of consultation out of the necessity of the election proceeding from it. But it seemeth his Lordship reasons thus: If I must do this rather than that, I shall do this rather than that, though I consult not at all; which is a false proposition and a false consequence, and no better than this: If I shall live till to-morrow, I shall live till to-morrow, though I run myself through with a sword to-day. If there be a necessity that an action shall be done, or that any effect shall be brought to pass, it does not therefore follow, that there is nothing necessarily requisite as a means to bring it to pass; and therefore when it is determined, that one thing shall be chosen before another, it is determined also for what cause it shall so be chosen, which cause, for the most part, is deliberation or consultation, and therefore consultation is not in vain, and indeed the less in vain by how much the election is more necessitated, if more and less had any place in necessity.
The same answer is to be given to the third supposed inconvenience, namely, that admonitions are in vain; for the admonitions are parts of consultation, the admonitor being a counsellor for the time to him that is admonished.
The fourth pretended inconvenience is, that praise, dispraise, reward, and punishment will be in vain. To which I answer, that for praise and dispraise, they depend not at all on the necessity of the action praised or dispraised. For what is it else to praise, but to say a thing is good? Good, I say, for me, or for somebody else, or for the state and commonwealth? And what is it to say an action is good, but to say it is as I would wish? or as another would have it, or according to the will of the state? that is to say, according to the law. Does my Lord think that no action can please me, or him, or the commonwealth, that should proceed from necessity? Things may be therefore necessary, and yet praise-worthy, as also necessary, and yet dispraised, and neither of them both in vain, because praise and dispraise, and likewise reward and punishment, do by example make and conform the will to good and evil. It was a very great praise in my opinion, that Velleius Paterculus (Lib. ii. 35) gives Cato, where he says that he was good by nature, et quia aliter esse non potuit.
To the fifth and sixth inconveniences, that counsels, arts, arms, instruments, books, study, medicines, and the like, would be superfluous, the same answer serves as to the former, that is to say, that this consequence, if the effect shall necessarily come to pass, then it shall come to pass without its causes, is a false one, and those things named counsels, arts, arms, &c. are the causes of these effects.
His Lordship’s third argument consisteth in other inconveniences, which he saith will follow, namely, impiety and negligence of religious duties, as repentance, and zeal to God’s service, &c.
To which I answer as to the rest, that they follow not. I must confess, if we consider the greatest part of mankind, not as they should be, but as they are, that is, as men, whom either the study of acquiring wealth, or preferment, or whom the appetite of sensual delights, or the impatience of meditating, or the rash embracing of wrong principles, have made unapt to discuss the truth of things: I must, I say, confess that the dispute of this question will rather hurt than help their piety; and therefore if his Lordship had not desired this answer, I should not have written it, nor do I write it but in hopes your Lordship and his will keep it private. Nevertheless in very truth, the necessity of events does not of itself draw with it any impiety at all. For piety consisteth only in two things; one, that we honour God in our hearts, which is, that we think as highly of his power as we can, for to honour anything is nothing else but to think it to be of great power; the other is, that we signify that honour and esteem by our words and actions, which is called cultus, or worship of God. He therefore that thinketh that all things proceed from God’s eternal will, and consequently are necessary, does he not think God omnipotent? Does he not esteem of his power as highly as is possible? which is to honour God as much as may be in his heart. Again, he that thinketh so, is he not more apt by external acts and words to acknowledge it, than he that thinketh otherwise? yet is this external acknowledgment the same thing which we call worship. So that this opinion fortifies piety in both kinds, external and internal; therefore is far from destroying it. And for repentance, which is nothing else but a glad returning into the right way, after the grief of being out of the way; though the cause that made him go astray were necessary, yet there is no reason why he should not grieve; and, again though the cause why he returned into the way were necessary, there remained still the causes of joy. So that the necessity of the actions taketh away neither of those parts of repentance, grief for the error, and joy for returning.
And for prayer, whereas he saith that the necessity of things destroy prayer, I deny it; for though prayer be none of the causes that move God’s will, his will being unchangeable, yet since we find in God’s word, he will not give his blessings but to those that ask, the motive of prayer is the same. Prayer is the gift of God no less than the blessing, and the prayer is decreed together in the same decree wherein the blessing is decreed. It is manifest that thanksgiving is no cause of the blessing past, and that which is past is sure and necessary, yet even amongst men thanks is in use as an acknowledgment of the benefit past, though we should expect no new benefit for our gratitude. And prayer to God Almighty is but thanksgiving for God’s blessings in general, and though it precede the particular thing we ask, yet it is not a cause or means of it, but a signification that we expect nothing but from God, in such manner, as he, not as we, will; and our Saviour by word of mouth bids us pray, thy will, not our will, be done, and by example teaches us the same; for he prayed thus, Father if it be thy will, let this cup pass, &c. The end of prayer, as of thanksgiving, is not to move but to honour God Almighty, in acknowledging that what we ask can be effected by him only.
The fourth argument from reason is this: the order, beauty, and perfection of the world requireth that in the universe should be agents of all sorts; some necessary, some free, some contingent. He that shall make all things necessary, or all things free, or all things contingent, doth overthrow the beauty and perfection of the world.
In which argument I observe, first a contradiction; for seeing he that maketh anything, in that he maketh it, maketh it to be necessary; it followeth that he that maketh all things, maketh all things necessarily to be: as if a workman make a garment, the garment must necessarily be; so if God make every thing, every thing must necessarily be. Perhaps the beauty of the world requireth, though we know it not, that some agents should work without deliberation (which his lordship calls necessary agents) and some agents with deliberation (and those both he and I call free agents) and that some agents should work, and we not know how (and their effects we both call contingents); but this hinders not but that he that electeth may have his election necessarily determined to one by former causes, and that which is contingent, and imputed to fortune, be nevertheless necessary and depend on precedent necessary causes. For by contingent, men do not mean that which hath no cause, but that which hath not for cause anything that we perceive; as for example, when a traveller meets with a shower, the journey had a cause, and the rain had a cause sufficient to produce it; but because the journey caused not the rain, nor the rain the journey, we say they were contingent one to another. And thus you see that though there be three sorts of events, necessary, contingent, and free, yet they may be all necessary without destruction of the beauty or perfection of the universe.
To the first argument from reason, which is, That if liberty be taken away, the nature and formal reason of sin is taken away; I answer by denying the consequence: the nature of sin consisteth in this, that the action done proceed from our will and be against the law. A judge in judging whether it be sin or no, which is done against the law, looks at no higher cause of the action, than the will of the doer. Now when I say the action was necessary, I do not say it was done against the will of the doer, but with his will, and necessarily, because man’s will, that is every volition or act of the will and purpose of man had a sufficient, and therefore a necessary cause, and consequently every voluntary action was necessitated. An action therefore may be voluntary and a sin, and nevertheless be necessary; and because God may afflict by a right derived from his omnipotence, though sin were not, and because the example of punishment on voluntary sinners, is the cause that produceth justice, and maketh sin less frequent, for God to punish such sinners, as I have said before, is no injustice. And thus you have my answer to his Lordship’s objections both out of Scripture, and from reason.