a

AN ADVERTISEMENT FROM THE AUTHOR

TO THE READER.

MARCH 11, 1658. STILO NOVO.

CHRISTIAN READER, by the slowness of this edition, and by the errors of the press, which do ordinarily happen to authors that are absent, thou mayest judge of the difficulties and remoras which we meet withal in such occasions. The greatest part of the errata are obvious to an intelligent reader; I intreat thee to correct them with thy pen. Some of the chiefest (which did seem to alter or obscure the sense) I have collected, and appointed them to be set down at the foot of this advertisement; so many as I could observe in once reading over the copies cursorily, for I have had no more time since I received them.

Be pleased further to take notice, that yesterday came to my hands a copy of Mr. Serjeant's treatise called Schism Dispatched, written against Doctor Hammond and myself, it being the first time that I have viewed it. I wish I had had a graver adversary in this cause, who had consulted more with his own judgment and experience, and less with passion and prejudice. The contention is not equal, between an ancient doctor and a young prevaricator, whose office is to make freshmen laugh and gape. When Mr. Serjeant hath wearied himself twenty or thirty years longer in the study of theology, he will grow less impetuous and censorious,

a

[The Castigations were first printed in 1657, as appears by a title-page to the tract, which to half the impression forms the only title, and which bears this date. The work of printing the book however lasted until 1658; when four leaves were added to the remaining copies; two before the original title-page, containing a new title-page, dated 1658, as follows-Castigations of Mr. Hobbes his last Animadv. in the case concerning Liberty and Univ. Necessity, with an Appendix concerning the Catching of Leviathan or the Great Whale, the other leaf being blank;

III.

PART but more judicious and discreet; and of so much more value in the eyes of others as he setteth a less value upon himself. Now I have a copy, if God bless me with life and health, I shall endeavour in a short time to let the world see, that my religion is as much better than his, as my charity is greater.

AN ANSWER TO HIS RELATION OF THE OCCASION OF
THE CONTROVERSY.

gross mis

few lines.

1. HERE is nothing of moment to advantage his cause. An- Eleven other man would say, here is nothing alleged by him which is takes in a true. Whereas he saith, that the "question disputed among Concernthe old philosophers" was,-" whether all things that come ing the old philoto pass proceed from necessity, or some from chance","-it sophers.] was as well debated among the old philosophers, whether all things come to pass by chance, and nothing proceed from necessity, and likewise, whether some events proceed from necessity, and some come to pass by chance,—as that which he mentions," whether all events proceed from necessity, or some" come to pass "by chance." That is the first error.

2. His second error is, that he opposeth "chance" to "necessity;" as if all things came to pass by necessity, which come not to pass by chance: whereas those ancient philosophers (of whom he speaks) did oppose contingency to necessity, and not chance alone. Chance is but one branch of contingency. Free acts are done contingently, but not by chance. 3. Thirdly, he is mistaken in this also, that he saith, those ancient philosophers did never "draw into argument the almighty power of the Deity." For we find in Tully, and in

p. 1.]

b

[Questions &c., Occas. of Controv.,
[Ibid.]

[Ibid.]

[Cic., De Divin., lib. i. cc. 55, 56.]

III.

PART Chrysippus (as he is alleged by Eusebius), that one of the main grounds of the Stoics was the prescience of God; and that the predictions of their oracles and prophets could not be certain, unless all things came to pass by inevitable necessity.

[Concerning the primitive

4. Fourthly, he erreth in this, that liberty is a "third way of bringing things to pass, distinct from necessity and contingency." For liberty is subordinate to contingency. They defined contingents to be those things which might either come to pass or not come to pass; that is, either freely or casually and in all their questions of contingency, liberty was principally understood.

:

5. His fifth error is, that "free will is a thing that was never mentioned among thems." I believe it was never mentioned by them in English, by the name of "free will;" but he may fnd “ αὐτεξούσιον” and “ προαίρεσιν.” Let him read Aristotle alone; and he shall find not only this free elective power of the will, but also the difference between voluntary or spontaneous (which is all the liberty he admitteth), and free or that which is elected upon deliberation1. 736 Hear Calvin,-"Semper apud Latinos liberi arbitrii nomen extitit, Græcos vero non puduit arrogantius usurpare vocabulum, siquidem avтežovσlov' dixerunti.”

6. Sixthly, he erreth yet more grossly in saying, that "free will was never mentioned by Christians in the beginning Christians.] of Christianity," but "for some ages [past]" brought in by "the doctors of the Roman Church." Whereas it is undeniably true, that sundry ancient Fathers have written whole treatises expressly of free will'; that there is scarcely one Father that doth not mention it; and sundry of the first

de Lib. Arb.), St. Chrysostom (Orationes V. de Provid. et Fato), St. Augustin (De Lib. Arb., lib. iii., and De Gratiâ et Lib. Arb.), St. Prosper (Epist. de Grat. et Lib. Arb. ad Ruffinum), St. Anselm (Lib. de Concord. Gratiæ et Lib. Arb., and Dial. de Lib. Arb.), St. Bernard (Tractat. de Grat. et Lib. Arb.); and of Fathers who have treated the subject incidentally, Origen (De Princip., lib. iii.), Eusebius (Præp. Evang., lib. vi.), St. John Damascene (De Fide Orthod., lib. ii. c. 25, sq.), Boethius (De Consolat. Philosoph., lib. v.), &c.]

II.

heretics, as Simon Magus m, the Manichees, the Marcionites, DISCOURSE &c.", and their followers, have been condemned for maintaining absolute necessity against free will.

7. His seventh error is, that "St. Paul never useth the [Concerning St. term of free will, nor did hold any doctrine equivalent" to it. Paul.] Hear himself;-"Am I not an Apostle? am I not free? have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as the other Apostles? . . or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?" St. Paul did those things freely upon his own election, which he was not necessitated to do; and did forbear those things freely, which he was not necessitated to forbear. This doctrine is "equivalent" to ours, of the freedom of the will from necessitation. Take another place, wherein you have both the name and the thing;"Nevertheless, he that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will." The words in the original are a plain description of the old "aνTE§OÚσIOV” (which name Calvin did so much dislike) or free will;· ἐξουσίαν δὲ ἔχει περὶ τοῦ ἰδίου θελήματος.” Here is not only freedom, but power and dominion. Mr. Hobbes teacheth us, that a man is free to do, but not free to will. St. Paul teacheth us, that a man "hath power over his own will." Then he is free to will; then his will is not extrinsecally predetermined.

tors of the

Church.]

8. Eighthly, he wrongs the doctors of the Roman Church, [Concernas if they "exempted the will of man from the dominion of ing the docGod's will." They maintain, that the freedom of the will of Roman man is expressly from the will of God, Who made it free. They teach, that God can suspend the act of the will, can determine the will, can change the will, doth dispose of all the acts of the will, can do anything but compel the will, which implieth a contradiction.

9. Ninthly (to let us see what a profound clerk he is in ecclesiastical controversies), Mr. Hobbes thinks he hath hit the nail on the head, of the difference between the Church of