“Christian reader, this ensuing treatise was (_a_) neither penned nor
intended for the press, but privately undertaken, that by the
ventilation of the question truth might be cleared from mistakes. The
same was Mr. Hobbes’ desire at that time, as appeareth by four passages
in his book, wherein he requesteth and beseecheth that it may be kept
private. But either through forgetfulness or change of judgment, he hath
now caused or permitted it to be printed in England, without either
adjoining my first discourse, to which he wrote that answer, or so much
as mentioning this reply, which he hath had in his hands now these eight
years. So wide is the date of his letter, in the year 1652, from the
truth, and his manner of dealing with me in this particular from
ingenuity, (if the edition were with his own consent). Howsoever, here
is all that passed between us upon this subject, without any addition,
or the least variation from the original.
“Concerning the nameless author of the preface, who takes upon him to
hang out an ivy-bush before this rare piece of sublimated stoicism to
invite passengers to purchase it, as I know not who he is, so I do not
much heed it, nor regard either his ignorant censures or hyperbolical
expressions. The Church of England is as much above his detraction, as
he is beneath this question. Let him lick up the spittle of Dionysius by
himself, as his servile flatterers did, and protest that it is more
sweet than nectar; we envy him not; much good may it do him. His very
frontispiece is a sufficient confutation of his whole preface, wherein
he tells the world, as falsely and ignorantly as confidently, that ‘all
controversy concerning predestination, election, free-will, grace,
merits, reprobation, &c., is fully decided and cleared.’ Thus he
accustometh his pen to run over beyond all limits of truth and
discretion, to let us see that his knowledge in theological
controversies is none at all, and into what miserable times we are
fallen, when blind men will be the only judges of colours. _Quid tanto
dignum feret hic promissor hiatu._
“There is yet one thing more, whereof I desire to advertise the reader,
(_b_) Whereas Mr. Hobbes mentions my objections to his book _De Cive_,
it is true that ten years since I gave him about sixty exceptions, the
one-half of them political, the other half theological, to that book,
and every exception justified by a number of reasons, to which he never
yet vouchsafed any answer. Nor do I now desire it, for since that, he
hath published his _Leviathan, Monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens, cui
lumen ademptum_, which affords much more matter of exception; and I am
informed that there are already two, the one of our own Church, the
other a stranger, who have shaken in pieces the whole fabric of his
city, that was but builded in the air, and resolved that huge mass of
his seeming Leviathan into a new nothing; and that their labours will
speedily be published. But if this information should not prove true, I
will not grudge upon his desire, God willing, to demonstrate, that his
principles are pernicious both to piety and policy, and destructive to
all relations of mankind, between prince and subject, father and child,
master and servant, husband and wife; and that they who maintain them
obstinately, are fitter to live in hollow trees among wild beasts, than
in any Christian or political society. So God bless us.”
-------
ANIMADVERSIONS UPON
THE BISHOP’S EPISTLE TO THE READER.
(_a_) “Neither penned nor intended for the press, but privately
undertaken, that by the ventilation of the question truth might be
cleared. The same was Mr. Hobbes’ desire at that time, as appeareth by
four passages in his book, &c.”
It is true that it was not my intention to publish any thing in this
question. And the Bishop might have perceived, by not leaving out those
four passages, that it was without my knowledge the book was printed;
but it pleased him better to take this little advantage to accuse me of
want of ingenuity. He might have perceived also, by the date of my
letter, 1652, which was written 1646, (which error could be no advantage
to me), that I knew nothing of the printing of it. I confess, that
before I received the bishop’s reply, a French gentleman of my
acquaintance in Paris, knowing that I had written something of this
subject, but not understanding the language, desired me to give him
leave to get it interpreted to him by an English young man that resorted
to him; which I yielded to. But this young man taking his opportunity,
and being a nimble writer, took a copy of it for himself, and printed it
here, all but the postscript, without my knowledge, and (as he knew)
against my will; for which he since hath asked me pardon. But that the
Bishop intended it not for the press, is not very probable, because he
saith he writ it to the end “that by the ventilation of the question,
truth might be cleared from mistakes;” which end he had not obtained by
keeping it private.
(_b_) “Whereas Mr. Hobbes mentions my objections to his book _De Cive_:
it is true that ten years since, I gave him about sixty exceptions,” &c.
I did indeed intend to have answered those exceptions as finding them
neither political nor theological, nor that he alleged any reasons by
which they were to be justified. But shortly after, intending to write
in English, and publish my thoughts concerning Civil Doctrine in that
book which I entitled _Leviathan_, I thought his objections would by the
clearness of my method fall off without an answer. Now this _Leviathan_
he calleth “_Monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen ademptum_.”
Words not far fetched, nor more applicable to my _Leviathan_, than to
any other writing that should offend him. For allowing him the word
_monstrum_, (because it seems he takes it for a monstrous great fish),
he can neither say it is _informe_; for even they that approve not the
doctrine, allow the method. Nor that it is _ingens_; for it is a book of
no great bulk. Nor _cui lumen ademptum_; for he will find very few
readers that will not think it clearer than his scholastic jargon. And
whereas he saith there are two of our own Church (as he hears say) that
are answering it; and that “he himself,” if I desire it, “will
demonstrate that my principles are pernicious both to piety and policy,
and destructive to all relations,” &c.: my answer is, that _I_ desire
not that he or they should so misspend their time; but if they will
needs do it, I can give them a fit title for their book, _Behemoth
against Leviathan_. He ends his epistle with “so God bless us.” Which
words are good in themselves, but to no purpose here; but are a
buffoonly abusing of the name of God to calumny.
-------
A