[Sidenote: The Bishop’s reply.]
_J. D._ “The rest are umbrages quickly dispelled. First, the astrologer
steps up, and subjects liberty to the motions of heaven, to the aspects
and ascensions of the stars:
----Plus etenim fati valet hora benigni,
Quam si nos Veneris commendet epistola Marti.
“I stand not much upon them, who cannot see the fishes swimming beside
them in the rivers, yet believe they see those which are in heaven; who
promise great treasures to others, and beg a groat for themselves. The
stars at the most do but incline, they cannot necessitate.
“Secondly, the physician subjects liberty to the complexion and
temperature of the body. But yet this comes not home to a necessity.
Socrates, and many others, by assiduous care have corrected the
pernicious propensions, which flowed from their temperatures.”
_T. H._ In the rest of his discourse he reckoneth up the opinions of
certain professions of men, touching the causes wherein the necessity of
things, which they maintain, consisteth. And first, he saith, the
astrologer deriveth his necessity from the stars. Secondly, that the
physician attributeth it to the temper of the body. For my part, I am
not of their opinion; because neither the stars alone, nor the
temperature of the patient alone is able to produce any effect without
the concurrence of all other agents. For there is hardly any one action,
how casual soever it seem, to the causing whereof concur not whatsoever
is _in rerum natura_. Which, because it is a great paradox, and depends
on many antecedent speculations, I do not press in this place.
_J. D._ “Towards the latter end of my discourse, I answered some
specious pretences against liberty. The two first were of the astrologer
and the physician: the one subjecting liberty to the motions and
influences of the heavenly bodies; the other to the complexions of men.
(_a_) The sum of my answer was, that the stars and complexions do
incline, but not at all necessitate the will: to which all judicious
astronomers and physicians do assent. And T. H. himself doth not dissent
from it. So as to this part, there needs no reply.
(_b_) “But whereas he mentions a ‘great paradox of his own, that there
is hardly any one action to the causing of which concurs not whatsoever
is _in rerum natura_’; I can but smile to see with what ambition our
great undertakers do affect to be accounted the first founders of
strange opinions, as if the devising of an ill-grounded paradox were as
great an honour as the invention of the needle, or the discovery of the
new world. And as to this paradox in particular, I meddle not with
natural actions, because the subject of my discourse is moral liberty.
But if he intend not only the kinds of things, but every individual
creature, and not only in natural but voluntary actions, I desire to
know how Prester John, or the great Mogul, or the king of China, or any
one of so many millions of their subjects, do concur to my writing of
this reply. If they do not, among his other speculations concerning this
matter I hope he will give us some restrictions. It were hard to make
all the negroes accessary to all the murders that are committed in
Europe.”