And thus you see how the _inconveniences_, which his Lordship objecteth must follow upon the holding of _necessity_, are avoided, and the _necessity_ itself _demonstratively_ proved. To which I could add, if I thought it good logic, the _inconvenience_ of denying _necessity_, as that it destroyeth both the _decrees_ and the _prescience_ of God Almighty; for whatsoever God hath _purposed_ to bring to pass by _man_, as an instrument, or foreseeth shall come to pass; a man, if he have _liberty_, such as his Lordship affirmeth, from _necessitation_, might frustrate, and make not to come to pass, and God should either not _foreknow_ it, and not _decree_ it, or he should _foreknow_ such things shall be, as shall never be, and _decree_ that which shall never _come to pass_. This is all that hath come into my mind touching this question since I last considered it. And I humbly beseech your Lordship to communicate it only to my Lord Bishop. And so praying God to prosper your Lordship in all your designs, I take leave, and am, My most noble and most obliging Lord, Your most humble servant, THOMAS HOBBES. Rouen, _Aug. 20, 1652_.[A] Footnote A: In the first edition of 1654 this date is 1646. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AN ANSWER TO A BOOK PUBLISHED BY DR. BRAMHALL, LATE BISHOP OF DERRY; CALLED THE “CATCHING OF THE LEVIATHAN.” TOGETHER WITH AN HISTORICAL NARRATION CONCERNING HERESY, AND THE PUNISHMENT THEREOF. TO THE READER. -------