The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Volume 05 (of 11)
Thomas Hobbes · en
He speaketh of God’s goodness and mercy, as if they were no part of his
power. Is not goodness, in him that is good, the power to make himself
beloved, and is not mercy goodness? Are not, therefore, these attributes
contained in the attribute of his omnipotence? And justice in God, is it
anything else, but the power he hath, and exerciseth in distributing
blessings and afflictions? Justice is not in God as in man, the
observation of the laws made by his superiors. Nor is wisdom in God, a
logical examination of the means by the end, as it is in men; but an
incomprehensible attribute given to an incomprehensible nature, for to
honour him. It is the Bishop that errs, in thinking nothing to be power
but riches and high place, wherein to domineer and please himself, and
vex those that submit not to his opinions.
(_d_) “Thirdly, this opinion of absolute necessity destroys the truth of
God, making him to command one thing openly, and to necessitate another
privately, &c. It destroys the goodness of God, making him to be a hater
of mankind, &c. It destroys the justice of God, making him to punish the
creatures for that which was his own act, &c. It destroys the very power
of God, making him to be the true author of all the defects and evils
which are in the world.”
If the opinion of absolute necessity do all this, then the opinion of
God’s prescience does the same; for God foreknoweth nothing, that can
possibly not come to pass; but that which cannot possibly not come to
pass, cometh to pass of necessity. But how doth necessity destroy the
truth of God, by commanding and hindering what he commandeth? Truth
consisteth in affirmation and negation, not in commanding and hindering;
it does not therefore follow, if all things be necessary that come to
pass, that therefore God hath spoken an untruth; nor that he professeth
one thing, and intendeth another. The Scripture, which is his word, is
not the profession of what he intendeth, but an indication of what those
men shall necessarily intend, whom he hath chosen to salvation, and whom
he hath determined to destruction. But on the other side, from the
negation of necessity, there followeth necessarily the negation of God’s
prescience; which is in the Bishop, if not ignorance, impiety. Or how
“destroyeth it the goodness of God, or maketh him to be a hater of
mankind, and to delight in the torments of his creatures, whereas the
very dogs licked the sores of Lazarus in pity and commiseration of him”?
I cannot imagine, when living creatures of all sorts are often in
torments as well as men, that God can be displeased with it: without his
will, they neither are nor could be at all tormented. Nor yet is he
delighted with it; but health, sickness, ease, torments, life and death,
are without all passion in him dispensed by him; and he putteth an end
to them then when they end, and a beginning when they begin, according
to his eternal purpose, which cannot be resisted. That the necessity