I observe first, indeed, with regard to the second corollary of the first proposition, that it is very true, but that it is not very well proven.  The writer affirms that if God only ceased to will the existence of a being, that being would no longer exist; and here is the proof given word for word: 

’Demonstration.  That which exists only by the will of God no longer exists once that will has ceased.’ (But that is what must be proved.  The writer endeavours to prove it by adding:) ’Remove the cause, you remove the effect.’ (This maxim ought to have been placed among the axioms which are stated at the beginning.  But unhappily this axiom may be reckoned among those rules of philosophy which are subject to many exceptions.) ’Now by the preceding proposition and by its first corollary no being exists save by the will of God.  Therefore, etc.’  There is ambiguity in this expression, that nothing exists save by the will of God.  If one means that things [392] begin to exist only through this will, one is justified in referring to the preceding propositions; but if one means that the existence of things is at all times a consequence of the will of God, one assumes more or less what is in question.  Therefore it was necessary to prove first that the existence of things depends upon the will of God, and that it is not only a mere effect of that will, but a dependence, in proportion to the perfection which things contain; and once that is assumed, they will depend upon God’s will no less afterwards than at the beginning.  That is the way I have taken the matter in my Essays.

Nevertheless I recognize that the letter upon which I have just made observations is admirable and well deserving of perusal, and that it contains noble and true sentiments, provided it be taken in the sense I have just indicated.  And arguments in this form may serve as an introduction to meditations somewhat more advanced.

         &nb
sp;                                                     [393]
       * * * * *

REFLEXIONS ON THE WORK THAT MR. HOBBES PUBLISHED IN ENGLISH ON ’FREEDOM, NECESSITY AND CHANCE’

* * * * *

1.  As the question of Necessity and Freedom, with other questions depending thereon, was at one time debated between the famous Mr. Hobbes and Dr. John Bramhall, Bishop of Derry, in books published by each of them, I have deemed it appropriate to give a clear account of them (although I have already mentioned them more than once); and this all the more since these writings of Mr. Hobbes have hitherto only appeared in English, and since the works of this author usually contain something good and ingenious.  The Bishop of Derry and Mr. Hobbes, having met in Paris at the house of the Marquis, afterwards Duke, of Newcastle in the year 1646, entered into a discussion on this subject.  The dispute was conducted with extreme restraint; but the bishop shortly afterwards sent a