A censure upon certain passages contained in the History of the Royal Society [by Thomas Sprat] as being destructive to the established religion and Church of England / [Henry Stubbe].

Stubbe, Henry, 1632-1676.

Date:: 1671

Credit: A censure upon certain passages contained in the History of the Royal Society [by Thomas Sprat] as being destructive to the established religion and Church of England / [Henry Stubbe]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

132/150 (page 72)

$and Mr. Glnnv'tO., T>t sprat, Dr Merret, had YO U, and not committed fuch childifh errours, as you runne now into. But, you grant “ you might approve of thofe Dedudions as u fmooth & plaufble , though not as neceffary, but fomething of a lubricous and doubtfull afped: but you know very well , you could not approve of them as ridiculous. Here then , moft argute Hypochondriac4., lyes the Queftion, whether it be pojjiblc for a man to approve of any pafage as ridiculous where the fubjett is ferious ? And for the proofe hereof I do referre my felfe to all that have read Hudybras, whither ferious fubjeffs are not there debated by fueh deductions, as any man will approve of as ridiculous , but not as ferious. I have in the Cabbala, which l/dpperufchim you fo admire, read a thoufand dedudions which I could ap- Bechinath.p-63. pr0ve of as ridiculous. Such is the Gematria of Shilo expounded to be the CMejfiah , becaufe the letters of both words make up the fame numbers 358. fuch is that fewijb argument of the worlds be¬ ing created in September related in Schickardj That every mans foule mnfl animate three bodyes , is prettily proved in that Adam's name confifts of three letters in the Hebrew, v*z,. A. D. M. & from thofe three Letters tis likewifc demonflrated that the foul of Adam muft animate David, and the C\fetf,ahy becaufe that after A fol¬ lows D. and then M. And S. Cyprian s reafon is no lelfe pleafant, when he proves that Adam was made up out of the four quarters of the earth , becaufe the initial Letters of the foure quarters of the world in Greef doe make up his name ? AS'dp. AvaljoKn, / *?K]of, puenfaCSU. In your works, Dr. More, efpecially your Cabbala ! .can finde an infinity of paflages which upon no other account gain my approbation. They are pleafant inftances of folly difport- ing in paralogifmes. You colled out of Des Cartes and other philofo~ phers what your phanjy approves,& this you reprefent for a Mofaical Cabbala, and prove it thus, cC In the Expounding o/Mofes, I thinks I “ may lay this down for a fafe principle, that there is no conlidera- tf Cabbala* C‘ kle truth in T^ature or divinity, that Mofes was ignorant of, and /. 138* a ' Uf° if**. be found agreeable to this Text [by any diftortion ] Imay <c very well attribute it to him. At lea A the Divine w if dome wherewith v “ Mofes was infpir d, prevents all the inventions of Men. Having laid down this principle whatever chimaras the imagination of Des Cartes furnifhed you with, or the myfierious non-fenfe of the Tla- tonifis and Pythagoreans, you prefcntly impofe upon the Sacred Text, and demonltrate them thus-Hee that is but a little acquaint¬ ed with French philofophy underjlands the bufnefs plainly. As in ihil p. 138. cafe of the CeleJHal matter:“for the celeftial matter doth confift of “ two plainly diftinguifhable parts, to wit the firfi Element, and the fecond,or the Materia fubtilijfmafa the round Particles, as I have al¬ ready$