in doubtful matters men should first debate and throughly examine the thing debated before they proceed to give their voices and this is most properly and conveniently done when after a diligent search no preponderant reason can be found for either part of the proposition Mens votes are inferiour to reason and superiour Laws and are not good because votes but because agreeable to reason And whereas he alledgeth two reasons 1. That to protest against a major part is injustice 2. It puts the party protesting out of protection the answer is easie 1. That a protestation is not unjust because it is against the major part except it be against reason and right and no man will be so mad as to assent unto a major against reason which is above all votes 2. It s true that the party protesting puts himself out of the protection of that Soveraign against whom he protests but this may be a misery but no injustice T. H. The Soveraigns actions cannot be accused of injustice by the subject because he hath made himself Author of all his actions And no man can do injustice to himself The Soveraign may do iniquity but not injustice G. L. 1. The Soveraigns actions are to punish the evil and protect the good as a Soveraign he can do no other actions and these cannot be justly accused 2. Neither can the consent of the people nor doth a Commission of God give him any power to act contrary to these 3. When he acts unjustly for so he may do and all iniquity is injustice neither God nor the people are authors of such actions for he was set up by them to do justly and no waies else 4. Civil justice and injustice as they consist in formalities differ much from moral and essential justice and injustice In this respect a Prince may be civilly just and morally unjust 5. To accuse may be judicial or extra judicial Judicially a Prince as a Prince cannot be accused by his subject as such Yet the subject may represent unto his soveraign his saults and by way of humble petition desire them to be reformed T H. Whatsoever the Soveraign doth is unpunishable by the subject because if the subject punish him he punisheth another for his own actions G. L. 1. A Soveraign as a Soveraign cannot be punished by his subject as his subject 2. Yet he that is supreme only for administration may be punished and put to death Thus the Ephori might punish the Lacedaemonian Kings and the Justice of Arragon the Kings of that Kingdom 3. Absolute Princes may cease to be such and then they differ not from other men And it will be an hard task to prove that any consent of man or humane title can free one from punishment with death who is guilty of a crime which God hath determined to be capital and commanded to be punished with death 4. Why should it be lawful for a forrein Prince warring and proving victorious upon a just quarrel to put a wicked Prince to death and not for those who have been his subjects when they have power to do it and tends to the publick good which cannot possibly without this act of justice be preserved Yet this cannot warrant any cursed Rebels or Traytors or the like to murther Princes though their pretences may be coloured with piety and justice The jura Majestatis or rights of higher-powers following are truly such Two things only I take notice of 1. That the Prince is only Judge of Doctrines taught so far as either the matter of right or manner of teaching may be prejudicial to the State or beneficial to the same as the Doctrine of the Gospel wisely taught alwaies is a blessing 2. Whereas he affirms that there is no propriety before a form of Government be established it s evidently false and civil Laws determine how every man may keep or recover that which is by justice his own According to his rules the institution of a Soveraign takes away all propriety of the subject That the rights of Soveraigns are indivisible and incommunicable is true if rightly understood To this purpose Authors distinguish these royalties into the greater and the less and say the latter may the former cannot be divided or communicated Others affirm That in a mixt State they of necessity must in a pure State they must not be either divisible or communicable This point may be made more clear if we understand 1. That these rights or jura are but so many branches of one and the same power supreme civil as it may act upon several objects And all these branches are reducible to three For supreme power civil is Legislative Judicial Executive as before and because it extends to these three acts therefore it may be said to be threefold And all these rights reckoned up by him which are such indeed are contained under these three though neither he nor other Authors have much observed it Amongst these the Legislative is the principal not only the first but the chiefest yet the other are necessary because without them it s in vain for what are Laws without Judgement and Execution yet even the Laws regulate both And to know who are Soveraign in any act the only infallible way is by the Legislation For in whomsoever the Legislative power originally is he or they are supreme for it is not the actual making of certain rules to order all things in a State but the giving of a binding force unto them which makes the Soveraign This power not only as it is a power but as supreme cannot be divided For if you take any essential part from it you destroy it so that its indivisible in it self 2. In respect of the subject For whether the subject be the Community or the Optimates they must be considered as one person morally though they be many physically and the reason is they must go all together otherwise there can be no first mover in a State for it is one supreme power in it self and must also be in one subject yet for the administration it may be divided because the Soveraign doth exercise this power and acts severally by several Officers which are but instruments animated and acted by him This power is also incommunicable within one and the same community and territory except you will constitute more States then one T. H. pag. 93. If there had not first been an opinion recieved of the greatest part of England that these powers were divided between the King and the Lords and the Commons the people had never been devided and fallen into these civil wars G. L. The cause moral of these wars was our sins the Political cause was the male-administration yet so that all sides have offended through want of wisdom and many other waies The ignorance of Politicks in general and of our own constitution in particular cannot be excused or excepted What the ancient constitution was we know not certainly though some reliques of the
AN Examination OF THE POLITICAL Part OF Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan By GEORGE LAWSON Rector of More in the County of Salop. LONDON Printed by R. White for Francis Tyton at the three Daggers in Fleet-street near the Inner-Temple Gate Anno Dom. 165â— The Epistle to the Reader TO glorifie God and benefit man both by doing good and preventing and removing evil should be the endeavour as its the duty of every Christian in his station Upon this account I have undertaken this examination of Mr. Hobbs I was indeed at the first unwilling though sollicited to do any such thing because upon the perusal of the Political part of his Leviathan I conceived that as little good was to be expected so little harm was to be feared from that book Yet after that I understood by divers learned and judicious friends that it took much with many Gentlemen and young Students in the Universities and that it was judged to be a rational piece I wondered for though I knew the distemper of the times to be great yet by this I found it to be far greater then I formerly suspected And upon which considerations I judged it profitable and convenient if not necessary to say something to the Gentleman and did so After that I had communicated my pains unto divers worthy and learned friends they pressed me to give way to the Printing of them which I did if they after serious perusal should think them worthy the Press They were at length approved and again by some desired to be publick yet by others thought too brief and I was desired to enlarge But this I refused to do both because there is very little if any thing material at all in Mr. Hobbs his Civil and Ecclesiastical Politicks omitted by me and not examined and also because I had formerly finished a Treatise of Civil and Ecclesiastical Government which if it had not been lost by some negligence after an Imprimatur was put upon it might have prevented and made void the Political part of Mr. Hobbs and though one Copy be lost yet there is another which may become publick hereafter When thou hast read this brief Examination thou maist if judicious and impartial easily judge whether there be any thing in Mr. Hobbs which is either excellent or extraordinary and whether there be not many things inconsistent not only with the sacred Scriptures but with the rules of right reason But not willing to prepossess thee I commit thee to God and remain Thine in the Lord Geo. Lawson EA est plerumque Apologiarum aut Vanitas aut infelicitas ut injustam amoliendo Censuram justam ferant vel nova saltem Apologia indigeant Whereas in the close of the Preamble to this Examination the Learned Author upon the account of his Ministerial calling Apologizeth for his undertaking the Political part of Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan he is not so to be understood as if he looked upon Mr. Hobbs as such an Hercules as could not be conquered by less then two a States-man in the Civil and a Church-man in the Ecclesiastical Part of his beastly Politie but as intending at first the consideration of the Civil Part only This was thought meet by a Friend of the Authors to be thus communicated least the Reader should take occasion to grow more Censorious than he ought or Mr. Hobbs more Proud than he is T. G. CAP. I. Of Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan concerning the Causes Generation and Definition of a Common-wealth CIvil Government derives its Being from Heaven for it is a part of Gods Government over mankind wherein he useth the Ministery of Angels and the service of men yet so as that he reserves the supreme and universal Power in his own hands with a liberty to depose the Rulers of the World at will and pleasure and transfer the Government of one Nation to another to lay the foundation of great Empires and again to destroy them for their iniquity To think that the sole or principal Cause of the constitution of a civil State is the consent of men or that it aims at no further end then peace and plenty is too mean a conceit of so noble an effect And in this particular I cannot excuse Mr. Hobbs who in the modelling both of a Civil and also of an Ecclesiastical Common-wealth proceeds upon principles not only weak but also false and dangerous And for this reason I undertake him This should have been done by some wel-skill'd in Political Learning and not by me who do not profess it as being a Divine and one of the meanest amongst many And my intention is not to inform my Betters who know the vanity and absurdity of his discourse but to undeceive the ignorant Reader who may too easily be surprized The first Chapter of the second Part which is the seventeenth of his Book doth inform us First That the end of civil Government is Security Secondly This Security cannot be had in the State of Nature because it is the state of War nor by a weak nor a great multitude except united by one perpetual judgement Thirdly A great multitude are thus united when they conferr all their power and strength upon one man or assembly of men that may reduce all their wils by plurality of voices to one will c. From whence ariseth a Common-wealth Fourthly This Common-wealth is defined and distributed Against all this some thing may be excepted For First That the State of Nature is the State of War may be doubted if not denied For man is a rational creature and if he act according to his nature he must act rationally and though he may seek to preserve himself and that sometimes with the dammage or destruction of another yet he cannot may not do this unjustly but according to the Laws of Nature which are two The First Love thy neighbour as thy self The Second Do as thou wouldst be done unto These tend directly unto Peace not unto War which is unnatural and they may be kept by multitudes of men not united in a civil State or under a form of Government And this is evident from Divine and profane Histories For Families and Vicinities which had no dependance one upon another and also States both by confederation and without any such thing have lived peaceably together When the Apostle saith The Gentiles which have not the Law by nature do the things contaâ—â— in the Law he doth not mean by Nature a Common-wealth or form of Government civil It s true the Apostle brings in a Bill of Indictment against all mankind and accuseth them That their feet are swift to shed blood Destruction and calamity or misery are in their ways And the way of peace they have not known Rom. 3.15 16 17. Yet he understands this not of Nature but the corruption of Nature and the parties here accused are not men only as in the state of Nature but also under a Government and that not only Civil but Ecclesiastical
same continued till our times but the whole frame was strangely altered and corrupted Many different opinions there be concerning our Government yet three amongst the rest are most remarkable For one party conceives the King to be an absolute Monarch A second determines the King Peers and Commons to be three co-ordinate powers yet so that some of them grant three Negatives some only two A third party give distinct rights unto these three yet in this they are sub-divided and they would be thought to be more rational who give the Legislative Power unto the Lords and Commons in one house the judicial to the Lords in a distinct house and the executive to the King who was therefore trusted with the Sword both of War and Justice None of these can give satisfaction There is another opinion which puts the supreme power radically in the 40. Counties to be exercised by King Peers and Commons according to certain rules which by Antiquaries in Law together with some experienced States-men of this Nation might be found out but are not The seeds of this division were sown and begun to appear before the wars and the opinion that all these were only in one man that is the King absolutely some say was the greatest cause not only of the last but also of other civil wars in former times And it hath been observed that every man liked that opinion best which was most suitable to his own interest Our several opinions in Religion have heightened our differences and hindered our settlement yet Religion is but pretended for every party aims at civil power not spiritual liberty from sin And the power to settle us thus wofully distracted is only in God and if he ever will be thus merciful unto us the way whereby he will effect it will be by giving the greatest power to men of greatest wisdom and integrity not by reducing us unto one opinion that all the powers civil must be in one as the Author doth fondly fancy Let the form be the best in the world yet without good Governors its in vain The subject of this Chapter is Majestas jura Majestatis the Rights of Soveraigns which this Author hath handled very poorly and if he had but translated that which others had more excellently written in this particular before him he might have informed us better given his Reader more satisfaction reduced them to a better method and neither have made such to be Rights which are none nor omitted those which truly are such as he hath done CAP. III. Of the Second part and the Nineteenth of the Book of the several kinds of Common-wealths by institution and of succession to the Soveraign power BY these brief contents it appears that the subject of this Chapter is the distinction of Common-wealths and Succession to the Soveraign power in a successive State In the first part he 1. Reduceth all Common-wealths to three kinds 2. Prefers Monarchy one of them before all the rest T. H. Other kind of Common-wealths besides Monarchy Democracy Aristocracy there cannot be G. L. This is conceived to be a distribution into species or kinds yet if we throughly examine it it is not so for it s but an accidential difference For it ariseth only from the distinct and different manner of disposing the supreme power in one or more In more and these are the Optimates some of the best and most eminent or in the whole Community Yet in all these the essential acts of Government and so the Soveraign power are the same in all States and they are as you heard before three Legislation Judgement and Execution for its meerly accidental to the supremacy to be disposed more or more That it must be disposed in some certain such sect is necessary and that as the Supremacy is one and indivisible so the subject must be one also and that either physically or morally The great variety of Common-wealths which is such that there be not two in the whole world in all things like ariseth not from the constitution but from the different manner of administration Though the Author denies all mixt Common-wealths yet wise and learned men which without disparagement to him may be preferred before him as in other things so in State-learning have said 1. That there is no pure Monarchy or Aristocracy or Democracy in the world 2. That not only some but all Common-wealths are in some measure mixt or tempered and allayed because they conceive it s hardly possible for any pure State to continue long Against these I find in Mr. Hobbs a verbal contradiction but no real confutation And it seems to me he never truly understood them neither hath he taken notice of the difference between Real and Personal Majesty or of the Natural or Ethical subject of Supremacy or of the exercise thereof by certain persons and the constant inherency of it in a certain subject And we know by experience that such as are only trusted with the exercise of supreme power will by little and little usurp it and in the end plead prescription So Lewis the 11. of France when he violated the Laws of the constitution removed all such as by right ought to have poysed him could boast That he had freed the Crown from Wardship And this hath been the practise of the Princes of Europe which in the end will prove their ruine as for the present it hath been their trouble There is no Common-wealth but may be reduced to one of these three in some respect yet so that Monarchies differ as much from one another as they differ from the other two Some are regal some despotical and there be several sorts of these But I do not intend at this time to contest with him about this distribution but proceed T. H. Tyrannie and Oligarchy are but different names of Monarchy and Aristocracy not different forms of Governments G. L. These names do not signifie Chimera's but real Entities and if any have abused them to signifie forms of Government let them answer for themselves I know them not they cannot be men of any note Tyrannie doth not signifie Monarchy nor Oligarchy an Aristocracy They signifie the vicious corruption of States degenerate from their original constitution and that by the wickedness of a Prince and the faction of an assembly ingrossing power and enhansing it above that which is due and just and so become a multitude of Tyrants and this hath been the cause why many Nations when they had power in their own hands have altered the form of Government been jealous of trusting one man or assembly of men long with too much power and the wisest have set their wits on the rack to find out a way how to limit and restrain the power of their Governors T. H. Subordinate Representatives are dangerous And I know not how that so manifest a truth should of late be so little observed that in a Monarchy he that had the Soveraignty from a descent
few passages to manifest that he never understood what liberty is Liberty of subjects is not Natural nor Moral nor Theologicall but Political and Civil In the Civil Law and Politicks it s opposed to servitude and bondage not simply and meerly to obligation by Laws as he fancieth for thus he writes T. H. So men have also made artificial Charms called Civil Laws which they themselves by mutual Covenants have fastened at one end to the lips of the Soveraign at the other to their own ears G. L. The Authors meaning is That so far as Laws bind the subject so far they take away his liberty and men by constitution of a Soveraign over them give a power absolute to make Laws and so far as they are virtually subject to his power and actually bound by his Laws they cannot be free yet this well examined will not prove true For not any kind of Obligation takes it away for then the Laws of Nature by which a man is bound before he be subject to a civil Soveraign should deprive him of his liberty yet they leave him as free a man as any possibly in a free-State can be The Obligation of just Laws and wise Edicts do regulate liberty keep it within its proper bounds and no waies destroy it or take it away Therefore that which follows is questionable For he affirms T H. That the liberty of a subject therefore lieth only in those things which in regulating their actions the Soveraign hath pretermitted G. L. But 1. In things left indifferent because not defined by Law the subject is not only liber sed dominus and hath not only libertatem but potestatem He is not only free but Lord of those actions and hath not only liberty but also an absolute power 2. Though wise and just Laws do regulate actions yet they do not make the agent a slave or a servant For to be a slave or a servant is to be cast below the condition of a man and make him subject to some thing below himself Wisdom and Justice are above the power of the Soveraign much more above the liberty of a subject They are particles of the divine perfection and to be bound by them is not only a liberty but an honour To be free from the dominion of our own base lusts and sins and the power of Satan is true liberty divine and so not to be subject to the lusts and imperious unworthy commands of absolute Soveraigns whose wills though irrational contrary to justice must stand for Laws is civil liberty And then a man is Politically free when he is so far Master of his life goods children and that which is justly his that they cannot be taken away from him but for some crime contrary to just Laws deserving such a penalty In a word the liberty of a subject is such a state or condition as that he is neither by the Soveraign power nor any Laws bound to do any thing which a rational and just man would not willingly do though there were no Laws or Penalties Civil at all This is not to be free from Laws And I do not know who they are which he saith demands any such thing The rude and ignorant people and also all children of Belial desire to have a licence not only to do good but evil too as they please and they judge all Laws as heavy burdens and grievous yoaks If he mean that the subjects of England demanding the benefit of Magna Charta and the Petition of Right did aim at any such extravagant liberty he must needs be a slanderer of his own fellow-subjects and an enemy to the English liberty as indeed he is and that through an erroneous notion and conceit of absolute power civil The liberty of the subjects of this Nation is very great and such as if we either consider the Laws of the Constitution or Administration the ordinary and common subjects of other Nations are but slaves unto them Our Free-holders have the choice of their Knights and Burgesses for the Parliament so that neither any Laws can be made nor moneys imposed upon them without their verbal consent given by their Representatives In all causes civil criminal capital no Judgement can pass against them but by the verdict of a Jury made up of their neighbours which in it self is an excellent priviledge The Civilians say Libertas est res inestimabilis and to be redeemed at any rate much more the English liberty is to be valued and ever was by our ancestors who obtained it recovered it kept it though with the blood of many thousands But the question is whether this liberty is consistent with the Soveraigns power His opinion is T. H. That by the liberty of the subject the Soveraigns power of life and death is neither abolished nor limited G. L. It s certain that the Soveraigns power and the subjects liberty are consistent For the Soveraign may take away the life of his subject yet according to the evidence of Judgement agreeable to Law no otherwise Yet he presupposeth 1. That the King is supreme and the primary subject owner and possessor of the original power which sometimes may be yet with us its far otherwise 2. That the power of civil Soveraigns is absolute For with him T. H. Nothing the Soveraign representative can do to a subject on what pretence soever can properly be called Injustice or Injury because every subject is Author of every act the Soveraign doth so that he never wanteth right to any thing otherwise then as he himself is the subject of God and bound thereby to observe the Laws of Nature When Jephtah sacrificed his daughter and David murthered Uriah both innocent yet they did them no injustice c. G. L. Here he seems to contradict himself For he grants two things 1. That the Soveraign is subject to God 2. That in that respect he is bound to observe the Laws of nature yet he saith he can do no injustice to the subject and that he hath right to any thing yet so as he is limited by subjection to God and the Laws of Nature 1. If he be Gods subject as certainly he is it follows 1. That in that respect he is but trusted as a servant with the Administration of the power civil 2. That he is fellow-subject with his subjects 3. He may do injustice as one fellow subject may wrong another Secondly If he be bound to observe the Laws of Nature which are the Laws of God then 1. He is not absolute or solutus legibus His power is limited and bounded by these Laws 2. Then he hath no power to murther oppress and destroy his innocent subjects who are more Gods then his and only trusted by God in his hands for to be protected righted in all just causes and vindicated from all wrongs 3. No Prince or Soveraign can assume or any people give to any person or persons any the least power above or contrary unto the
to obey his Lord and Maker This no irrational being hath or can have So that Gods Dominion over man ariseth from Gods propriety in man as a rational being and from the voluntary submission of man as a rational creature unto his God who made him such Gods propriety in man is derived from creation and preservation and both these were not onely from Gods power as Mr. Hobs imagineth but also from his Understanding and Will For God by his wisdom made the world as well as by his power and worketh all things according to the Counsel of his Will Dominion of government is not onely from power nor by power alone for understanding will and power must all concur to Government Therefore how absurd is that assertion of his which followeth If there had been any man of irresistible power there had been no reason why by that power he should not have ruled If this were true a Leviathan a Dragon an Elephant hath more power then man and why should not brutes being stronger rule over men who are weaker By this rule the strongest man in a Kingdom should be King and he that hath the strength of Goliah or Sampson should rule over others though they have strength without wisdom and integrity T. H. The Kingdom over men and the right of afflicting them at his pleasure belongeth naturally to God Almighty not as Creatour and gracious but as omnipotent G. L. Obedience is due to God not meerly as gratitude to a benefactor but as a duty unto him as a Law-giver For as a Creatour he may have a right to command because by Creation he hath an absolute propriety in his being which is such as he is capable of a Law And Creation is not to be considered as any kind of benefit but such a benefit as his rational being was wholly derived from it and also wholly and perpetually depends upon his preservation and his eternal happiness upon his legislation and judgement And though he may afflict at pleasure as omnipotent because as such he can do it yet he never afflicted any but as a legislatour and Judge according to his just Laws Because God is omnipotent he can afflict but it doth not hence follow that he will afflict But he instanceth in Job and the man born blind both afflicted by God as omnipotent yet Job was upright indeed but not altogether innocent and though God did manifest unto him his glorious Majesty and Almighty power in his great works yet this was not done to shew him the cause why God did afflict Job but to humble him And being humbled he did not plead his integrity but repented of his infirmity in dust and ashes For though he was no hypocrite yet he was a sinner Job 42.6 And though the blind man John 9. was born blind as we might justly be yet he was conceived and born in sin as we are But neither he nor his parents were guilty of any such notorious crime as God doth usually recompence with exemplary punishment even in this life T. H. Honour consisteth in the inward thought and opinion of the power and goodness of another and therefore to honour God is to think as highly of his power and goodness as is possible And of that opinion the external signs in words and actions of men are called worship G. L. This is the first Law of Gods Kingdom by nature in respect of God that he is to be worshipped Worship is sometimes an act of the soul terminated upon his Divine excellency and dignity it s called Reverence and sometimes Adoration Sometimes it s an act terminated upon his supreme and universal Power And so it is submission to him as Supreme Lord and Law-giver Sometime for obedience and in this respect even the performance of our duty to our neighbours as done in obedience to him as our supreme Lord is an act of worship And all acts of the soul terminated upon the Deity immediately are called worship The worship of Reverence and Adoration is given unto God as most glorious and excellent in himself yet so manifested and apprehended The worship of submission and obedience is given and ascribed to him as Supreme Lord and the object of worship is some excellency apprehended in the party worshipped And because the excellency of the Deity is Infinite and Eternal therefore the highest degree of worship is due unto him even to the annihilation of our selves the resigning of our very being wholly unto him and the emptying of our selves into the Ocean of his most blessed Being God deserves and is worthy of all honour glory and worship as excellent in himself They may justly be required of the creature as depending solely and wholly upon him as Lord Creator Preserver And the creature is bound to worship him by vertue of his Law and Covenant By performance of this dutie we are capable of Eternal bliss in and from him and by his promise we come to have a right unto Eternal life The Excellency of God is his most perfect and blessed Essence which cannot be known by man as it is in it self yet it s manifested to us by several distinct attributes whereof some may be known by the light of Reason in some measure but more perfectly by the Revelation of the Scriptures These Attributes are many and distinct and so given to God by himself because by one act of Reason we cannot conceive of or understand his Essence which is but one in it self but represented to us as different and many and so apprehended And by our faith we believe the Divine perfections to be far greater then our Reason can apprehend them to be They are in himself one infinite being manifested by his works and more fully by his Word And our worship must ascend above our Reason and must be performed according to our faith which is a divine and supernatural light For the distinct knowledge of this worship with the several acts thereof and the several names we must not follow the Schoolmen but search into the Scripture diligently observe the use of the words as they are there applied to signifie the same How far Mr. Hobs is from the true understanding of worship in general and of the worship of God in particular may easily appear from this that he makes worship to be nothing else but the outward signification by words and actions of internal honour which with him is nothing else but the inward thought and opinion of the power and goodness of another But neither is worship nor honour any such thing as he hath defined them And his discourse of worship with the distinctions will be found very poor upon examination except we allow him a soveraign power over words to impose what signification upon them he pleaseth and the same different from that wherein they are used in Classical Authors Thus he hath finished his Politicks set forth under the name of Leviathan in the Frontispiece And though many have in