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
Laws of Nature These Laws are the moral precepts of eternal justice and equity from which all civil Laws have their rise and are either conclusions drawn from them or certain rules tending to the better observation of them Which things well considered do make it very evident how little the power of civil Lords and Princes must needs be In some few indifferent things they may be absolute have arbitrary power and be in some respect above those constitutive Laws which they themselves enact His instance in Jephtah gives them power above and contrary to the Laws of God and Nature Yet who will grant him that Jephtah sacrificed his daughter The text will not evince it for it only saith that whatsoever cometh forth of my doors to meet me c. shall be the Lords or I will offer it up for a burnt-offering Judges 11.31 For the particle 〈◊〉 Vau turned by some copulatively for and is here as in many other places dis-junctive and signifies or Again if Jephtah did sacrifice her he sinned not only against the Law of Nature but also the written Law of Moses For God gave no command permission or toleration to any that we read of but only to Abraham to sacrifice with humane blood and that Commandment was but to try him for he would not suffer him to put him to death Besides God threatens ruine and destruction to such as did offer their children to Moloch and shed their blood And their sin was not only because they offered them to Idols and Devils but also because they shed innocent blood without any warrant or Commission from God the only supreme and absolute Lord of life Further how could the vow of man which was but a voluntary Obligation be above the Law of God and make that lawful which by a Superiour Law was unlawful I verily believe she was devoted only not sacrificed But suppose he did sacrifice her to God to whom he had vowed her yet he did not this as a Soveraign of her life but as a subject to God The example of David murthering Vriah can much less prove the absolute power of Soveraigns to take away the lives of their innocent subjects For David had no such power for 1. He was no absolute Prince but limited both by the written Laws of God and also the Natural 2. Neither he nor any other can have any such power because man cannot God doth not give any such power 3. David did not only iniquity but injustice to Vriah 1. As his fellow-subject in respect of God 2. As his own subject whom he was bound as innocent to protect not to destroy 4. His proof out of Psal 51.4 Against thee only is invalid For 1. Though it be so translated by some and so understood by Ambrose and others who follow him yet neither that translation nor the interpretation thereon can be evinced either out of the Original or the Septuagint or the vulgar or Junius or Vatablus 2. Genebrard Vatablus Junius Ainsworth and others understand it that God only was privy to and knew of this sin and the words following And done this evil in thy sight seem to confirm this sense 5. Yet suppose it should be turned against thee only yet others interpret onely to be principally as supreme Law-giver and Judge not only to me but all others who only hast the Original power of punishing and pardoning not only me but others and that not only temporally but spiritually and eternally Yet the exposition of Ambrose is taken up because Princes desire it to be so absolute and both Divines and other men are very ready to slatter such as are in present possession of power But to make the point more evident let me digress a little and search out the reason and cause of the power of life and death as in the hands of civil Soveraigns To this end observe That no man hath absolute power of his own life as he hath of his goods Man may have the use and possession but not the propriety and dominion of it Therefore it s granted on all hands that though a mans life be said to be his own yet he may not be felo de se and kill himself he is not Master of his life so far as to have any power or liberty to do any such thing It s true that God who is Lord of life and death gives liberty to man in some cases to hazard in some he commands to lay down his life He may hazard it in a just war and defence of his own Countrey and also of himself against an unjust invader He must lay down his life and God commands it for the testimony of Christ in which case he that loseth it shall find it From all this it follows that no people can by making a Soveraign give any absolute power of life and death unto him For nothing can give that which it hath not neither can they make themselves Authors of the unjust acts of their Soveraign much less of his murthers and taking away the lives of their innocent subjects Id enim quisque potest quod jure potest If thus it be then they must have power to take away life from God who alone hath power of life and this power he only gives in case the subject be guilty of such crimes as by his Laws are capital T. H. pag. 110. in the margent The liberty which writers praise is the liberty of Soveraigns not of private men G. L. By writers he means the Roman and Greek Historians and Philosophers who wrote so much of liberty amongst the rest especially Aristotle and Cicero By this it seems he never understood these Authors though he accuse others of ignorance The liberty which the English have challenged and obtained with so much expence of blood is not the power of Kings much less of absolute Soveraigns as he would make the world believe but that which is due unto us by the constitution of the State Magna Charta the Laws and the Petition of Right It s but the liberty of subjects not Soveraigns when he hath said all he can we are not willing to be slaves or subject our selves to Kings as absolute Lords Neither are we willing that either flattering Divines Court-Parasites or Unjust Ministers of State should wind up the pretended prerogative so high as to subject our lives and estates and also our Religion to the arbitrary absolute and unreasonable will of one man whom they did desire to advance so much for their own interest There is a difference between the subjects liberty whereby in many things he may command himself and supreme power which commands others under their Supremacy By liberty Aristotle Cicero meant such a priviledge as every subject might have in a free-State not that Soveraignty which belonged to the whole and universal body over several persons where it is to be noted that one and the same person who is a subject and at the best but a Magistrate
hath a share in the Soveraign power Yet this he hath not as a single person but as one person joyntly with the whole body or major part at least of the people So in our Parliaments every man there is as a single person and all of them any waies considered but as the joynt Representative of the people in a certain place at a certain time acting according to a certain order are but subjects yet in the capacity and habitude of a Parliament they are no subjects but in the name of the people have a Legislative power and exercise the highest acts of Government excepting those of the Constitution And this may be one reason why our English Ancestors have been so careful to maintain and preserve this great Court and Assembly of Parliaments because they knew upon that depended their liberty in the vacancy and intervals of Parliaments For take away this and our liberty is gone And wise men know that the liberty of the English subject depends upon these great Assemblies Some therefore have attempted either the total extirpation of them according to the example of France and Spain or a diminution of their power and priviledges so as to make them meer shadows If any say and infer from all this that therefore the form of our Government even under Kings is popular and hath the nature of a free-State I say it hath much of a free-State in the Constitution but not in the Administration Yet it s far different from those four kinds of popular Governments mentioned by Aristotle Pol. lib. 6. c. 4. The constitution whereof is little better then levelling The principal thing aimed at in such forms as the Author alledgeth out of the Philosopher cap. 2. Ejusdem libri was liberty supposing it could be had no where but in such Governments and this liberty was to do either what they pleased or to govern by course fearing lest any person or persons continued long in any eminent place of command would in time ingross the power Yet this supposition was false For liberty might be had without levelling and free-States might be and have been better constituted and regulated For no constitution is good where provision is not made that Wisdom and Justice rather then persons may govern and the multitude so kept under as that they may be subjects not rebels and cast off all power To return unto the matter proposed and conclude this point 1. The English liberty is their birth-right 2. It s not the power of Soveraigns 3. It s not unlimited but bounded within reasonable bounds 4. We do not learn it out of the Greek and Roman Histories nor from the Athenians or Romans but from our own Laws which are far different from theirs and far more agreeable to the written Laws of God which left the people of Israel under their Judges the freest people of the world and yet no Levellers 5. Our learning out of Greek and Latine Authors hath not been bought so dear or cost so much blood except out of the breech of School-hoyes And most of those who have controlled the just acts of their Soveraigns never read much less understood those Authors T. H. pages 111 112 113. The liberty of the subject is in such things as are neither determined by his first submission to the Soveraign power nor by the laws G. L. This is the substance of three pages and amounts to so much as may easily be comprised in a few words For when a subject is not bound either by the Laws of the Constitution or Administration he is free according to Mr. Hobbs his judgement Yet in proper sense in both these cases he is no subject but Dominus and far more then liber The Civilians do better determine the liberty of the subject to be potestatem agendi sub publicae defensionis praesidio though this be no perfect definition As before so now I say that liberty here is not opposed to obligation but servitude For â—o be subject to a wise Soveraign according to just Laws is so much liberty as any reasonable man can desire for in this respect he is rather subject to God then man and to serve him is doubtless perfect freedom As no Soveraign should be denyed so much power as to protect the least if innocent and to punish the greatest if guilty so no subject should be bound to do evil which is servitude and bondage indeed or restrained from doing that good which God commands him Civil government was never ordained by God to be destructive either of moral or divine vertues or of the noble condition of man as a rational creature Therefore regular submission unto supreme power will never stand with any obligation unto evil or contract for protection except in innocency Paul pleading before Festus saith If I be an offender or have committed any thing worthy of death I refuse not to die Acts 25.11 How this can stand with what this Author saith when he affirmeth that its lawful for a man guilty and condemned to save himself if he can I leave to others for to examine From the Apostles words its evident he desires no protection even of himself as worthy of death neither hath God given any power to man to save in such a case And though any person by the Law of nature may defend himself yet this must be done cum moderamine tutelae inculpatae In case a subject hath made himself capitally guilty he hath forfeited his life to his Soveraign as Gods Vicegerent whom he must not resist in the execution of Justice though he be not bound to kill himself neither doth the multitude or strength of any such capital offenders any waies give them right to resist their Soveraign in their own defence as the Author would have it For they cannot defend themselves as men but they must defend themselves in this case as guilty men which is not lawful How the offer of pardon should take away the plea of self-defence I understand not seeing they had no right before it was offered The offer of pardon indeed if the party offering may be safely trusted may take away all fear and so all colour of any plea by force to defend themselves from that death which pardon will take away or remove In the close of this discourse concerning liberty of the subject he grants it a part of this liberty That the subject may sue his Soveraign and before a Judge appointed by the said Soveraign If this be so then 1. The subject hath propriety of goods 2. That he and his Soveraign are two distinct parties and in this case the Soveraign represents him not as one person 3. That the Law in this respect is above the supreme Governor 4. Therefore the Soveraign is not absolute 5. That the subject may complain of some actions and injustice of the Soveraign contrary to the Authors fourth right of Soveraigns 6. That to him belongs not all Judicature in all Causes as in
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
wherein we may observe 1. Solomons place and duty as King of Israel and that was to judge that people 2. That this duty could not be well performed without wisdom 3. God doth give wisdom for that purpose These things are implyed 4. Solomon prases for wisdom to that end Neither from his place or prayer will it follow that he had the supreme absolute legislative power in himself alone Neither indeed had he any such thing at all for God had made the Laws both Civil and Ecclesiastical And he could neither alter or abrogate them but was bound precisely and strictly to judge according to them and neither depart unto the right hand or the left And suppose Solomon had been invested with this power doth it therefore follow that all other Kings have the like The rest which follow are not worthy any answer He instanceth 1. In Saul whom being their Lords annointed David did not slay though he was in his power And what follows hence but only thus much That no man in Davids case and of Davids conscience dare secretly put to death a King annointed by Gods special and immediate Word 2. Servants must obey their Masters and Children their Parents in all things And what is this to purpose Doth it hence follow that all Kings have absolute power what impertinent and absurd illations are these But 3. Christs Disciples must observe and do all that the Scribes and Pharisees bid them as sitting in Moses Chair From hence it cannot be concluded that they had Soveraign power civil no more then Ministers of the Gospel have it because the people must observe and do all that they bid them out of the Gospel 4. Paul chargeth Titus cap. 3.2 to warn the people of Creet that they subject themselves to Princes and to those that are in authority and obey them And his gloss is this is simple obedience What is this to absolute and supreme power By this may be as easily proved that every petty Officer hath supreme power as well as any other for an Officer must be obeyed because he is in Authority 5. Christ commands to give to Caesar the things that are Caesars and paid taxes himself All that can be inferred from hence is That tribute is to be paid to whom tribute is due and that it is due from Provinces to their supreme Governors The summ of all these places amounts to thus much in Politicks That the chief commands in war just Judgement in peace or the exercise of Jurisdiction belonged unto the Kings of Judah and tribute to the Roman Emperour How many plain and express places of Scripture might have been produced to prove that there is a Legislative Judicial Executive power in every State and that it is to be exercised by some certain persons designed for that purpose And the Author had no need to lay the weight of his praise for these things upon such places as do but tacitly and by way of intimation point at some of them But why he should falsifie the translation abuse so many texts make such woful illations from some of them and so impertinently alledge them I know no reason and it seems to me intolerable that in the last example he should make Christ Jesus the civil Soveraign of the Jews in the time of his humiliation and by vertue of that civil power to take another mans Ass as his own which he did but desire to borrow and use for a little journey with the consent of the owner That the sin of our first parents in desiring to be as Gods knowing good and evil was an ambition to become civil Soveraigns he may perswade us to believe when he can prove it T. H. pag. 106. Soveraign power ought in all Common-wealths to be absolute G. L. This I read in the margent and to his understanding its plain both from reason and Scripture that it s as great as possibly a man can be imagined to make it This is plainly ridiculous For what cannot men imagine seeing their imaginations can reach to wonders impossibilities and many things far above a civil Soveraign power And here is a sit occasion offered to examine what absolute power is and in what respect Soveraignty is absolute There is no power as there is no being absolute but that of Gods whose power is his being Civil supreme power is said to be absolute because its soluta legibus free from the Laws and not limited and obliged by them Yet the Laws from which they are free as being above them are only civil Laws made by themselves for the administration of the States where they are Soveraign For they are so strictly bound by the Law of Reason Nature God which are but all one divine Law as they have not the least power to do any thing either as private persons or publike Soveraigns against them except they will dethrone themselves provoke the wrath of God and bring his Judgements upon them They are besides subject to the Law of Nature which is above any particular Soveraign though never so great They are indeed above their own Laws and may not only alter many things in them but abrogate them Yet so as all this tends to the publick good They may act upon occasion above and besides them as the general good shall require it They are not bound unto formalities but may omit them Yet all this is but little and confined to the narrow compass of things indifferent as they are subordinate to pure morals It s true that their power is in some respect arbitrary yet if they do any thing which either in it self or in the circumstances only is unjust they offend and transgress the bounds God hath put unto their power And here we must distinguish between the Soveraign for the Constitution and the Soveraign for Administration The former hath more power then the later who only is above the Laws of administration yet both must be just for they have no power to be unjust It s certain that Princes desire to be Gods absolute independent above all Laws and to have a priviledge to do what they list and a right to do wrong and it s a dangerous thing to flatter them and make them believe their power to be greater then indeed it is for this is the very high-way unto ruine Wise men have advised all Princes to observe their own Laws made by themselves and by their example encourage their subjects to obedience And this is an effectual means to procure their safety and confirm them in their power and the love of their subjects CAP. V. Of the Second Part the one and twentieth of the Book Of the liberty of subjects THE subject of this Chapter is as in the argument the liberty of subjects which follows the power of Soveraigns in this discourse And because his method is no method but rather a confusion I do forbear to reduce the Chapter either to certain Heads or Propositions and will only observe some
of England to be Soveraigns And 3. in that respect to have a power to raise subsidies and moneys without a Parliament And 4. hath made that a mortal disease of our State which is a great preservative of our liberty For the people alwaies bear the purse and could not by the King be charged with the least without their consent by their Representative in the Parliament This did poise and limit the regal power prevented much riot and excess in the Court made the Prince frugal and hindred unnecessary wars Yet good Princes and frugal never wanted money were freely supplyed by their subjects whilest they required in their need any thing extraordinary above the publick revenue in a right way by Parliament T. H. There is a sixth Doctrine plainly and directly against the essence of a Common-wealth and its this That the Soveraign power may be divided G. L. The supreme power as supreme must needs be one and cannot be divided For as in a Natural so in a Political body there must be of necessity one only principle of motion One supreme will directed by one judgement and strengthened with one force of the sword must command judge execute Otherwise there can be no order or regular motion Yet this supreme power may be in many persons several and distinct physically but morally reduced to one by the major part agreeing in one suffrage That some have made in this State of England three Co-ordinate powers with their several Negatives and their several distinct rights of Soveraign power can very hardly be made good by any reason as I have hinted before Yet even these do place all the jura Majestatis in all joyntly Our form of Government is confounded by the different opinions of common Lawyers Civilians and Divines who neither agree one with another nor amongst themselves It hath been declared That the fundamental Government of this Kingdom hath been by King Peers and Commons yet this can satisfie no man because there is no certainty what the power of Commons what the power of Lords what the power of the King is Neither whether the house of Commons and of Lords be two distinct houses or no Or if they be distinct wherein they are so distinct For some affirm that in Legislation they ought to be but one though in Judicial acts two Yet suppose the Lords to have the Judicial power alone nevertheless it s a question what kind of Lords and Barons these should be We read first of the forty Lords of the forty Counties in the Saxons time after the Conquest we find three sorts of Barons in the higher house and they were Feudarii rescriptitii diplomatici Barons by Tenure by Writ by Patent Lords by tenure were the first but afterwards when any were called by the Kings Writ to Parliament they by that very Writ were made Barons with suffrage amongst the former the last were Lords by Patent and such were most yea almost all our Lords in latter times And to multiply the last was a policy in the King For by that means after the supremacy of the Pope was cast off the Bishops did wholly depend upon the King and the Barons by Patent were his creatures and by them he might carry any cause or at least hinder and cross the desires of the Knights and Burgesses And herein few of our ordinary Histories can help us because they relate only unto us matter of fact how sometimes the King sometimes the Barons sometimes the Commons were ascendant and predominant as now they all seem to be descendant Yet for all this a free Parliament of just wise and good men might rectifie all this and unite the supreme power so miserably divided to the hazard of the State T. H. And as false Doctrine so also often-times the example of different Government in a neighbouring Nation disposeth men to alteration of the sorm already setled G. L. That this may be a cause of the alteration and also of ruine too it s very possible and there seems to be some colour of reason in it because we are bound to follow the best examples And this may be powerful and prevalent with such as are given to Change and affect novelty Yet with wise and understanding men its of no force because they know full well that some form of Government which may be good to one may prove not to be so to another and that changes in this kind are dangerous For to unsettle that which is firm for to introduce that whereof we have had no experience may prove the ruine of a State T. H. And as to rebellion in particular against Monarchy one of the most frequent causes is the reading of the Books of Policy and Histories of the antient Greeks and Romans c. G. L. This hath been formerly examined The reading of these Books cannot do so much hurt as this Leviathan may do For it is far more dangerous and destructive of good government then any of their Histories which can do no hurt to any but such as are ignorant and ill-disposed In those Books they may read of Kings and Emperours and of Monarchies as well as free-States and few are so void of understanding but that they well know they are bound to their own form of Government and are not to covet every model they read of Such men as he do shamefully debase free-States as forms unlawful in themselves and so flatter limited Princes as though they were absolute Lords and advance Monarchy so high as though it were the only form of Government so instituted by God and commanded that all Nations were bound unto it and whosoever doth not bow unto it is a rebel against God Yet he never instituted immediately any Common-wealth but one and that was a free-State and when a King was desired he was offended and under a regal government it came to ruine Whereas he thinks these Books do teach Regicide and killing of Kings he is much mistaken For subjects to murther their lawful Soveraigns is an horrid crime and so much the more to be detested if done under the name of Tyrannicide To plead for Tyrants really such as such is to be abhorred They pervert the very end of all government abuse their power act contrary to the Laws of God and men to the ruine of the State are enemies of mankind the chiefest agents for the Devil The Question is Whether a people having power in their hands may not restrain or remove or put to death such men as being guilty of many crimes which the Laws of God have made universally capital so that no man in the world can plead exemption Some think that they are to be left to God and subjects must seek deliverance by prayers and tears and the truth is Christians as Christians have no other remedy others conceive they may be restrained and that by force and their own subjects do it Others give this power only unto Magistrates or to such as share with
them in the supreme power Others are of a mind that seeing they cease to be Kings or Soveraigns they may be lawfully tryed and put to death as well as private men and that without any ordinary jurisdiction Others determine this to be lawful in such States as that of Lacedemon in Grece and Arragon in Spain What the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is cannot be unknown For the Pope doth arrogate an universal Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction whereby he may excommunicate any Christian King that shall not obey his Canons and Edicts and upon this sentence once given he may depose him free his subjects from their allegiance and command them as Catholicks to rise in rebellion against him some of them have taught that its a meritorious art to poyson stab or any other way murther Kings for the promotion of the Catholick cause This question after the terms thereof clearly explicated is of very great moment and let men advise well how they do determine either in their own judgement privately or before others T. H. There be Doctors that think there may be more sorts that is more Soveraigns then one in a Common-wealth and set up a Supremacy against the Soveraignty Canons against Laws and a Ghostly Authority against the Civil c. G. L. There cannot be any Soveraign but one in one and the same Common-wealth and to set up Supremacy against Soveraignty Canons against Laws Ghostly authority against Civil must needs be a cause of division confusion dissolution Yet this will not prove any inconsistency of an Ecclesiastical independent power with the Civil Soveraignty in one and the same Community And the distinction of the power of the keyes given by Christ unto the Church and the power of the sword trusted in the hands of the higher powers civil is real and signifies some things truly different one from another though he either cannot or will not understand it With Mr. Hobbs indeed this distinction can signisie nothing because he hath given unto the civil Soveraign an infallible judgement and an absolute power in all causes Ecclesiastical and Spiritual His discourse may be good against those Ecclesiastical persons who have usurped civil power otherwise it s impertinent and irrational And he must know that it is alike difficult to prove That the State hath the power of the keyes as for to evince that the Church hath the power the sword It s as great an offence for the State to encroach upon the Church as for the Church to encroach upon the State The Bishops of Rome have been highly guilty of the one and many protestant Princes and States of the other And though men will not see it yet its clear enough that one and the same Community is capable both of a Civil and Ecclesiastical Government at one and the same time and that the Church and State are two distinct Common-wealths the one spiritual and the other temporal though they consist of the same persons And these persons as Christians considered in a spiritual capacity make up the Community and Common-wealth Christian which is the Church as they are men having temporal estates bodily life and liberty they are members of the civil Community and Common-wealth The Power Form of Government Administration Laws Jurisdiction Officers of the Church are distinct and different from those of the State The sentence of the Church is Let him be an Heathen or a Publican and the execution is expected from heaven according to the promise Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and this sentence doth take away some spiritual but no temporal or civil right of the person judged though the judgement be passed and made valid both in foro interiore exteriore The sentence of the civil State is Let him be fined imprisoned stigmatized banished put to death and it s executed by the sword The several members of a Church National and the whole Church joyntly is subject to the civil power and the civil Soveraign if a Christian is subject to the Church because as a Christian he is subject to Christ and bonnd by his Laws And as a civil Soveraign he is bound to protect the Church and he may by civil Laws ratifie the Ecclesiastical Canons and then they bind not only under a spiritual but a civil penalty too If Church-assemblies give cause of jealousie to the Civil powers they may regulate them and order their proceedings if they offend they may punish them Their persons lives estates are under the sword and if this be taken from them because they will not obey them to disobey Christ they ought to suffer it patiently for Christs sake In this case the Church may pray and weep resist and rebel they may not for Christians as Christians have no power of the sword against any man not their own members much less against the civil Soveraign whom if they resist they must do it under another notion or else they transgress and can have no excuse And here it is to be observed 1. That Christ gathered Disciples instituted Church-discipline made Laws and the Apostles executed them in making Officers Acts cap. 1. 16. made Laws cap. 15. passed sentence and executed the same 1 Cor. 5. and all this without any Commission from any civil Soveraign Therefore it s not true which some learned Divines have affirmed That the State and Church are one body endued with two powers or faculties for they are two distinct bodies Politick It s true that if as some conceive there were no power but coactive of the sword then they must needs be one body But there is another power as you heard before 2. If a King become Christian by this he acquires no power not the least more then he had before and if he be Heathen or Mahometan and all his subjects become Christian he loseth not one jot of his former civil power which they are bound to submit unto by the very Laws of Christianity If he command any thing contrary to the Laws of Christ they may and must disobey but deny his power they may not they must not In this case a Christian may be perplexed between the Devil and a Goaler as some of Scotland were said to be when if they obeyed the Parliament and joyned with Duke Hamilton to invade England the Kirk excommunicate them and deliver them up to Satan if they obeyed the Church prohibiting them they were cast in prison by the State The cause of this perplexity is not from this that the Church and State are two distinct Common-wealths but because the commands of the one or both may be unjust T. H. Some make the power of levying money depend upon a general assembly of conduct and command upon one man of making Laws upon the accidental consent of three Such government is no government but a division of the Common-wealth into three independent factions c. G. L. Here again he hath made the Parliament which is the
Chrstianity but per accidens so far as the persons who are Christians are subject to the civil power And this care of the Magistrate may do much good not only in preventing all tumults and seditions about Religion as prejudicial to the peace of the State and suppress them but also protect the servants of Christ and promote Christianity very much And in this respect only I conceive Soveraigns to be in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil supreme Governors From the definition formerly given he concludes T. H. That because in all Common-wealths that assembly which is without warrant from the civil Soveraign is unlawful that Church also which is assembled in any Common-wealth that hath forbidden them to assemble is an unlawful assembly G. L. There is a diffecence between warrant permission and prohibition Acts 15. we read of a Church-assembly at Jerusalem yet without any warrant from the Roman Emperour and the same did debate determine engross and publish certain binding Canons yet I hope he dare not dictate it to be unlawful though it had been forbidden Permission perhaps they had warrant they had none There are actions and such as God commands and civil Governors forbid yet the prohibition of man cannot make void the command of God For we must obey God rather then man But he tells us T. H. That temporal and spiritual Government are but words brought into the world to make men see double and mistake their lawful Soveraign G. L. As Government the thing signified by the word is a real act so spiritual and temporal Government are two not words but things really different For there is a temporal Government which is not spiritual and spiritual which is not temporal And though he will not give us leave yet we will take it to distinguish between Church and State temporal and spiritual man and Christian For he knows and that certainly there be men who yet are no Christians States which are not Churches and temporal things which are not spiritual And those things which not only may be but actually are separated in existence must needs be really distinct The rule is infallible as its evident And he that will confound these may build a Babel but no orderly society And it s a fault to make that which is double to seem single as well as make that which is single appear to be double CAP. IX Of the third Part. The 40. of the Book Of the rights of the Kingdom of God in Abraham Moses the high Priests and the Kings of Judah HItherto Mr. Hobbs hath abused his Reader in the explication of certain words and terms used in Scripture and hath bewrayed his gross ignorance and abominable errours And as though he had laid a sure foundation whereon to ground his following discourse or at least made way for it he proceeds to prove out of the said holy writings of the Old Testament the absolute power of Christian Soveraigns and States both in matters of Religion and Civil Government And this is so done that there is little fear least any intelligent Reader should he deceived or perswaded by him because there is so great a distance between his premises and the conclusion that no wit of man is able to see the connexion or the illative force of them For he argues That because Abraham in his family Moses in Israel the high Priests after Moses in the times of Judges and the Kings from Saul to the captivity had the supreme power Civil and Ecclesiastical therefore all Christian Governors supreme have the same For this is the substance of this Chapter Yet 1. Abraham was but the Master of a family Moses a Mediator between Israel and God retaining the supreme power both temporal and spiritual in his own hands not only in his time but in the raign of Judges and the Kings The high Priests did only ask counsel of God by the Vrim and Thummim and declared it to the Rulers The Kings had no power Legislative at all but only executive according to the Laws of God they had no right unto the Sacerdotal power For Vzziah usurping that of offering Incense was smitten with leprosie Therefore his Assumption is notoriously false 2. Abraham Moses and some of the Kings were extraordinary Prophets and immediately inspired Such are not Christian Soveraigns Neither can they from God in difficult and perplexed cases receive counsel of God by Vrim and Thummim 3. Suppose all these had been invested with supreme power Civil and Ecclesiastical as they were not yet it doth not follow that therefore Christian Soveraigns are so His consequence therefore is no consequence but false 4. Here it s to be observed That no example can be drawn from the Government of Israel either under Moses or Judges or Kings because that Government all along was extraordinary And as no State Christian is bound to follow it so no State can parallel it And its in vain for Divines or any other writers to argue from that particular form of politie to any other in the world Some general Rules and practises therein may be made use of for the reproof or reformation of Government in other States His innovations and particular false glosses upon several texts are not worthy confutation CAP. X. Of the third part the 41 of his Book Of the office of our blessed Saviour THey who desire to obtain eternal salvation by Christ Jesus must know both who he is and what he hath both suffered and done for them Jesus Christ as Saviour and Redeemer for person is the eternal Son of God for Natures he is God and Man yet so that these two Natures remain distinct one from the other yet personally united For Office he is Prophet Priest and King and such he is made as man by Commission from his Heavenly Father He was Initiated at his Baptism after which time he began to exercise his three-fold power And 1. Of a Prophet to manifest that he was their Saviour and to perswade men to believe in him 2. He performed some acts of a King in making Laws and Officers 3. He acted as a Priest at his death by offering up himself that great sacrifice first by inffering and dying on earth secondly by entring the Holy place of Heaven and presenting himself as slain and so obtained eternal Redemption After his consecration finished upon the Resurrection he was made a compleat Priest for ever after the Order of Melchizedeck Upon his Resurrection he was more selemnly setled in his Throne as universal and eternal King And then in a more glorious manner began to act 1. As Prophet to teach not onely Jews but Gentiles and that not onely by his word but by his Spirit powred down from Heaven upon all flesh 2. As a Priest interceding by vertue of his blood 3. Of a King in all the acts of government in his Universal Kingdom By his sacrifice offered on earth and presented in Heaven he satisfied Gods justice offended by the
sin of man and merited for himself eternal power and glory and for us eternal life and all effectual means for the certain attainment thereof All the rest of his acts performed by him as King Priest and Prophet tended unto the application of his sacrifice that we by faith might be partakers of the benefit thereof This is the sum of that Doctrine of Redemption delivered clearly and more fully in several places of the Scripture especially of the New Testament Yet this Innovatour hath obscured the same several ways and determines the Kingdom of Christ to begin when the world doth end because Christ said to Pilate My Kingdom is not of this world Joh. 18.36 From whence he concludes T. H. That the Kingdom of Christ is not to begin before the general Resurrection G. L. This is a gross mistake and mis-interpretation of a place which is clear in it self For by his gloss he makes the Scripture to contradict it self Christ was then Candidatus imperii and was King when he gave this answer unto Pilate yet he began to reign and exercise his Royal power more eminently when he was set at the Right hand of the Father yet his Kingdom was not of this world that is not civil but spiritual and as Austin upon the place It was Hic non hinc in the world not of the world in the world yet not worldly but divine and far more excellent then the Kingdoms of the world This is the genuine sense of the words That Christ doth reign now and hath reigned since his ascension and sitting at the right hand of God is evident Before his Ascension he lets his Apostles know that all power in heaven and earth was given him and according unto and by vertue of that power he gave Commission to his Apostles to teach and baptize and perswade men to the obedience of his commands Mat. 28.18 19 20. He that hath an universal power in heaven and earth who makes officers and gives them power who makes Laws Institutes Sacraments and sends down the Holy Ghost must needs reign and his Kingdom is begun already We read that Christ must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet and the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death And when all things shall be subdued unto him then shall also the Son of man be subject unto him that put all things under him that God may be all in all 1 Cor. 15.25 26 28. Where first from Psal 110.1 The Apostle tels us That Christs Kingdom did Commence at the time of Christs sitting at the right hand of God 2. That with him to sit at the right hand of God is to reign 3. That he must reign by Word Sacraments Spirit Ministry till all enemies whereof death is the last be destroyed 4. That when death is destroyed he shall deliver up his Commission and kingdom in respect of this administration by Ordinances 5. That at the Resurrection this manner of reign shall end when Mr. Hobbs saith it shall begin 6. That then God shall be all in all that is reign perfectly in his Saints without any enemy without opposition without Ordinances and more immediately Before that time indeed he will not proceed to the final and universal sentence and execution of the same Yet there are many acts of government besides judgement and many acts of judgement be sides those of the general Assizes and last Sessions To make Laws reduce men to subjection appoint Officers pass sentence and execute the same in the very souls of men are acts of one that reigns as likewise to subdue enemies Sin Satan and the world to protect the Church And in this manner Christ hath reigned since his Ascension And many Millions do adore him subject themselves unto him and obey him to this day Yet with this man Christ doth not yet reign Let him read Psalm 2. throughout It began to be fulfilled upon his Resurrection and Ascension as appears out of the Acts of the Apostles and their Epistles And if he or any other shall deny the present reign of Christ they must expect with his Iron Scepter to be dasht in pieces like a Potters Vessel CAP XI Of the third Part the 42. of the Book Of Ecclesiastical Power AFter he had enthroned Civil Soveraigns cap. 40. Dethroned Christ in the former Chapter In this he takes away all power from the Church and invests the Christian civil powers with it And herein it may be a question whether his ignorance or presumption is the greater for he is highly guilty of both He that will determine the controversie concerning the power of the Church must distinguist the universal power of God the spiritual power of Christ incarnate and exalted to the Throne of glory and the power deligated from Christ unto the Church universal here on earth as subject unto Christ as Lord and Monarch and also that which every particular Independent association of Christians is trusted withal for to preserve the Society and the Ordinances of God from profanation This he hath not done and therefore little or rather nothing can be expected from him This last power of particular Churches is called the power of the keys in foro exteriori in the particular government of their several combinations for there is no supreme universal Independent judicatory on earth to which all Churches in the world are bound to appeal in this outward visible administration General Counsels can be no such thing Neither was there ever any Oecumenical Synod in proper sense since the Gospel was preached to all Nations This power of outward Discipline is challenged by the Pope by the Clergy by the people Christian and by the States civil and Soveraigns of the world And in this last party is the Author deeply engaged but upon what reason I know not except he intends to side with the strongest for such are they which bear the sword The power of ordaining Ministers preaching the Word administring the Sacraments was in the universal Church since the time of the Apostles And in every particular Church reduced to a form of outward discipline there is a power of making Canons of jurisdiction of making Officers so far as shall conduce unto the better ordination of Ministers the preservation of the purity of Doctrine and the right administration of the Sacraments least they be profaned and Christ offended by the admission of ignorant scandalous and unworthy persons There is a power also of disposing and dispensing of those goods which are given to the Church for the maintenance of Christian Religion Civil Christian States may and ought to make civil Laws to confirm the just Canons and jurisdictions of the Church And those Laws may be a fence unto it against these who shall oppose or persecute Yet when all this is done those Laws are but Civil though the object of them be Ecclesiastical matters This might suffice for to confute and make void the main body and break in pieces