Selected quad for the lemma: head_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
head_n	body_n	king_n	politic_a	2,735	5	10.6730	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B04263	A second part of Observations, censures, and confutations of divers errours in Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan beginning at the seventeenth chapter of that book. / By William Lucy, Bishop of S. David's.; Observations, censures, and confutations of notorious errours in Mr. Hobbes his Leviathan. Part 2	Lucy, William, 1594-1677.	1673 (1673)	Wing L3454A; ESTC R220049	191,568	301

Soveraign obliged to take care for the decision of Controversies and accomptable to God as for his own so also for his Officers neglect EIghthly saith he Is annexed to the Soveraign the Rights of Controversies which may arise concerning Law either Civil or Natural or concerning Fact for without the decision of Controversies there is no protection of one Subject from the injuries of another That is true which he speaks so that he understands by it not a natural immediate Agent but a moral political act by his Deputies and inferiour Officers as Judges and then it is not only a right which he may but a duty which he ought to do And I may go further then Mr. Hobbs here and say that he shall be responsible to the great King of Kings for not taking care that those his Officers do his duty of Justice in deciding causes Jethro Moses Father-in-law gave him good counsel not to take that burthen impossible for his shoulders to bear upon himself alone but divide it to others and keep weighty causes only to himself SECT II. Mr. Hobbs ninth Inference affirmed Soveraigns in ordinary emergencies to use ordinary means Salus Populi Suprema Lex NInthly c. saith he truly Reader I am tired with transcribing his words distinctly The drift of this ninth Inference is to say That the Soveraign hath right to the Militia of his Kingdom and so of all means to maintain his Army and he saith right without this all others are nothing The Subjects cannot be protected either from forreign or domestick injuries This is true but yet he hath right only to use right means for this I speak not of cases of necessity Salus Reipublicae est summae Lex but in the ordinary mannage of affairs he must reserve himself questionless to the ordinary ways SECT III. The choice of Councellors c. in the Soveraign Mr. Hobbs his reason of this Conclusion refuted FOr his tenth Inference which is his right of chusing Councellors Officers of his Army and the like I agree with him but not for his oft confuted reason because he hath right to the end he must have right to the means for he cannot have right to get his right ends by crooked means but because he is Supreme and is the Fountain of all Power in his Realm But yet there are in many Kingdomes great Offices belonging to Families as Generals Chamberlains and the like and those cannot justly be laid aside out of those places that they are born to and have by Inheritances without great and just cause of disinheriting be produced SECT IV. The eleventh Inference affirmed where there is no Law there is no transgression and consequently no punishment HIs eleventh is most true That to the S●veraign is committed the power of punishing and rewarding according to Law or if there be no Law I fear to joyn with him here to punish where is no Law according as he shall judge meet to conduce to the deterring of men from doing disservice to the Commonwealth This I like not sin is the transgression of a Law where no Law no sin therefore no punishment His last Inference is after a long preamble That it belongs to the Soveraign Power to give Titles of Honour I agree with him in this clause but observe that his twelfth eleventh tenth ninth Inferences are all page 92. SECT V. Mr. Hobbs his Objection and Answer approved Kings more incommodated then Subjects from the burthen of their Crimes and their account to the King of Kings I Have thus briefly touched upon these particular Inferences which he calls the right of a Soveraign and having censured them any man may easily look through that which follows in that Cap. but in the latter end of that Cap. page 94. he seems to answer an Objection A man may here object that the condition of Subjects is very miserable as being obnoxious to the lusts or other irregular passions of him or them who have so unlimited a power in their hands and commonly they who live under a Monarch think it the fault of Monarchy c. not considering saith he that the estate of man can never be without some incommodity or other I think he speaks truth in almost all this whole Paragraph but as a Christian man who is assured there is a God a Heaven and Hell I may say that as all Subjects must whilst they are in this world have incommodities so Kings have many more their Crowns are made of Thorns and their Scepters too heavy almost for men to bear because they have a mighty accompt to make up to their King the King of Kings of the good or evil in their Government with which words I end this Cap. and come to his next which is Cap. 19. entituled thus Of the several kinds of Commonwealth by Institution and of Succession to the Soveraign Power CHAP. XIII SECT I. Mr. Hobbs his expression of Representative not proper and diminutive of Soveraignty Two Questions raised about the divisions of Commonwealths left to the judgment of others HE begins this Cap. with an Exposition of that ancient division of a Commonwealth into Monarchical Aristocratical and Democratical which he affirms to be the only forms by which any Commonwealth is governed and in the bottom of this 94 page he proves it thus For the Representative must needs be one man or more and if more then it is either the Assembly of all or but of a part When the Representative is one man then it is a Monarchy when an Assembly of all that will come together then it is a Democracy or popular Commonwealth when an Assembly of a part only then it is Aristocracy Other kinds of Commonwealths there can be none for either one or more or all must have the Soveraign Power which I have shewed to be indivisible I will not here contend against that word Representative which I have oft already spoke against and cannot be a fit word to express a Soveraign for it makes him to be but an Image or Creature of the people whose Supreme he is But for that division of a Common-wealth which he proposeth although it is so honoured by the universality of Writers in Politicks that it were not modesty in any particular man to deny it yet give me leave to put a Question I will not be peremptory in it Why since a Commonwealth is the whole Body Politick and consists in the whole Regiment from the King to the Cottager why there may not be thought of some division in respect of subordination as well as in respect of the Supreme But I will leave the answer to some younger head who may have leisure to examine it and raise another Question Since the division is made only out of the quantity or number which constitute a Supreme why may not some things be thought upon concerning the quality of it which may give a new and another illustration to that condition of a Supreme For although this

of this regard that he is the Nobler Sex and why not He is so undoubtedly for although it may happen out in particulars that the Woman may be more prudent or strong then her Husband yet certainly the generality is not so and the rules of governing and obeying are not to be taken from a few particular instances but the common condition of the Sexes Servants may be wiser or stronger then their Masters Subjects then their Kings children then their Parents yet these sacred Laws of governing and obeying must not be varied for such few particular instances SECT IV. The brawling of Man and Wife improperly called war War only between Nations VVisdom not strength enable to Government VVives submit to their Husbands by the Law of God under the first and second Adam St. Pauls Argument from the Law of Nature explained WHat he saith that this cause must be determined by war is ill expressed For first the contention betwixt man and wife cannot properly be called war but brawling or fighting at the worst War is betwixt Nations in the genuine signification I remember Aelian tells a story of the Sacae that when a Man and a Maid married they were to fight at the first and he or she that conquered was afterwards served by the other for the term of their lives This was a pretty gambal whether true or false it is not much material I read it only in him but surely a most unreasonable practice Is the power of Government proper to strength or wisdom Can any man think that a Bull or a Horse is fitter to govern a man then he them because they are of more strength though he have more wisdom But surely for us that are Christians there is no need to fly to such poor little instances or customs or the accidental prudence or strength of the woman if she have more wit let her use it to the gaining and winning him to vertue if she have more strength let her use it to the assistance of her Husbands weakness by that means her excellencies will be imployed to their right uses she shall be a helper to him not a Ruler over him I need not here repeat what of late I delivered concerning this Doctrine out of Gen. 3. But that Gods Command is clear to this purpose not only in Adam but those that are descended from the second Adam consider what S. Paul writes in the fifth to the Ephesians v. 22. Wives submit your selves to your own Husbands as unto the Lord. But methinks Mr. Hobbs should answer to this that this is only a positive Law yet I can reply to that that it is universal or what is equivalent indefinite and comprehends all wives But then go further and read the Apostles Argument in the following verse For the Husband is the Head of the Wife even as Christ is the Head of the Church Thus the Apostle argues from the Law of Nature First that by the Law of Nature the rest of the body submits to the Head so must Wives do to their own Husbands Then this is exemplified from Christianity in the manner of his Headship such a Head as Christ is over his Church which I hope no Christian will say but that it must submit to and be governed by him And I hope both Nature Gods Law and Christian duty may be sufficient to determine this controversie without war And I may add that since all Nations have consented to it sure we ought not now to demur upon the case because Mr. Hobbs interposeth his Authority with little or no reason SECT V. This Paragraph contrary to Mr. Hobbs his principles and the supposed institution of a Commonwealth but yet most true not from Mr. Hobbs his reason but the Law of God Fathers of Families have the disposition of their Families The invalidity of Mr. Hobbs his reasons His example of the Amazons inconcludent HE proceeds In Commonwealths this controversie is decided by the Civil Law and for the most part but not always the sentence is in favour of the Father because for the most part Commonwealths have been erected by the Fathers not by the Mothers of Families Now I am come to page ●03 but I would fain know how the Fathers rather then the Mothers should come to be Erectors of Commonwealths Certainly if Commonwealths were instituted as he feigns by the general suffrage of all who had interest in the Government then women as well as men Mothers as well as Fathers had the management of that business for they have their interest in the publick constitution as well as men But he hath let fall an excellent truth which is clear against the whole Body of his Politicks which is that the Fathers of Families not the Rabble were the Erectors of Commonwealths For if they did as I am confident with him here they did then his former discourse which is built upon the institution of a Commonwealth by the universal consent of all who have interest in it must fail for not the Fathers and Mothers only but even the meanest child or servant may challenge their shares in it And certainly the Fathers of Families could not be the Erectors of Commonwealths but only out of this regard that they were the chief in their Families and by that reason had right to dispose of himself and them And here let the Reader consider that Mr. Hobbs never remembers that great Authority given by God to Moses which regulated him and his Posterity many Generations nor the confirmation that Law laid from our Saviour in the New Testament which are obligatory to us in all Ages He only clouds the truth with this pittiful poor reason or rather shew of reason only that men were the Law-makers and they were partial to their own Sex No Master Hobbs God was the Law-maker who is no accepter of persons or Sexes but in an infinitely wise manner disposeth all things in the best and surest method that may be according to his most just Laws But because he said but not always that is that the Fathers of Families were not always the Erectors of Commonwealths intimating that some Commonwealths were erected by the Mothers of Families I should thank him or any man else who can shew me any such in the world It may be he will fly to that beggerly instance which he gives presently of the Amazons but let it suffice for them if there were any such that they were Widdows or single Women not united in Marriage and so not subject to Husbands and therefore were free to dispose of themselves as they pleased and might have made what just Laws they thought fit for their condition but if they were joyned in marriage to Husbands they must then subm●t to that yoak and be governed in their domestick affairs according to his discipline The dispute is here betwixt Husband and Wife not betwixt man and woman Wives must submit to their own Husbands not every woman to every man SECT VI. Mr.

have been something to be understood There is no doubt but the King hath the power of conducting even in those things he named before and in those which follow none of which can be a●●ed without him and therefore ought to have a higher faculty allowed him than that of Motion CHAP. XXIII SECT XV. Mr. Hobbs his reflection upon the House of Lords and Commons in Parliament His supposed danger for want of the consent of one or either of these refuted All humane constitutions subject to error Government rightly so stiled though without power to take away the lives or estates of Subjects The several Estates in Parliament termed factious by Mr. Hobbs No government absolutely and practically pure according to the definition of Politicians but denominated from the predominant part The soveraign not the representative of the Common-wealth no more than the head is of a man His instance of the Vnity in the holy Trinity impertinent Vnity in subordination ANd the power of making Laws which is the rational faculty on the accidentall consent not only of those two but also of a third By the third he means the house of Lords and here be understands that these three ma●e the rational part which without doubt was necessarily required to the act of conduct as before but he attributes nothing in particular to the Lords let them vindicate themselves and the House of Commons themselves I shall only meddle with the inconveniences which arise out of this policie which he begins immediately to fall upon this endangereth the Common-wealth sometimes for want of consent to good Laws This danger I never found but many times the stop of evil Laws which have been projected by private men or perhaps might pass one house faults which have been observed by one which were not taken notice of by the other A multitude of Councellors gives safety to laws a weaker understanding many times sees that which a greater overlooked that which appears lovely to some may be known to be faulty by others But certainly these two houses being compounded of men of all conditions who must needs be acquainted with all the unhappinesses in the Government cannot but be thought most fit to have the examing and passing Laws for the Government He goes on but often for want of such nourishment as is most necessary to life and motion I doubt this can hardly be made out where the necessity of such contributions shall be made appear but at such times when his rebellious principles have been infused for without doubt where such necessities are the necessities of the Kingdome and the King lacks the supplies proper to such motions as war defensive and offensive the very state and condition of every man is endangered and his doctrine of self-preservation will compel men to it although they cast one eye upon the publick But such things he will say have been done it is true that the niggardliness of the People to such expences have brought the kingdome to destruction I can call it no less the same may be said of some Kings whose too much frugality has made them lack both men and hearts to serve their occasions There is nothing humane that is not subject to error and a possibility of being mistaken But certainly this as little as any because this assembly as he calls them are men selected for their estates and prudence and because they are prudent it is likely they are able and because of their estates it is reasonable to think that they should be willing to give their best assistance to the publick good He goes on for although few perceive that such government is not government but division of the Common-wealth into three factions and call it mixt Monarchie Indeed I think that never man did conceive that this Government is not Government Mr. Hobbs doth govern his servants yet his government is limited with many more bounds than this is and yet that is a government he cannot take their cloaths from them or their Estates much less their lives or limbs yet he is their Governour And though he saith only a few did perceive yet I think until he wrote this none did ever perceive three factions factions do oppose one another they are not joyned neither do they co-operate in the same effect as these do in all things which are done by them And in this business it seems not to be a co-operation of equal shares in the work but like an universal cause working with particular causes The Sun with the same light shines upon a Rose a Violet and a Primrose Yet with these particular specifical causes produceth those various effects with those several subordinate powers to his but they were not instituted for factions nor are such but subordinate to him and to concurr with him in the legal settlement of that is good for the publick it was therefore very ill phrased of him to call the factions a mixt Monarchie For my part I am of the Opinion which I have expressed before that there is no Government in the World so pure that it hath no mixture in it either Monarchy Aristocracy or Democracy but the denomination in all these is from the predominant part yet saith he the truth is that it is not one Independent Common-wealth but three Independent factions Again factions this needs not unless he can infuse factions which I hope he shall never be able to do either with this book or any other and saith he not one representative Person but three The vanity of this language I have heretofore spoken to In a Monarchie the Monarch cannot be called the representative Person of the Common-wealth no more than the head can be termed the representative of man he is the head of this body politick and governs it but not represents it He is so fond of that conceipt as indeed it is the foundation of his whole politie that the error mixeth it self in almost every page But let us go on with him In the kingdome of God there may be three Persons Independent without breach of unity in God that reigneth Yes by him there may be twenty a hundred or a thousand and indeed are so many for as he makes a Person to be a man who represents another as Moses did God of which I have treated at large in my former part against him certainly there was a thousand such which represented him in his Kingdome in this World and therefore this instance is nothing to the purpose especially concerning the representation here treated of Yes saith he this is without breach of unity in God who reigneth There can be no doubt of it for though God be represented by a thousand several men his unity is the same And I may say of a King though he be represented in divers Provinces by divers Vice-royes yet he is the same King and the only King But where men reign that are subject to diversity of opinions saith he it cannot be so What

doth he mean by that I think that where divers men are supremes that have divers opinions there will be breach of Unity For perfect Unity there is none such but in God who being without composition is absolutely not one only in the concrete as created things are but Unity which nothing else is as there is no one man who is so at unity in himself as not to differ from himself now judging one thing then another yea at the same time he may have combustion in himself by diversity of Arguments which arise in his thoughts at the same time so that he cannot imagine any perfect Unity amongst men but yet when there is a subordination that reduceth them to the nearest method of unity that may be therefore where there shall be many supremes without subordination there can be no unity But where there is a subordination there we may find the greatest unity that this subject is capable of which will appear by my answer to what follows CHAP. XXIII SECT XVI The house of Commons not the King representative of the People The King only the soveraign the Peers the Councellors of the King Mr. Hobbs his unworthy expression of there soveraigns censured The odiousness of his comparison of t●o men growing out of the sides of another observed The danger of cutting off those sprouts assimilated to the removal of the two houses of Parliament THerefore saith he if the King bear the Person of the People and the general Assembly also bear the Person of the People and another Assembly bear the Person of a part of the People they are not one Person and one Soveraign but three Persons and three Soveraigns I answer the King is not the representative of the People but their Soveraign neither doth he act any royal thing by their Authority but by his own right the House of Commons are the representative of the People that is the Common People when by the Soveraign they are called and elected by them pro tempore during their sitting in Parliament and as their beginning is by the Kings Writ so their determination is by his dismission This shews that although they may represent the People yet he not they are Soveraigns The house of Lords which he means by those who represent a part of the People represent no body but their posterity for whom they act otherwise they do that business the King calls them for that is to advise with him in the great and difficult affairs of the Kingdome they are as Councellors not Soveraigns he only Soveraign and neither one house nor other sits in their sphere but when he calls them nor stayes after his dismission nor when they are there can act any material matter concerning the Kingdome only advise and inform but what he who is their Supreme and Soveraign enables them to do So then there is but one Soveraign in England though he most unworthily threw in such proud speeches to make them three He proceeds and I with him To what disease in the Natural body of a man I may exactly compare this irregularity of a Common-wealth I know not But I have seen a man that had another man growing out of his side with an head armes breast and stomach of his own If he had had another man growing out of his other side the comparison might then have been exact Thus he I answer there is no need of this fancy of his to compare every publick disease with a natural but if he had studied King CHARLES the first his most incomparable Book he would have found this composure not to have been a disease but a perfect constitution of a healthy body but since he makes this comparison I shall tell him that in such a man take away or cut off that humane sprout which grows out of the principal man even he will quickly dye I doubt not but believe confidently it would be so with this politie CHAP. XXIII SECT XVII The propriety of the subject again asserted against Mr. Hobbs His objection of the difficulty of raising money answered The inconvenience of investing all propriety in the Crown The convenience and decorum of raising money in a parliamentary way His late Majestie CHARLES the First his incomparable essay to this purpose recommended to the author of the Leviathan Mr. Hobbs his disaffection to the government of this Kingdom censured I Am now in p. the 137. where after he hath confessed that these diseases which have been hitherto named are of the greatest and most present danger that is his phrase although a man would think that this form of Government that hath lasted so many hundreds of years could not be in so suddain or present danger however he now enters upon others which tho' less are not unfit to be looked into He begins as first the difficulty of raising of money for the necessary uses of the Common-wealth especially in the approach of War I must confess this is of dangerous consequence This difficulty ariseth from the Opinion that every subject hath of a propriety in his lands and goods exclusive of the Soveraigns right to the use of the same I have heretofore taught that men have proprieties in their estates yet in cases of necessity as in War any mans house may be made a fort any mans land digged to make a trench with multitudes of the like Nature according to the necessities and exigencies of the Common-wealth Therefore this propriety without necessity cannot be dangerous nay a man may say that without this propriety we should not have a legal but arbitrary Government and that which he himself hath supposed to be the reason why a Common-wealth is instituted would be frustrated which is that men may peaceably sow and reap and enjoy the profits of their industrie which if the supreme might lawfully take away together with their estates for the support of his condition it would quickly come to pass that an Estate invested in the Crown may be the prey of other Subjects as it was with the Church revenue which although in Queen ELIZABETHS time it was alienable to none but the Crown yet we know that from thence it passed to mean Tenents until King JAMES most happily gave a stop unto it by enacting that there should be none afterward passed to the Crown so that this cannot fitly be termed a hinderance without which a Common-wealth loseth the end for which it was instituted But give me leave to speak to the main proposition it self Why should it be difficult to raise just summes for the defence or good of the publick every man hath an interest in it and they are reasonable creatures which will consider both their own and the publick benefit I but he will say it hath been so let this be granted it is true that all sins and wickednesses have been too and certainly this is a mighty great one But let him consider whether this way of their consent to the performance of