doth God as he is the first and general cause meeting with several conditions operate severally to the production of those several effects which are produced by them with things necessary before he produceth necessary effects But as the Suns concourse doth not determine this thing to this and that to that effect so doth not the general concourse of God determine this or that appetite to this or that object in this or that manner but when it meets with things so disposed it concurs in the production of that effect to which it was so disposed so that God concurring with free Agents makes them no more necessary then his concurring with necessary Agents makes them free It is the same infinite Power of God which constituted both and his concurrence destroys neither in its ordinate working I speak not of his extraordinary operation whereby he can and doth controul all the frame of Nature when and how he pleaseth nor doth Mr. Hobbs Nay I may say that God himself being absolutely free bounded with no limits having nothing above or about him which can stop or hinder his Almighty hand from working it is much more reasonable to think that his concourse should make even necessary Agents free and not to be bounded by their natures which he had given them rather then that this most free Agent should against himself make those which he had constituted in a free nature to be necessary because they are by that more like himself which every Agent endeavours Nay in his extraordinary works he doth often for the present shake off those bonds which his former Donation had confined them to so that by his extraordinary concourse he makes them cease from their former operations which by their natures they were necessitated to do as the fire not to burn the water not to run down its channel and the like which are apparent to every man So then though Gods will and concurrence is a cause of those actions yet not being a terminating cause but concurring with that nature which he had given them that concurrence doth not necessitate that operation which he had given to man viz. freedom to do or not to do But he proves the contrary in his following words which are these SECT XII The consequence of this Paragraph examined His meaning conjectured and refuted Every deviation contradicts not the Power and Omnipotency of God Voluntas facere fieri distinguished in God Men not justly punished with Damnation if necessitated to sin Mr. Hobbs censured for obtruding those Doctrines in Divinity amongst his Political Discourses The actions of the King and Subject alike necessitated by Mr. Hobbs his Chain of Causes ANd did not his will assure the necessity of mans will and consequently of all that on mans will dependeth the liberty of men would be a contradiction and impediment to the Omnipotency and liberty of God I do not observe how this consequence can be deduced out of the premises for if God endowed man with liberty and free power in his nature why should it follow if God do not necessitate his actions that mans will would cross and impede the power and liberty of God For the will of God is that man should act freely the free actions therefore are according to his will and the necessitation would be contrary to his will But I think he means that if mans free power could sin against the will of God then man should be able to contradict and stop his Omnipotency and Liberty To understand this therefore consider with me that Gods Dominion over this World is like that of a King in a Kingdom he gives Laws and Rules to the Suâ—â—â—cts which if they observe they shall live happily under him but if not he will punish and afflict yea perhaps destroy the offending parties It is an opposition to the Kings power that when men break his Laws and he shall go about to punish them they shall then rebel against him and oppose the power of the County or of the Kingdom or that power which he musters up to do Justice upon them then indeed his power is contradicted and impeded God whilst men live here with these natures hath given Rules and governs them by such Laws as he hath appointed them for their good if they observe those Laws happy are they but he seldom puts in his Omnipotency to make men do the one or the other never to make men break his Laws he ordinarily doth not vary the nature of man or any thing Men may and may not keep his Commandments I do not now dispute of the nature of Grace or any thing of that kind they that do not shall be punished as the other blessed and then comes in his Omnipotency if man could resist or impede that that were contradicting his power but these sins only oppose his concourse which inclines but not necessitates a mans nature so that there is Gods voluntas facere fieri his will which we should do which it is impossible for God to oppose and there is his voluntas facere to do himself which it is not possible for man to oppose The first appears in this life the second in the other nor is it any contradiction to the Divine Power which hath so established it and without which it were impossible for his Power to joyn with his Justice in punishing Offenders at the last day for how can a man justly be punished for what was not in his power to do otherwise yea much less can he punish him in Justice who makes him commit that fault which he punisheth which God must do if he with his co-operation in the act determines mans power to that evil which he punisheth and for which condemneth him to Hell Certainly this is the most abominable impudent Doctrine for sinning that ever was read in any Author that ever writ of this Subject and the most derogative from that infinite Essential Goodness that should cause or make men do evil for no more then fire can cool or act against its nature no more can God who is essentially good goodness it self act that which is evil It is in vain for a man to say it is not evil God doing it for it is an evil which God hates and punisheth and therefore must be evil in his esteem I do not now speak of that Language used by some Of Gods afflictions working with some men which comes not in this discourse to be disputed of but that God doth work these sins which he punisheth this is abhorrent to the thought of a Religious man And now I must censure Mr. Hobbs not only for ill and false Doctrine but for having such a delight in it as in this place unnecessarily to obtrude it where there was no reason for nor use of it for let any man consider what this hath to do with liberty of the Subject which is the Head he undertook to treat of the liberty of the Subject is neither
positive Law but many Laws are limited not only by Gods Laws of Nature but his positive Laws likewise which have as great force as the other to whomsoever they are revealed Now I am in the 150 pageâ— let the Reader consider again how he takes occasion to lessen the authority of Scripture I am perswaded he can produce no Christian writer from our Saviours time downward that ever delivered so unworthy a conceipt of the positive Law of God it is as if he should say we should obey a Constables command against the Kings command by Statute for the difference is much less betwixt the King and a Constable than betwixt the greatest King in the World and God The common Law which I conceive to be an unwritten tradition is like the Law of Nature the Statute Law like the positive Laws It is lawful not considering a statute for a man to act any thing not against the common Law but if a positive i e. a statute Law intervene it is no longer lawful by any private power to act that which otherwise had been lawful Thus until a positive Law of God interpose whatsoever is not against the Law of Nature is lawful but when that positive Law is manifest it is necessary that that likewise be obeyed and no humane Law of mans making can have right to dispense with it He proceeds besides there is no place in the world where men are permitted to pretend other commandements of God than are declared for such by the Common-wealth Christian States punish those that revolt from Christian Religion and all other States those that set up any religion by them forbidden For in whatsoever is not regulated by the Common-wealth 't is equity which is the Law of Nature and therefore an eternal Law of God that every man equally enjoy his Liberty Here is an Argument drawn à facto ad jus Because this is done therefore it is rightly done and an equal weight put upon the acts of Heathens and worshippers of the Sun Moon c. with that of Christians who only worship the true God As if because Kings justly punish those who violate the Laws of those Kingdomes which they are intrusted with therefore Thieves justly may destroy such as break the Laws of their Combination when indeed the first are just but the other most unjust The case seems to be the same here for all those are combinations of Thieves who rob God of his due honour required by him the Christians only act by the Law of God So that here we may discern a great difference in the right of the two aâ—tings of the Christian and the Heathen but then consider what is the ground of them both we shall find it different from what Mr. Hobbs delivers He conceiveth the reason to be this why delinquents are punished because they swerve from the Law of the supreme but it is clearly otherwise The Christian doth not therefore receive the holy Communion or repent of his sin or do such like heavenly duties because the supreme Magistrate requires them but because he finds those duties exacted by God in his positive Laws and if the Magistrate shall controulit he knows God must be obeyed before man when he requires contrary to God And the same reason persvvades the Turk concerning his Alcoran vvhich he vainly imagineth to be the divine Lavv and if the Grand Signior himself do contradict that Lavv they vvill not obey him upon that reason And surely the same Argument prevails vvith all other Nations vvho have their Religion by tradition it is not the Lavv of man but the imagined Lavv of God vvhich they subject themselves unto in divine performances And therefore though soveraigns punish such transgressions vvhich are against those Lavvs vvhich they have established for divine yet it is therefore because they are esteemed divine Therefore they made such Lavvs not that they could think that they ought to be esteemed divine because they established them I vvill add but one observation more vvhich is this That although he saith that all Nations practise this that is that they allovv only such divine Lavvs vvhich they have established to be such yet I believe no Nation in the World no Christian I am assured would have allowed this doctrine to be published but only such as were in that distracted condition as our poor Nation was when he published it For since every Christian Kingdome professeth a conformity to divine Law it cannot be imagined that they durst obtrude such an impossible thing to be credited as that they could make divine Laws but only confirm and exact an obedience to them Nay I can think the same of all even Heathen Nations So that it is a conclusion abhorring to Christianity yea humane Nature wheresoever it is planted with any Religion For since all do conceive God to be an infinite able and wise Governour even of Kings supremes and kingdomes how can they think it afe for them out of humane obedience to subject his rules to the controul of his Subjects which all Kings and Potentates are I have handled this Paragraph verbatim and although there are many more expressions in this case which may deserve censure yet I pass them over and indeed did think here to have concluded his Politiques and so not to have passed any further censure upon them in this place But there are some egregious errors hereafter which must not be passed over with silence I will also skip over his twenty seventh and twenty eight Chapters as containing things in general less malitious and I will enter upon his twenty ninth Chapter which he intitles Of those things which weaken or tend to the dissolution of a Common-wealth CHAP. XXIII SECT I. Mr. Hobbs his second Paragraph purged The signification of the word Judge Inferiour Judges apply the determinations of Laws concerning good and evil to particular persons and facts Private men have judicium rationis and therefore may determine upon their own ratiocination No man to intrude upon the office of a judge but by deputation from the Soveraign THe first of these I let pass as having spoken something of it already materially and begin with his second which he enters upon page 168. towards the bottom of that Page which begins thus In the second place I observe the diseases of a Common-wealth that proceed from the poyson of seditious doctrines whereof one is that every private man is Judge of good and evil actions To purge this doctrine from all poyson observe first that this word Judge sounds like a legal Officer and truly to speak properly I think the supreme legislative power is the Judge of politick good and evil the other subordinate Judges are only Judges of the application of the supreme to particular cases for instance thus The legislative power commands that no man shall steal if he do he shall be thus and thus punished the Judge applyes this sentence of this evil to â—itius who is brought
Hobbs HIS LEVIATHAN Beginning at the seventeenth Chapter of that Book CHAP. 1. The Introduction to the whole Discourse I Have briefly touched the chief heads of his first Part. And am now arrived at his second part which is entituled of Common-wealths and this part begins at the seventeenth Chapter of the whole Book superscribed of the causes generation and definition of a Common-wealth He begins with the final cause most rightly which is causa causarum and sets the whole at work And I find no fault with what he writes concerning that Secondly I approve what he saith at the bottom of the 85. page That small numbers joyned together cannot give them security to live peaceably Small is a Relative small in respect of their Neighbours of whose injury they may justly be affraid unless they are supported with Natural or Artificial Fortifications or their number may be equalled by the weight of the internal vertue or gallantry of the Inhabitants some way or other it must be made up Thirdly I approve what he saith pag. 86. That be the People never so numerous I may add or strong yet if their actions are directed by their own particular Judgments and particular appetites they can expect thereby no Defence nor Protection His Reasons likewise I approve Fourthly I censure not his Conclusion in the same page That the Government of their Good must not be for one Life or Battel but Perpetual Fifthly He makes a very Ingenious Discourse upon the difference betwixt those sociable Creatures as Bees and Ants which Aristotle calls Political and hath very handsom applications concerning them to the middle of the 87. page but then I must begin to examine him with less approbation In the Margent there is noted the generation of a Common-Wealth and it begins thus CHAP. II. SECT I. This Generation censured first from that Word only which cannot be true THE only way to Erect such a common Power as may be able to defend them from the Invasion of Foreigners and the Injuries of one another and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own Industry and by the fruits of the Earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly is to confer all their Power and strength upon one man or upon one Assembly of men that may reduce all their wills by plurality of voices unto one will which is as much as to say to appoint one man or Assembly of men to bear their person and every one to own and acknâ—wledg himself to be Author of whatsoever he that so beareth their person shall act or cause to be acted in these things which concern the common peace and safety and therein to submit their wills every one to his will and their Judgment to his Judgment Thus far he A bold and strange assertion in that severe Language the onâ—ly way what Mr. Hobbs no other Certainly there have been many Common-wealths in the World which have lived peaceably and quietly and enjoyed the fruits of their Labours and have abounded with all the comforts of their association And yet I dare speak it with confidence there was never any thus generated that is to appoint one man or Assembly to bear their Person and to allow themselves to be Authors of his Actions to submit their Wills to his Will and their Judgments to his Judgment SECT II. A Supream cannot receive his Authâ—rity from the People 1. COnsider here for fear I may forget it hereafter that the King or Supreme by him is but the Person as he most improperly styles him and they the Multitude the Authors of what he doth so that he acts only by their Authority as you may see those words expounded in the 16. Chap. pag. 8â— and 82. so that by him the People give the Supreme Authority which is a mighty diminution to all Supreme Authority and indeed an Incroachment upon the Praerogative of God by whom and whom alone Kings reign and Princes bear rule so that as we rightly say that all Authority in a Kingdom is derived from the King who is the Fountain of all Authority he makes a circle in it and saith the head of this Fountain is derived from the People SECT III. It is impossible they should do it BUT let us examine the possibilities of it Nihil dat quod non habet either formaliter eminenter or Virtualiter Nothing can give what it hath not Formally Eminentâ—y or Virtually Certainly neither of these can be affirmed of the People if they have it any of these ways it must be Conjunctim or divisim either as severed or conjoyned either as distinct or united but neither of these if severed then either every man had this Power or a few or one alone the first branch of this Division will abide the chief Dispute with him because he hath said before That every man hath right to every thing to all things to all riches persons wives lives what you will before they are covenanted into a body this hath been confuted heretofore yet this very occasion will be able to shew the absurdity of it further SECT IV. The Multitude cannot make a Leviathan because he had all their rights before FOr which let us lay a Foundation suppose this Kingdom were unsetled and yet now endeavouring to be setled and all the People being free and and without Covenant have right to all the things in the World these are met together to chuse a Leviathan as he terms him for setling their beings most securely In this Election what did they give him you will say the Authority over them all that is nothing he had that before by the Law of Nature I but he will say he hath upon this Election their Rights Their Rights are no more than what he had before he had by nature right to slay take make use of any thing conducing to his contentment though they were a hundred Millions they can give him no more than what he hath even by Nature I but he will reply he had Right before but now he hath Power I answer the Question here is not about Power but Right Power may be in Rebels Usurpers but not Right that is only in the lawful Soveraign but suppose we should examine his Power by these preceeding directions I doubt we shall find it most weak and unconstant SECT V. Their Power is most uncertain FOR if from the People they will vary with their unsetled resolutions for they who made the first being once taught that the Right of making Kings is in them will easily be perswaded that the unmaking is in their hands likewise and reassume that Power again Take that most abundant instance which that unhappy time we lately lived in affords us when Mr. Hobbs was first undertaken by me when this Doctrine of his was infused into the Kingdom they altered and changed the Government four or five times in a moment A very short space of time and none of those Leviathans lacked the
assents of the People who at the least pretended with the highest protestations that men could make that they would live and dye with them in the maintenance of their Rights and yet in one six weeks they made likewise such another protestation to the next Usurpers Here you may discern how weak a Foundation this popular Covenant yields to his Leviathan nor need he bâ—ast more of the strength than the Right of his Authority for certainly any buzze put into the Peoples head of misgovernment which no Government can be free from in the execution will put Seditious Spirits into them and men who love to fish in troubled Waters may with ease raise these Rumors so that it seems to me to appear that such a tottering and unconstant foundation as the Peoples universal Covenant should not be the support of such a mighty structure as is a Leviathan which should be perpetual What I have said of the whole may more abundantly be affirmed of any part because they will be as unconstant as the whole or more SECT VI. The People cannot give Power conjunctim AND for what was interposed of the People Conjunctim is impossible according to his Principles for there can be no Conjunction before this Covenant they are according to his Doctrine at War one with another until that And it is a strange thing to imagine that so many several heads contending one with another about Superiority and the ingrossing the World to their particular Interests should concenter with one mind to the exaltation of the same Person or Persons to whom they would submit themselves and their conditions by a total desertion of them both Nay indeed a man cannot do it for it being Jus naturale a natural Right as he himself hath expressed before Chap. 14. pag. 65 and 66 to which I have spoke already something he cannot lay down his Natural Right until he lay down his Nature and therefore indeed he cannot by this Doctrine give away his Right to be King to any other but if he can devest himself of his Nature yet he in express termes saith That a man cannot give over his Right to resist by force wounds and imprisonments with which he cannot live contentedly and may not the same be said of a Kingdom perhaps that man cannot live contentedly without being King surely then it is not probable to think that men will so put off their Jura naturalia neither indeed can they do it by his Polity SECT VII The manner of the Resignation makes it impossible BUT then consider the Resignation it self it is far more unreasonable to think that reasonable men should do it Consider the particulars To own all Leviathans actions as if every particular of the People were Author of it To submit their Judgments to his Judgment their Wills to his Will I thought it had been obedience enough for Subjects to submit their persons to his Government but to own all his actions which may be wicked was not to be exacted from any Subject yea if we will allow his Doctrine delivered before it is worse for then we must be Authors of his actions he but our person imployed in them as he speaks pag. 82 and therefore not his own I but saith he in order to their peace I cannot assent to that for many Supreams have done horrid things in order to the publique Peace as Murders Sacriledges oppressions to which although my person may submit yet neither shall my Judgment approve nor my will consent for although when he doth wickedly I will not do so too and Rebel yet neither will I by consent to them justifie his Acts by conspiring in his sin his Vertues shall not save me and I am confident his vices cannot damn me which yet they would if I assented to them I go on with him This is saith he more than consent or Concord it is a real Vnion of them all in one and the same person made by Covenant of every man with every man in such manner as if every man should say to every man I authorize and give up my Right of Governing my self to this man or assembly of men on that Condition that thou give up thy Right to him and Authorise all his Actions in like manner If this be the only way to live in Peace I chuse War which is the hatefullest thing in the World but Sin But this last Phrase of Authorizing all his Actions whom I cannot rule nor controul nay perhaps not come at to Petition is such a forsaking of Humanity and contempt of the glorious means of Salvation as no man with a face of Piety dare affirm to be fit I shall handle these things more fully shortly CHAP. III. SECT I. This cannot be the only way to establish a Government THIS done saith he the multitude so united in one Person is called a Common-wealth in Latine Civitas Thus he But if this only make a Common-wealth or Civitas there was never any in the World nor ever will be as shall be shewed more largely hereafter More true is that which follows This is the Generation of that great Leviathan I mean his Book for to vent this extremly wicked folly he wrote this Book and except in this Book a Common-wealth was never called Leviathan a name from which never man expected good he proceeds or rather to speak more Reverently of that mortal God to which we owe under the immortal God our peace and safety I answer we owe him nothing there was never such a Power Erected I shall omit what follows in that Chapter and come to his 18. Chapter which is page 88. CHAP. IV. SECT I. His definition of a Common-wealth disproved first because not practicable HE begins with a definition of a Common-wealth by Institution thus A Common-wealth is then said to be instituted when a multitude of men do agree and Covenant eveevery one with every one that to whatsoever man or assembly of men shall be given by the greater part the Right to present the Person of them all That is to say to be their Representative every one as well he that voted for it as he that voted against it shall Authâ—rize all the Actions and Judgments of that man or assembly of men in the same manner as if they were his own to the end to live peaceably amongst themselves and be protected against other men This is but a Dream of his there was never such a thing nor is it practicable this Book was writ in English and therefore proper for English men suppose then we were in the first State without a Soveraignty we are none of the greatest Common-wealths in the World yet is it possible that here in this Kingdom there should convene such Multitudes of men such an Universality as by him is required to make this Covenant which he labours to prove in his second part De Corpâ—re Politi Cap. 3. Numb 2. because saith he there Nor can an action be Attributed to
felicity then to violate such Covenants and by preserving them Kings and their Kingdoms have lived in peace and proâ—perity but by the breach of them came to ruine and destruction so that this which he calls but breath at the same instant that it comes out of the mouth of man it is engraved in their hearts and recorded in Gods Eternal Registry in heaven CHAP. VI. SECT III. The Sword hath no power but from the Covenant according to Mr. Hobbs his Doctrine it may compel lut is not properly the obliging cause of obedience VVHat is added That the breath of the Covenant is an ill foundation of Monarchy and hath no power of obliging but from the publick Sword I did wonder why he did use such various and such emphatical expressions against the Authority which is derived from a Covenant for this united force of the publick Sword according to his Doctrine must be derived from that Covenant which by him is made the sole foundation of Government And if a Covenant which by him is but breath hath no obliging power neither can the publick Sword which is derived from that Covenant have any it he instead of other Verbs which he used there had interpreted this one of Compel that this Covenant without the publick Sword had no power to compel any man to obedience it might have received some credit because when we lose these vertues of fidelity and obedience it is only the publick Sword which by force can make them submit but yet that which the Sword can justly compel any unto must be by the obliging vertue of the Covenant But whereas he placeth the obliging power in the Sword he gives all right of interest to it then which nothing can be more destructive to Monarchy Let Kings know that their Swords may rust or loose their edge and then he who hath the keenest Sword may plead the best right This encouraged the late Rebels who having got a longer Sword then the King upon that Title preserved their Usurpation to the utmost they could And the wickedness is very apparent for by his Doctrine whosoever can force his Superiority may justifie his exercise in it which is the greatest encouragement Rebellion can desire But perhaps that phrase The Publick Sword may bear him out in it for by this he understands the National Power in that Man or Assembly of men which hath the Soveraignty all whose actions are acknowledged by them all What a foolcry is this Was there ever any Rebellion in which the Rebels did not deny to approve the actions of the Supreme they rebel against And suppose that impossible Fiction of the universal meeting and assent to that Covenant yet when the same persons renounce who made that Covenant how can the Sword authorize his actions which pretend his power from the breath of this Covenant which yet being but a Breath as Mr. Hâ—bbs terms it is long since gone and perished and a new Breach started up in its place The right of the Sword is given by the breath of the Covenant with promise to own his actions that Breath is gone they breath contrarily and revoke it if any man can get the Sword he will make them blow such an other Breath upon his Sword as they did upon the first Supreme The truth is Mr. Hobbs makes the power of Government to consist immediately in the Sword but that founded upon a Breath which iâ— blown away with any little cross wind and certainly this makes a most unhappy institution and settlement of any right That which follows in the top of the ninetieth page I let pass as not material to any thing preceding or following after and I pass to his third Inference which begins thus CHAP. VII SECT I. Mr. Hobbs his third Inference examined No man to be destroyed for his dissent to the unjust actions of others Mr. Hobbs his Political Inquisition more severe then that for Religion THirdly because the major part hath by consenting voices declared a Soveraign he that dissented must now consent with the rest that is be contented to own all the actions he shall do or else justly be destroyed by the rest This is a very sad condition either he must own all the actions his Soveraign doth or justly be destroyed I believe never Murder was so justified upon such terms before own all his actions No Christian no honest man will do it his Soveraign may be Antichristian a Hobbist whose actions no Christian man can avouch he may act foolishly which no wise man can authorize he may act wickedly which no honest man can consent unto or else justly be destroyed by his fellow Subjects which he understands by that word the rest destruction is the greatest mischief can come to a man and is never inflicted but for some mighty crime which I do not find this man charged with but only a dissenting or protesting against the general Vote a thing often done in Parliaments and yet no such Sentence passeth upon the Dissenter nor were it just to do it men are not bound to be all of one mind Mr. Hobbs would make his Inquisition for Politiques more severe then any Inquisition for Religion But he hath reason for what he writes for saith he If he voluntarily entred into the Congregation of them that were assembled he sufficiently thereby declared his will and therefore tacitly covenanted to stand to what the major part should ordain I thought by what went before he must have declared his assent but now it seems it is enough if he be amongst them but what if he be not amongst them as I have shewed it is impossible all should what condition is that man in He proceeds with his proofs And therefore if he refuse to stand thereto or make protestation against any their Decrees he does contrary to his Covenant and therefore unjustly Suppose all this Shall a man be destroyed for every breach of Covenant or every unjustice Certainly Mr. Hobbs if he were a Law-maker would out-do Draco or the bloudiest that ever acted in that kind This is a foolish consequence that because he did unjustly he should justly be destroyed He goes on And whether he be of the Congregation or not and whether his consent be asked or not he must either submit to their Decrees or be left to the condition of war he was in before wherein he might without injustice be destroyed by any man whatsoever The madness of this condition of war before this Covenant I have spoke to heretofore but that he may justly be destroyed by any with whom he will not joyn in the Covenant is wicked We have in England I believe abundance of strangers of Forreign Nations which neither have nor will enter into such a Covenant may they be justly killed Nay amongst those millions which are the Kings Subjects there was never man entred this or the like Covenant may we justly kill one another Nay I think few would make such a Covenant may
Where is the parity of reason betwixt any thing that went before and this to produce that saying of this for the same reason and there is no reason for this that the liking or disliking which are extremely outward things to the essence of any thing should produce a difference in the thing it self SECT III. The Authors Opinion of this division The denomination of mixed bodies as in natural so in political à principalion The strange mixture of the Government of Lacedaemon The Monarchy of Darius mixed with Aristocraâ—y ANd now Reader having passed some Notes I will proceed to set down my own judgment and Opinion of this so much honoured division which although out of the Reverence I bear to the consent of so many learned men in it I dare not deny that it is a good division yet methinks in political stories I can observe that take these in their pure and simple natures there 's scarce one of them purely such in any one Country of the whole world and therefore I may say of them as Philosophers say of the Elements they are the matter of which this great Globe of this sublunary world is composed and yet not found distinct in their pure nature in any creature in the world but are denominated such â— principalion as when heat is in any great degree then it is called fire when cold and moisture are intense it is then water or else as the Mathematicians speak Saturn is Lord of this House because he is predominant yet the power of his influence is more or less according to the assistâ—nce or detriment he receives from other Planets So when one is chief or Lord of the House either a Monarchical chief or Aristocratical yea I may add a Democratical or popular Government it is denominated from that which is principle although one or both the other may be joyned in the influence and concur in the Government over the whole I think this appears most true to any man who hath perused stories nay they are so conjoyned and mixed one with the other sometimes that it is exceeding hard to say which is the predominant and disputes amongst learned men are raised what name to give some Supremes You may find a common instance in Lacâ—daemâ—â— where there was a King a Senate and in many things the people came in for their sharâ—s learned men know not which to call it Look if you please upon Monarchy there is none I think so absolute in the world to which all he speaks may be applied I mean all those marks of Soveraignty which have been before touched upon I will give the Reader one instance in one of the greatest Monarchs that ever was or is in the world I mean Darius in the sixth of Daniâ—l you shall find at the seventh verse that all the Presidents of the Kingdom the Governors and the Princes the Councellors and the Captains consulted together to establish a Royal Statute and to make a firm Decree that whosoever shall ask a Petition of any God or man for thirty daiâ—s save of Darius himself should be cast into the Lyons Den. I will not descant upon the Dâ—cree being the most abominably wicked that possibly could be made by a mâ—n who did acknowledge a God as Darius did For how could he think that God would bless him acting so croâ—â—y against his Honoâ—r as to forbid prayers to him Mr. Hobbs indeed might have concurred with him that thinks no prayers have prevalence with God but that all things are governed by immutable necessity But Darius could not be of that mind who forâ— thought that God could and would deliver him Neither could Daniel be of that mind who would not leave praying for all the terrors of the world Well the Decree is out according to the Laws of the Medes and Persians which is unalterable when the Law was out and Daniel found to be a transgressor against it we shall find in the thirteenth verse that these Princes presented the crime to the King and required Justice against him in the fourteenth verse the King is said to labour until night to deliver Daniel and was displeased with himself Surely before he was aware he had consented to such a Law as was mischievous to a person of that great integrity and excellency as Daniel was and this Law which he had made must be Author of so great a Crime as to shed not only Innocent but vertuous blood and therefore he laboured until Sun-set with those men who joyned with him in the making that Law to deliver Daniel But they in the â—â—fteenth verse being fierce against Daniel urged the immutability of the Decree that it was a Law confirmed by him according to the Laws of the Medes and Persians which may not be altered and indeed the argument is of great force For if Laws made by any Supreme may be violated before they are repealed what security can any Subject have of any thing he enjoys And surely in keeping and preserving the Laws they have made they do imitate their great Master the King of Kings and Supreme of Supremes from whom they have all their Authority and by whom they reign who although by his infinite power he can do what he pleaseth yet out of his infinite goodness he cannot deny himself or alter the word which is gone out of his mouth falli non potest mentiri non potest so that all his Words and Covenants and Promises are Yea and Amen Such should Supremes be such was Darius that just King no doubt but he could have sent a party of Souldiers and have taken Daniel out of their power but having made the Law which bound him to the execution he would perform it although it were never so contrary and averse to his disposition From all which you may discern that this great Potentate had his power limited by a Law which he could not justly violate Now look upon him and see him in the following part of his story of a most absolute and unlimited power where it was not restrained by Law In the latter end of that Cap. you may observe that when the King had perceived that God had delivered Daniel from the Lyons and he had taken him out of the Dâ—n At the 24 verse the King commanded and they brought those men who had accused Daniel and cast them and their Wives and Children into the Lyons Den that is the Presidents and the Princes which was the greatest act of power exercised upon the greatest persons which were in that greatest Kingdom and all this meerly arbitrary SECT IV. The result of the former example No Government de facto purely Monarchical and therefore not susceptible of all the properties of Monarchical Government required by Mr. Hobbs Darius bound to the execution of those Laws which himself had made MY Collection here is That there is no Supreme upon earth which hath no commixion of any the other principles in all those particular rights
which Mr. Hâ—bbs requires as properties of Supremacy for the Legislative is one and the controul of the Execution is another Here you see at the making of this Decree there was Aristocracy mixed with Monarchy by the Princes for they petitioned the King to make this Law but the King gave life to it with his Fiat That this was so appears because if Dâ—rius alone had done and they had had no interest in this Legislation he who had madâ— it might have recalled it of himself when he discovered the mischief which it produced but it is said that he â—trove and laboured to have saved him but those Princes who it 〈◊〉 had some influence in making the Law resisted and would not give way to it Then mark the second particle which is next of moment in the Law it self that is the execution he could not be spared from that And although in many polities the Supreme may and hath power to dispence with the execution of severe Justice yet it sâ—â—ms this great King had his hand tyed in respect of that and could not justly do it when upon their Petition he had established that Law Let no man censure this conclusion until he hath read the whole for it is not proper for me to prevent my method in any following discourse to satisfie every doubt which may interpose in the mean time but to preserve every particular until I come to its proper place SECT V. The general reasons of the precedent conclusions That Government best which is suited to the disposition of the people Some people fit only for subjection BUt to conceive a general reason for what I speak considâ—r with me that the people must be governed as best 〈◊〉 with their condition for the multitude without doubt would be too hard for any Supreme if they knew how advantagiously to dispose of themselves And it is an easie thing with ambiguous language to sow discontents amongst the multitude against any present Government and therefore all Politicians besides Mr. Hobbs do shew that some Nations are fit to be ruled with a severe hand some with a more remiss one some fit for Monarchy some for Dâ—mocracy The Eastern Nations best agree with those Monarchies under which they live which are the most absolute in the world but other Countries would not endure that Yoâ—k It is a most ancient observation in this difference of Countries that some are so dull I dare not name them for fear of offending though others have done it as they are only fit to obey not to govern SECT VI. The former conclusion further asserted The Ephori amongst the Lacedaemonians first introduced by Theopompus BUt for this conclusion let it suffice what Aristâ—tle writes of Theâ—pompus and out of him other later Writers that he being King of the Lacedemonians first set up the Ephâ—ri there his Wife upbraided him with it that he should leave his Kingdom with less power to his Successors then he had received it from his Ancestors he answered that he should leave it more lasting Perhaps he was deceived in it but yet it meant this truth that the people being sweetned with the imagination that they have some interest in the Government they will put their necks more willingly under the Yoak The story is told in the fifth of his Politicks Cap. 11. which shew that it may be and may be profitable to receive this commixion SECT VII No Government absolutely pure Mr. Hobbs his Politicks calculated for Utopia BUt then go further and examine the flourishing Commonwealths of the whole world and you shall find them so mixed nay that mixture so equally poised that it will be hard to find the predominant from which it may receive its name as was the cause of the Lacedemâ—nians disputed amongst divers Authors whether Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical and none so absolutely pure as that we may say this Element is without commixion that Planet hath alone influence and this he seems himself to grant in his 98. page concerning the practises in the world although he writes now an Vtopia a pattern which he would have all to follow He goes on page 95. CHAP. XIV SECT 1. Mr. Hobbs his conclusions deduced from Principles founded in the Air. Absolute liberty not actually to be found in any people Several petite Common-wealths raised out of the Ruines of the Roman Empire None of these without mixture nor durable His exposition of Representative again redargued as an ill foundation of Government Religion and Propriety The formerly mentioned Commonwealths preserved by Laws IT is manifest saith he that men who are in absolute liberty may if they please give Authority to one man to represent them everyone as well c. The first observation which I make here is an unhappy practise which he useth in this place and often in this Book which is to suppose things hard to be found in practicks and by that fallacy to lay a foundation in the Air and then raise an imaginary structure upon it This supposal of his that men are in an absolute liberty is very rarely to be found for all men that are in the world as soon as they are born are Subjects unless we may conceive a man born King of that Country he is in I would fain find out such a possibility where such a number of men fit to make a Commonwealth may be at liberty and I have found out one where it hath been practised I mean that of the Roman Empire when it was broken and ruined many people for fear were driven away to shift for themselves or perhaps oversâ—en or neglected by the Conquerors These men one or other being thus left to themselves their lawful Emperour and his Posterity to whom they should obey being destroyed or altogether unable to give them any support these men are left to shift for themselves A Government they must have or grow wild they conspire in that and then set up many Commonwealths in Italy and those adjacent parts But give me leave to tell Mr. Hobbs that he shall hardly find in any of them existing any pure element of Politie without commixion And I shall tell him more that these Commonwealths having no support but that weak foundation of the peoples Constitution were upon all oâ—casions of tumults which were very often diverted from their first settlement and had new ways of Government establisht in their place I will tell him further that no Supreme in all these was ever called a Representative or a Leviathan And therefore Mr. Hobbs did much amiss to lay this as a foundation for all that light stuff which follows yea of his whole Book and of all Commonwealths which can only be founded upon such an extraordinary occasion neither then in such an absolute manner as he supposeth For never did any of these submit their Religion their Estates or Lives as he would injoyn but had them preserved by Laws SECT II. The Barbarous Murder of King Charles the
over them SECT III. Mr. Hobbs his inconsequences further censured The absurdity and iniquity of his conclusion in this Paragraph which is yet shewed to be other where asserted by him I But saith he And every man may lawfully protect himself if he can with his own Sword which is the condition of war There was never man writ such disjoynted things How can this follow if a King cannot kill an honest man lawfully then he may protect himself lawfully with his own Sword as if it should be because a Supreme may do ill unlawfully therefore I may do ill lawfully But I am sure he hath said more then once That no mon can so divest himself of his own power and right to defend his own life and happy being in it as that he may not deliver himself if he can by killing or doing any thing to any man Against which Propositions I have already spoke heretofore and shewed how men may and have done it so that that wicked conclusion which for the absurdity of it he would have to discountenance the difference betwixt the Government of a conquered and an instituted Nation though not allowed by me is yet approved by him elsewhere which was a main fault in him SECT IV. This Paragraph reserved to its proper place Scripture honoured even by those who approve it not Master Hobbs his inconcludent deductions from the 20th of Exodus censured HE begins the next Paragraph By this iâ— appears that a great family if it be not part of soâ—e Commonwealth is of its self as to the rights of Soveraignty a little Monarchy â— I will question nothing in this Paragraph at this time but let the Reader bear in mind that there is such a thing for which I shall call Mr. Hobbs to an account hereafter In the following Paragraph he labours to bring Scripture for what he hath taught It is an honour to Scripture that it is like Vertue commended even of those that will not follow it But it may be Mr. Hobbs objects it against us who do confide in it and not produceth it to satisfie himself that his Doctrine is consonant to Scripture I will examine this therefore for surely if the Scripture be for him I am also although to me it appears never so erroneous according to mine own reason He begins Let us now consider what the Scripture teacheth in the same point To Moses the Children of Israel say thus Exod. 20. 19. Speak thou to us and we will hear thee but let not God speak to us least we die This is absolute obedience to Moses thus he A strange deduction out of this Text where is no one word of obedience much less of absolute obedience as to a Supreme But I will help what I can Deut. 5. 27. there this self-same business being repeated it is added We will hear it and do it There obedience is mentioned implicitly To understand this therefore consider with me that the Children of Israel having the Law delivered to them by God in such a terrible manner in Mount Sinai with Thunder Lightning Trumpets and the like they were terrified and afraid to have such an immediate converse with God they thought it mortal it being never before seen in the world and therefore they entreated Moses to go betwixt God and them and receive Gods Will from him and deliver it them and they would obey Here is nothing of obedience to Moses but to God only they trusted that Moses would relate Gods Laws to them truly which indeed they had great reason to do If the rest be like this I shall have little trouble with it SECT V. The first of Sam. the 8. 11 12. explained The difference between the right of the King and the right of a King Kings of several Kingdoms may have several rights in the same Country Divers Kings may have different rights as the same Kings may also at several times The genuine signification of these words cited by Mr. Hobbs FOr the right of Kings saith God himself by the mouth of Samuel 1 Sam. 8. 11 12. This shall be the right of the King you will have to raign over you I stop here because I have some things to examine in this particle before I go furâ—her First then consider that it is not said this shall be the right of a King that would have made it Jus Regale and being indeffinite would have constituted it to belong to every King but it shall be the right of your King Many things may be the rights of one Countries King which are not of another yea many things may belong to one King of a Country which did not belong to another King of the same Country yea to the same King at another time I urge this only against him because he urges this place to prove the right of Kings which it doth not do if truly quoted but only the right of a King of Israel and it may be not that neither but only the right of the next King for it is said of the King that shall reign over you in the singular number not in the plural Nay it is most certain that God by whom Kings reign and from whom they have their Authority may give what Authority he pleaseth to one and not to another the Plenipotency of which Commission I shall more fully shew hereafter Well then let it however be granted that this Text is truly produced yet it proves not his conclusion that this is the right of all Kings And now I must blame Mr. Hobbs who professeth obedience to the Supreme Magistrate and the Laws and Customs of this Country and yet here against the Declaration of the Supreme Magistrate the Laws and Customs of this same Country in the urging of this Text which as he interprets it varies from that translation which is approved by the Supreme Magistrate the Laws and Customs of this Nation and is only read in the vulgar Latin our Translation reads it This will be the manner of the King that shall reign over you There is a great difference betwixt this shall be the right and this will be the manner SECT VI. The former Text further illustrated The force of the Hebrew word compared with other places of Scripture Cajetans interpretation censured The distinction of ordinary and extraordinary right improperly used for the clearing of this Text. The word right taken for practise The 17 of Deuteron 14. 16 17 18. verse explained The King to have two Copies of the Law and obliged to keep it Ezek. the 46. 18. explained The former conclusion asserted from the whole Discourse THere is a great dispute amongst Criticks in the Hebrew Tongue what is the true sense of the word Mishpot which is rendred by Mr. Hobbs Right and by our Translators manner or custom but certainly it cannot but be yielded that it is used in both senses But our Translators do very often render it as here so Psalm 19. 132. as thou usest to do
think this consequence is so far from a necessary deduction out of the premises as I conceive the contrary is absolutely true because he is Judge he must take those rules which are prescribed him but not make his rule Consider with me I beseech you Reader that every Judge must be a Judge either in a constituted Commonwealth betwixt men who live in that Polity or else where there is no Commonwealth and where men live only according to the dictates of Nature In the first every Judge hath the National Laws of the Country to be his guide and he must judge according to them and not make Laws of his own head to judge the cause is committed to him For the second he hath the Law of Nature to guide him to that which shall appear most equal according to that rule He who draws a line by a rule doth not make the rule the Judge is such his Decrees are regulated by the Laws according to which he decrees but doth not make those Laws So that although I think it true that a Soveraign is the Supreme Judge and that he hath likewise the Legislative power yet not because he is Judge for these two are distinct faculties appertaining to the same person as will appear more fully hereafter SECT X. The impertinencies of the remaining part of this Paragraph censured Matth. 21. 2 3. not truly cited by Mr. Hobbs His inferences upon this Text retorted upon him The true intention of these words mistaken by Mr. Hobbs and his argument thence invalid THe rest in that Paragraph is such trash as never was read not fit to foul paper with 't is so impertinent In the latter end of it he comes close to his business thus And that the Kings word is sufficient to take any thing from any Subject when there is need and that the King is Judge of that need for he himself as King of the Jews commanded his Disciples to take the Ass and the Asses Colt to carry him into Jerusalem Read the Text Mat. 21. 2 3. The words as he writes them are Go into the Village over against you and you shall find a She-Ass tyed and her Colt with her untye them and bring them to me And if any man ask you what you mean by it say the Lord hath need of them and straightway they will let them go Thus he writes that Text most false in many places But I will consider the matter in hand and stick to his Inferences They will not ask whether his necessity be a sufficient title nor whether he be Judge of that necessity but acquiesce in the will of the Lord. Thus he And I could wish he would acquiesce in the will of the Lord for then he would never have vented so many abominable falshoods as he hath But to my business I first retort this ad hominem be it true or false This argument is not proper from his mouth who page 262. denies that our Saviour had any Kingdom in this world whilst he was in it therefore he did not now send for this Ass by a Kingly right I mean to speak to that in its proper place but now he who denies his Kingdom cannot here justly urge this for a president to Kings I but he will say he spoke that of our Saviours Manhood I reply if he spoke this of him as God it is no president for Kings for undoubtedly God hath reserved cases to himself by which he can and doth dispose of all things in this world how he pleaseth as will be shewed hereafter and not only of things in Kingdoms but of Kingdoms themselves and therefore this instance is no president But then let us consider the fact Our Saviour sent for an Ass and her Colt they were goods belonging to another man and the up-shot of all was when the right owner questioned why they loosed them and they told him it was for the use of the Lord which was the Apostles language concerning Christ he being a person famous for many Miracles and much Piety as that Story will shew the right owner let them go and let them use them and it is most reasonably thought that our Saviour having made use of them in that great Solemnity he was then going about restored them afterwards when it was finished But mark the owner gave way to his use of them he did not take Naboths Vineyard from him without his consent This is a weak way of arguing from an act by the owners consent to prove it lawful against his will if the right owner gives way to another to use his goods there is no fault in it and this proves no more SECT XI Mr. Hobbs his fallacious arguing from Gen. 3. 5. discovered The difference of the case stated in respect of Divine and Humane Power Act. 4. 19. explained Obedience to Humane Power commanded in licitis honestis Mat. 23. verse the 23. illustrated from the former case of S. Peter and S. John Mr. Hobbs his argument from Adams discourse in Paradise not conclusive WE will proceed with him To these places saith he may be added Gen. 3. 5. You shall be like Gods knowing good and evil Let the Reader consider this was the Devils language Then ver 11. Who told thee that thou wast naked Hast thou eaten of the Tree of which I commanded thee thou shouldest not eat A man may justly wonder what he could collect from hence His discourse is unnecessary but the sense is this that our first Parents by an ill gloss of the Devil misinterpreted the command of God which caused Gods displeasure whereby saith he at the bottom of that page it is clearly though Allegorically signified that the commands of them that have the right to command are not by their Subjects to be censured or disputed See the fallacy of this arguing from the infinite power of Gods Wisdom Justice and Equity to the finite power of man betwixt which the difference is evident and so decided in the case of S. Peter and S. John Acts 4. 19. Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more then unto God judge ye The story is this as you may read in the former part of that Chap. ver the 5. their Rulers and Elders Annas and Caiphas convented the Apostles before them and after consultation about the business commanded them in the 18. ver not to speak at all nor teach in the name of the Lord Jesus nay say the Apostles whether it be fitter to obey God or you judge ye It is so clear a case that God who is your Governour more absolutely then you are ours must be obeyed before you that you cannot deny it This will be opposed to his case the difference betwixt obedience to Gods Commands and mens is mighty the one from an infinite Justice and known to be so the other from a finite and known also to be so that of Gods from an infinite power and known to
of holy Scripture together otherwise than is agreeable to reason do what they can to make men think that sanctity and natural reason cannot stand together Give me leave Reader to retort this discourse to his Person who not long since in the 26 Chap. page 149. maketh faith not a duty but a gift of God and saith it is barely an operation of God's as likewise internal sanctity And there put me to the trouble of proving mans concurrence in these acts and I may assuredly affirm that he is there exceeding guilty of what he chargeth ignorant Divines with here viz. incongruous putting places of Scripture together and as much as in him lies to make men believe that sanctity and natural reason canot stand together for if faith be only a gift and no act in the receiver or use of it insomuch as no command can be given concerning that or sanctity as he speaks there certainly natural reason hath nothing to do with it and as there I was forced to prove the concurrence of man in these Heavenly duties so here to justifie his former doctrine I must prove the co-operation of God which he seems to deny Let the Reader put that with this and he shall find the affirmative part true and the negative false in both CHAP. XXIII SECT VII Soveraigns obliged by the positive Laws of God The Laws of Nations The Law Naturals The Royal Laws or Laws of government obligatory to the soveraign The soveraign free from penal Laws A Fourth opinion repugnant to the Nature of a Common-wealth is this That he that hath the soveraign power is subject to the Civil Laws Truly I conceive by this Gentleman that he imagines Soveraigns to be strange things which must be subject to none but the Law of Nature for so he expounds it presently not to the positive Law of God which having by him no assurance that it is such but from the supreme he can no further be obliged by it than he pleaseth And so that Devilish speech of that wicked woman to her imperial Son would be made good Quod libet licet But this term Subject troubles me to find out what he means thereby if he mean not to be guided by it or else he offends without all doubt he ought to be ruled by the positive Law of God and not only by the Natural Law he ought to be ruled that is guided by his own Civil Laws which he hath made or given life unto For how can he expect an observance from others who will not keep his Laws himself But if he means by Subject subject to penalty that cannot be I am confident in a well contrived Common-wealth because all penalty for breach intimates an inferiority and as he rightly speaks aftewards He who punisheth either bodily or with shame or with whatsoever is in that act superior to him who is punished But his dispute is out of his own principles which have been twenty times confuted that is He that is subject to the Law is subject to the Common-wealth that is to the Soveraign representative that is to himself This is a weak argument because he is not the representative of the Common-wealth but the head and rules it One word more there may be Laws in a Common-wealth for Kings and for Subjects he must be guided by these which are the Royal Laws the Laws of governing although not by these which are inferiour and Laws for Subjects he must be allowed those prerogatives which are not fit for Subjects to have But yet he ought to observe the rules of governing This I conceive is enough for what he hath delivered in that Paragraph He begins another thus CHAP. XXIII SECT VIII Propriety derived from the soveraign of soveraigns The quiet enjoyment of Estates The reason according to Mr. Hobbs of the imbodying of men The propriety of the Subjects The foundation of the publick interest It excludes not the prerogative of the soveraign The title of the King of England in many cases decided by the Judges Mr. Hobbs his indulgence to the late usurped power observed AFifth doctrine which tendeth to the dissolution of a Common-wealth is that every private man has an absolute propriety in his goods such as excludeth the right of the soveraign I do not know what he means by this term absolute Certainly both private and publick men have their rights depending upon the Soveraign of Soveraigns and all they have is at his dispose But otherwayes certainly it tends to the dissolution of a Common-wealth to deny an absolute propriety in private men and to affirm that in no Common-wealth a Subject can have such propriety for it being the reason according to his own Philosophy why they imbodied themselves into a Common-wealth that so they might enjoy the fruits of their labours peaceably not only plough and sow peaceably but reap the fruits of that pains they take and call it there own It cannot be denyed that that justly can be denyed them and if it be they are in such a state as they were without the fruits of their vertuous labours It is true in the Eastern Monarchies I read they have not inheritances as they have here but pro termino vitae and then all return to that sea out of which they came but it is otherwise in our European Countryes throught and the Laws of every Nation are justly to be observed but still according to that right which each person hath and this propriety is so naturally dear unto every man as there can be no wiser Laws made for the publick than such as private men shall be bettered by them for then every man will more industriously endeavour the publick good when his private benefit results out of it I but saith he such as excludeth the right of the Soveraign Indeed I think in that he said more rightly than he meant for certainly the Soveraign hath a right of a Soveraign over all his kingdom or dominion nay the propriety of a Soveraign that is his legal propriety over his Subjects is over their estates to determine their Controversies to have dominion over their Persons legally to punish according to his just prerogative But the title of propriety in his estate is belonging to the subject in all such things as are not included in the supremes legal prerogative So that when he has granted Laws which do limit the extent of his power and indulge the vertuous industry of his subjects he cannot justly infringe them and call that his right which he hath condescended not to use And upon this reason with us the Title of the King in many occasions is decided by the Judges in point of Propriety And therefore he did ill in publishing this book in Engliâ—h so that it principally concerns us and at that time when the liberties and proprieties of the Subject were so abominably invaded by the usurped powers as if he would provoke them to out-do themselves and oppress more and more lawfully
than was pretended He proceeds CHAP. XXIII SECT IX The soveraign protects the subject in the enjoyment of that right and Propriety which the Law gives him The rights of soveraignty not of propriety necessary for the performance of the royal Office and protection of subjects Publick necessity justifies the invasion of propriety The partition of the soveraignty among the Optimates not destructive of it according to Mr. Hobbs his own tenents The responsa prudentum of high esteem among all Nations EVery man has indeed a propriety that excludes the right of every other Subject This is granted upon all sides and saith he â—hâ— has it only from the soveraign power without the protection whereof now I am in Page 170. every other man should have equal right to the same This is not truly spoke for the protection of the soveraign doth not make or give right to any thing but enables him to use the same the law gives the right the soveraign protects us in the enjoying that which the Law hath given But I wonder at his meaning in what follows which is But if the right of the Soveraign also be excludâ—d he cannot perform the Office they have put him into That must be understood of the right of the Soveraignty but not of propriety if he be not allowed the prerogatives belonging to soveraignty he cannot protect them but if he be denyed the right of propriety he cannot well destroy them but surely may protect them with his justice and with his power He expounds himself which is to defend them both from forraign Enemies and from the injuries of one another and consequently there is no longer a Common wealth A strange inference unless he have right to their Estates he cannot defend them c. Surely many Soveraigns have defended and do defend their subjects and yet have not propriety to their Estates He who hath a propriety in an estate may use it how he will to his own advantage or content But this Supremes cannot do with their subjects justly there may be a case of extremity where Salus Reipublicae must be suprema lex put the case an Enemy invades the Kingdome the land of some particular subject lyes fit to make a Fort of the King by force takes it for the publick benefit not out of propriety that it belongs to himself but that it belongs to the Common-wealth to whose publick benefit all private interests and proprieties must submit But I may term the right of such accidents to be an universality rather than a propriety the universal right of the Common-wealth not the particular right of one or another That which follows to this purpose receives the same answer In offices of judicature and the like I pass to a sixth Doctrine which he saith is plainly and directly against the essence of a Common-wealth and 't is this that the soveraign power may be divided What he means by division I cannot readily apprehend if he means that it may not be divided into sundry persons then he hath overthrown himself when he constitutes other Government besides Monarchy as Aristocracy and Democracy which are in divers persons but united if he means which he seems to do by his following discourse two several Kings in the same kingdome I think it cannot subsist because of distractions as he intimates but the fountain of the errour I think is not well derived from the Lawyers who saith he endeavour to make the Laws depend upon their own learning and not upon the legislative power Which way this should conduce to the dependance of the Law upon their learning I see not he himself hath discoursed that the responsa prudentum were alwayes in high esteem among the Romans as the opinion of the Judges are amongst us and all men have a great reverence of them in all Nations But these responsa declare what is Law and they will cease to be prudentes when they abuse the Law He begins another Paragraph CHAP. XXIII SECT X. The Paragraph asserted Not the form of Government but the execution of good Laws makes a Nation happy The â—istory of the Grecians and Romans vindicated against Mr. Hobbs Mr. Hobbs his Precepts in his Leviathan much more seductive and encouraging to rebellion than the forementioned Histories The abuse of good things ought not to take away the use of them AND as false doctrine so oftentimes the example of different government in a Neighbouring Nation disposeth men to the alteration of the form already setled In this truly I am of his mind for when men see a neighbour prosper in that kind of life he leads he is apt to pryâ— into the wayes by which he so thrives and then taking the same course hopes to find it as beneficial to himself as it hath proved to the other I approve the discourse throughout and therefore need not transcribe any more But yet would have been glad to have read some way by which this evil being known might be hindred or avoided and truly I can think upon none but by making our selves more industrious than our Neighbours by better rewarding vertue and industry and punishing vice and sloth than they There is scarce that people whose fundamental principles are not such as may make the Kingdom happy under that government if they were used to the best advantage so that it is not the form of Government only but the disposure in that form which felicitates a Nation and so the making and execution of good Laws at home will redress the inconvenience which comes from a Neighbouring Nation He enters upon a new Paragraph And as to rebellion in particular against Monarchy one of the most frequent causes of it is the reading the Books of policie and Histories of the Antient Greeks and Romans I wonder he had not put in the Old Testament likewise but certainly he is out in it for these Books he speaks of do teach Kings and Supremes how to govern and avoid those Rocks upon which their predecessors have been split they teach Subjects to avoid all rebellion the most happy and prosperous of which brings confusion if not destruction to that Nation where they are and very frequently ruine to themselves and their Families who are Ring-leaders in such actions But if books which encourage to rebellion must be laid aside then let Leviathan be buried in silence which I have and shall shew shortly not by example only but precept to justify more rebellion than ever any Author did I but saith he from which that is these books young men and all others as are unprovided of the antidote of solid reason receiving a strong and delightful impression of the great exploits of war atchieved by the conductors of their Armies receive withal a pleasing Idea of all they have done besides I think this may be done and that these excellent stories which relate the gallant and exemplary virtues of many may yea must likewise with them record the vices of
grew not into laws but by the confirmation of Emperours But the consideration of this Paragraph I leave to the Doctors in the Church of Rome whom it principally concerns but not us whose Ecclesiastick Laws are confirmed by the Civil and therefore need not this dispute And yet I can add one clause to confirm his conclusion stronger I think than any he produced which is that dominion is over persons not parts he who hath dominion over the Soul hath dominion over the body which is governed by the Soul and he who hath dominion over the body hath likewise dominion over the Soul without which it cannot act any obedience or disobedience And so I let this alone for the present and come to the next disease which is page 172. CHAP. XXIII SECT XIV M r. Hobbs his reflection upon the Government of England observed and censured his parallel from the diversity of Souls not enforcing The comparison of leavyes of money not rightly applyed to the nutritive faculty The power of conduct not well resembled to the Motive faculty in the soul. IN the midst of that page this disease begins thus Sometimes also in the meer Civil Government there be more than one Soul as when the power of leavying money which is the Nutritive faculty has depended upon a general assembly the power of conduct and command which is the motive faculty on one man and the power of making laws which is the rational faculty on the accidental consent not only of those two but also of a third There he turns his spleen against our Government in England without nameing it but clearly intimating that state and condition which is fundamental to the constitution of our Kingdome I cannot imagine why unless he had a mind to provoke the then present Usurper to be most tyrannical in his Government For certainly this Government as established in Magna Charta at the first was setled with so grave and weighty consideration and such a serious manner of confirmation as never any but the Law of God delivered on Mount Sinai with thunder and such astonishments and in it self so prudent that nothing can reasonably more conduce to the perpetuity of a kingdome But let us see what he saith there is saith he more than one Soul I think it would trouble his Philosophy to answer these Arguments which are brought by those Philosophers who assert there are more in every man as also to prove the contrary But I let that alone there is no enforcing that from this establishment for all these several operations which he speaks of do arise from the same Soul so that the lowest even the giving of money to our King is by his Authority and that power is ensouled as I may speak by him But as he is the Soul by which his subjâ—cts are enabled to leavy such mony for his necessity and the necessities of the kingdome so they are the body which must act by this power he enables them for without his assent they cannot leavy that money from any but their own particular purses this he compares to the Nutritive faculty and indeed not amiss for as that faculty is dispersed throughout the whole man and each part of him wâ—ich doth receive nourishment so these are dispersed throughout the whole kingdome and indeed they in particular and the whole kingdome in general receives nutriment in being protected in prosperity and safety which the Monarch is enabled to do by these supplies But yet he is mistaken in the application when he calls this an act of the nutritive faculty viz. to leavy money that is afterwards an act of the King who makes use of that assistance to that purpose this in the first act of bare leavying mony looks like an act of exhausting or consumption rather than nutrition But as wise nature disposed those contributions which the singular parts sometimes afford the fainting stomach by a return to their advantage afterwards so doth the wisdome of a King make those payrings from the other parts produce their greater happiness and plenty but still observe this is not as if there were many but one Soul All is acted by the supreme power which enables the other to perform what he doth From hence he passeth to the King The power of conduct and command is which is the motive faculty on one man Why he should call this the motive faculty I do not perceive since that is Philosophically seated in the sensitive or animal part but the power of conduct or command must certainly be in the supreme and rational part for where that is it commands and governs the sensitive so that they move or acquiesce according to its conduct But I would he had set down what he means by this faculty and how far he meant it there would tâ—en 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 â—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 coâ—sent not only of those two but also of a third By the third he means the house of Lords and here he understands that these three maâ—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
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 â—his difficulty ariseth from the Opinion that every subjâ—ct hath of a propriety in his lands and goods exclusiv 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 this duty be not a decent way of doing it For first we may consider that few Persons of great estate do know their own estate much less a Monarch of a great kingdom How then can he be able to give a just esteem of every private mans estate to proportion him justly to that service this cannot be done but by such Persons who are universally acquainted with the generality and without an equality upon some legal measure the Tax will be unjust and the execution no doubt worse Secondly as to the making a Tax for such a supply the Commonaltie are necessary for by them the Collection will be more speedy than by any other means and therefore I think it a difficulty which may easily be taken away by letting them see what necessity there is of such an aid I mean not to meddle with these disputes and then no doubt but they will be so prudent in the execution of their trust as to give a proper assistance or else they are mad or worse I will conclude this point with that passage in those incomparable directions which that ever to be honored King CHARLES the First gave his son in his own words which none else can imitate nearly much less match speaking of the Laws of this land which he should govern by saith Which by an admirable temperance give very much to subjects industry liberty and happiness and yet reserve enough to the Majesty and prerogative of any King who ownes his People as subjects not as slaves And I may say who can add any thing to what this most incomparable King hath writ down which is matchless Yea what he speaks afterwards of the shifts Kings are put to and the Comparison Mr. Hobbs makes of this disease to an ague I let pass and do only affirm that such discourses savour of an ill disposition to this government and as I can guess can tend to no good neither then when they were first printed nor afterwards I mean to trouble the Reader no further with his observations of these lesser diseases as he terms them in a Common-wealth but come close to a censure of this which I have formerly