God in his holy Word to reveal to us Rules by which we may know what is his will for us to do in doing which we please him and that he likes us as also what is against his will in doing which we shall anger and offend him and he will punish us although God be not only a general but the first cause which works with and in us yet it is not possible for man to think that God doth in that concurrence determine mans actions to such things which he himself hath declared evil and against his will and which he will punish and therefore it was too bold an Assertion to say That man doth no more or less then he is necessitated by Gods will which is to make no man a sinner for although as he spake God disposeth all things and that disposure must needs be to infinitely good and wise ends even the evils and things against his Rules of goodness yet his disposure orders such men according to their evil actions to suffer not makes them do evil that they may suffer But perhaps he explains this For though men may do many things which God does not command nor is therefore Author of them Nay I will tell him more men may do and many men do many things not only which God hath not commanded but which God hath forbidden and hath commanded they shall not do and surely then he is less Author of them But if a man do an act of advise or counsel of Gods without a Command yet that Gods Counsel is Author of Now these actions which are against Gods Command without doubt he is not Author of if he were he could not justly punish them But I would fain make out his sense which is this he doth not do it by Authority given by God but against it Well then Gods Authority is against evil but his power worketh this evil So he seems to affirm in his following words Yet they can have no passion nor appetite to any thing of which appetite Gods will is not the cause True indeed God is the first general cause but not the second and particular The Sun is an universal cause it shines upon the Earth Trees Plants and is the cause of their fertility but diversly according to the diversity of Constitutions it concurs with so 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 Subjects 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
of it supreme and inferiour the supreme is soveraign the inferiour are subjects but by a common vvealth here he only understands the soveraign But let us proceed vvith him out of the former confuted premisses he dravvs this conclusion I conclude therefore that in all things not contrary to the Moral Law that is to say to the Law of Nature all subjects are bound to obey that for divine Law which is declared to be so by the Laws of the Common-wealth Certainly the Moral Lavv or the Lavv of Nature doth not bid us be baptized or receive the holy Communion nay it doth not command us to make a profession of our faith in Jesus Christ The Law of Nature did not command Daniel Shedrack Meshack and Abednego to refuse the voluptuous meat which Nebuchadnezar allowed them and fed upon pulse and water but the fear that they should break the Law of God by obeying the King I mean the positive Law which God had not writ in their Natures but in Tables so that this conclusion of his was most Heathenish CHAP. XXII SECT XVIII Mr. Hobbs his further reasons to prove the former assertions examined and censured His diminution of the authority of the divine positive Law and constant vilifying of scripture censured The Law of Nature restrained by the divine positive Law Obedience in Religious dutyes not founded in the command of the soveraign but of God The perswasion of the Turks that the Alcoran contains the Law of God not the command of the Grand Signiour causes their conformity to it The difference betwen the commands and acts of Christian Princes and their subjects from those of other Religions All other Societies as that of Theeves illegitimate combinations Mr. Hobbs his doctrine abhorrent to Christianity BUT he labours further to prove it Which also saith he is evident to any mans reason for whatsoever is not against the Law of Nature may be made Law in the Name of them that have the Soveraign power and there is no reason men should be the less obliged by it when it is propounded in the Name of God I answer that whatsoever is not against the Law of Nature may be made Law by God i. e. his 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 page 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 actings 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 controul it 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
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 prudentûm 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 he 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 excluded 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 history 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 pry 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
put out these Papers now and not before My Answer is That about three years past when I came up to the Parliament I brought up a rough draught of either all or most of these sheets thinking at leisure time in the intervals of business I might smooth them over but then I was informed that he was about such a work himself to câ—rrect his own Errours which I should have been most glad to have seen O Mr Hobbs if this comes to your hands give me leave to tell yâ—u that would be a glorious work and let me say to you as the Philosopher did to him who blushed coming out of a Tavern Blush not to come out but going in Humanum est errare but perseverare Nay I may say it is the most glorious work of a Christian to repent every man may erre but none but a pious man can repent I would to God you would do it and do but consider how you oppose in your Opinions the whole Catholique Church in many things which never Christian man did before you You write as if your Leviathan were the Bâ—ok in which the Rosiecrusians in their Fama speak of which should be able to instruct men sufficiently in all things both Theological and Philosophical were all the books in the world lost besides and a Pythagorean ipse dixit might suffice for your Scholar But good Sir think that there have been wise men in Philosophy in Policy in Divinity before your book was writ yea before you were born or thought of doing this great work your self and save me the labour of tiring my old decrepid Age with such unhappy cnotentions which else at such leisures as I can snatch from my greater duties I shall be writing to some other misconceipts of yours Reader I intreat you to forgive this diversion to Mr. Hobbs and further only know that I have taken care that his words should be put down strictly in a diverse Letter and I desire this may be printed in Quarto to be joyn'd by them who have the other to my first Piece and then I have done who am From my House at Brecnock March 12. 1673. Your Brother in Jesus Christ Will St. David Maii 16. 1671. Imprimatur iste Tractatus a Reverendo Confratre nostro Gulielmo Domino Episc Manevensi elucubratus Humfr. London A SECOND PART OF Observations Censures and Confutations OF DIVERS ERRORS IN Mr. 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 for 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 acknowledg 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 Authority 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. 81. 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 Eminently 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 boast 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
true but I do not approve what follows It is therefore in vain to grant Soveraignty by precedent Covenant to grant a Covenant in the Institution of Soveraignty is most right to wit that he will Govern his People Legally and Justly or the like without doing of which no person is fit to be Soveraign but to Covenant to lose his Soveraignty if he do otherwise which he seems to understand generally by this word Covenant is absolutely naught and unfit because it must needs produce Confusions and Distractions in the Government for the People upon any hardship they suffer though never so just will repine against their Superiours and blame them and upon any surmise of faultiness in them would be ready upon such pretence to desire and endeavour a Change of Government be it Monarchical or Aristocratical SECT II. The Impiety of Mr. Hobbs his assertion that Covenants have no force but from the Vindicative Power of the Sword Discovered THen what follows is wicked in my Judgment The opinion that any Monarch receiveth his Power by Covenant that is upon Condition proceedeth from want of understanding this easie truth That Covenants being but words and breath have no force to oblige contain or protect any man but what it hath from the Publick Sword that is from the united hands of that man or assembly of men that hath the Soveraignty and whose actions are avowed by them all and performed by the strength of them all in him united This speech hath some semblance of truth with it if he had confuted the World into Atheisme who think there is no God noe reward or punishment hereafter and perhaps it might find some entertainment amongst men given over to base sensuality fordid worldly people who have no sense of honour or vertue because such men value no contract which consists not with their unhappy Condition but with men which believe there is a God who governs heaven and earth and will judge all one day which sure the generality of men do with men that have felt any sting of Conscience and have felt the happiness of nil conscire tibi this breath of theirs hath such power with God that in things of such high nature as this is what they covenant on earth is confirmed in heaven and is so esteemed by them and because it is so esteemed millions of men do and have thought it better for them to forsake all worldly felicity then to violate such Covenants and by preserving them Kings and their Kingdoms have lived in peace and prosperity 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 but 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 if 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 foolery 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. Hobbs 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 is 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
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 Den. 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. Hobbs 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 Darius alone had done and they had had no interest in this Legislation he who had made it might have recalled it of himself when he discovered the mischief which it produced but it is said that he strove and laboured to have saved him but those Princes who it seems 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 seems 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 consider with me that the people must be governed as best suits 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 Democracy The Fastern 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 Yoak 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 Aristotle writes of Theopompus and out of him other later Writers that he being King of the Lacedemonians first set up the Ephori 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 Lacedemonians 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 I. 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
when it shall be observed that they who are conquered are gained to a liking of the customes and manners of their Conquerors and that mutually their good is beneficial one to the other then it is wisdom in a Conqueror to put them in a parity of condition but at the first subduing any Nation Regni novitas will enforce some severity though perhaps afterwards Tros Tyriusque mihi nullo discrimine agetur they are grown one and ought to be so governed I but saith he that were ignorance of government I say no but great wisdom to put a difference betwixt a forced obedience and that out of duty betwixt them who are of a known and others of a doubtful fidelity But he gives a reason for what he writes for saith he he is absolutely over both alike Let that be granted yet amongst his true and natural subjects he may justly and prudently dispence his favours and displeasures variously according to their differing merits and demerits or other prudential rules amongst which this is one not too far to trust a newly reconciled Enemy and much less an Enemy newly conquered SECT II. Servitude not equally absolute in a civil or setled Government as in despotical The right of servitude antiquated among Christians SEcondly that supposal may be denied that he is equally absolute over both he governs one despotically as servants or captives which are taken in the War and the other civilly and this is Aristotles distinction and received with applause by all latter Writers till we come to Mr. Hobbs the one are governed like slaves the other like subjects or else saith he there is no Soveraignty at all Away with such a hateful speech odious to all Nations No Soveraignty but arbitrary No subjection but slavish or servile Certainly no society of men can abide such language Look amongst Christian Kingdoms and we shall find servitude I think banished every where by the universal consent of all Nations who have received the Doctrine of Christianity Those we call servants indeed are free at least not such servants as he and I have discoursed of yet they are subjects to their Masters and they have dominion over them but not such as a Conqueror hath over a vanquished man nay Kings themselves nor can any other Supreme take away by right an innocent mans life and yet they are Soveraigns and have not absolute power 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 it appears that a great family if it be not part of some Commonwealth is of its self as to the rights of Soveraignty a little Monarchy 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 further 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
Oxe or Ass from him or defrauded or oppressed any man and at the fourth verse they acquit him So that for men thus to reject the Government of God by such a pious and excellent person as was Samuel for some discontents and rebellious humors which were in their fancies and exchange him for they knew not whom was such an unpardonable fault that God threatned by Samuel that he would not hear their cryes when they clamoured out for these evils which not their folly only but impiety had brought upon them So that methinks there can be no inference deduced here to shew the justness or right of this exorbitant power which he pretends to in this word absolute He hath the power of Judicature but that power is to determine what is right and to whom the Vineyard belongs but not to take it to himself He hath the power of the Militia to fight with the Enemy nay he may by it force and rightly ought to use that power to force men to render to every man their own but he cannot rightly take away any mans estate from him otherwise then the Law directs and he who saith he can do it to others if he felt such unjustness done to himself would quickly learn that Lesson that it is excellent Justice that Artifex necis arte periret sua then he would abhor his own Doctrine This was well fitted for the sequestrations and seisures which were made of mens estates when he wrote this Book for them SECT IX Solomon's Prayer 1 Kings 3.9 explained Master Hobbs his Logick desired in his deductions from this Text. Judges must govern or determine according to Law BUt Mr Hobbs hath Scripture out of Solomon's Prayer 1 Kings 3.9 Give to thy Servant understanding to judge thy people and to discern betwixt good and evil saith he therefore it belongeth to the Soveraign to be Judge and to prescribe the rules of discerning good and evil which Rules are Laws and therefore in him is the Legislative Power I could question his place of Scripture if I were given to wrangle for in terminis he cannot shew it there but there is the sense I let it therefore alone but consider his Logick He saith Because he is to be Judge and to prescribe the Rules of discerning betwixt good and evil which Rules are Laws For my part I 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 that 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
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 safe 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 eighth 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 Titius who is brought before him and accused of this crime the legislative determins and judgeth that it is evil in general but the Judge upon his Bench determines that this person is guilty of this evil in neither of which a private man hath right to pass a conclusive sentence concerning other men But yet give me leave to tell the Reader that in both these he hath judicium rationis a rational sentence in his own thoughts as thus before a Law is made he judgeth that this would be fit to be made and so may discretely interpose with the legislative power to advise them to act according to those reasons which appear to him as perswasive for else the Legislator will lack that great assistance which he may receive from the premonitions of prudent men who many times although they are not lifted up to the dignity of such as sit at the Helm yet have either by study or experience equal abilities with them And in the second viz. the application when a private man shall stand by at the pleading or hearing a cause he perceiving that the Judge carries himself partially to one side and doth pass his sentence accordingly this private man cannot chuse but judge in his Soul that this was a wicked sentence As contrarily when it is justly carried with indifference he may judge with himself that this was a righteous judgment But the intruding into the Office of a Judg is altogether unfit without a special deputation to it But since God hath pleased to give man that most excellent faculty of ratiocination both in Natural and Political affairs he shall desert humanity who should deny himself the exercise of that ability Nay he may indeavour if he can to avert that execution of that sentence when it is wickedly pronounced as was the case of Daniel in the unrighteous sentence decreed upon Susanna but still not to usurp a judicatory power without lawful authority But even in these cases there must be left judicium rationis and discretionis a power of reason and judicial discretion to think upon and consider what is right but he seems to deny that truth concerning the private actions of that particular man whether it shall be good to do this or that for so he proceeds CHAP. XXIII SECT II. The former assertion of private ratiocination further cleared in Acts commanded against the Law of Nature or the positive Laws of God Mr. Hobbs his argument retorted against himself THis is true saith he in the condition of meer Nature where there are no civil Laws and also under civil government in such cases as are not determined by the Law Consider now Reader that by the Law he understands here the civil Law Consider then that the Laws of any Nation may be against the Law of Nature in which case he himself hath limited the power of civil Laws A man is commanded by the National Law to act against the Law of Nature shall not this private man judge it unfit for him to do that And without question in many particulars the positive Law of God in Scripture is as clear to many men as that Law written in mens hearts and therefore in such cases there is no doubt but as God hath imparted to men the power of reasoning so he hath given men Laws by which they should regulate themselves according to his directions they must and ought to use that reason in the guidance of their actions by his rules But then concerning the civil Laws themselves a man may judge in private of them whether they are prudential or no yea every man who is versed in Politicks will judg and think so of them and sometimes judge they are not prudent and yet give no disturbance to the peace of the Kingdome but think it more prudent to be subject to an imprudent Law than for it to hinder the end of all Laws which is the peace and quiet of the Kingdom But now consider further Turpe est doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum He hath writ a book of Politie he hath censured all the civil Laws in the World he is a private man and hath I believe no legislative power why should he take upon him to forbid others to act that which he himself doth in that very place where he forbids them And yet give me leave to add one Note more this judging he speaks of must be about his Actions in the future whether what he is about to do will be a good or an evil action Is it possible for a man to live honestly and not to judge of such actions wherein there is any scruple whether they are good or evil Suppose the civil law as he would have it were the only rule to walk by yet every private man must
to a supposititious disease The learning of the Grecians and Romanes again vindicated Mr. Hobbs his opinion of the necessity of forbidding the use of the Greek and Roman Authors no where to be found but in Julian the Apostate IN summe I cannot imagine how any thing can be more prejudicial to a Monarchy than the allowing of such Books to be publickly read without presently applying such corrctives of discreet Masters as are fit to take away their venome Here he sets down a monstrous disease and applyes an impossible salve that is that our Grammar Schools where these books are taught should be supplyed throughout this large kingdome with men of Mr. Hobbs his sufficiency for I think none else would serve his turn none else having discovered this fault in these books and yet in all the World who are delighted with learning these books are taught in the initiation of scholars both Christian and others Only I remember Julian the Apostate made a Law by which he thought to have gotten as much ground upon Christianity as by any that he ever made which was that no Christian should read any humanity-books nor have them read to them Mr. Hobbs should have been his Chaplain What follows in that Paragraph is nothing but a comparing this disease in a common-wealth with the biting of a mad Dog in an humane body which I willingly enough assent unto and so let it pass and move to the next Pargraph which begins thus CHAP. XXIII SECT XIII This Paragraph of Mr. Hobbs when the powers are made contra-distinct and opposite to one another affirmed from the Primitive practices The decrees of the antient Councils not passed into Laws till they were confirmed by the Emperour The Authors reason of this truth superadded AS there have been Doctors that hold there be three Souls in a man so there be also that think there be more Souls that is more soveraigns than one in a Common-wealth and set up a supremacy against the soveraignty Canons against Laws and a Ghostly Authority against the Civil Certainly this word against makes this faulty and therefore we shall find that in the primitive times decrees of Councils themselves 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 Mr. 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 subjects 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 which 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 then
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 tâ—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