another man because that constitution doth not restrain the right of nature and the right of nature impowers every man to act any thing which shall appear to him for his particular advantage by his Book I shall treat no more of this now CHAP. XX. SECT VIII Mr. Hobbs his contradictions discovered and censured His conclusions tending to disloyalty I Will step to the next paragraph but first consider that in the beginning of this I last discoursed about he saith The consent of a subject to soveraigne power is contained in these words I authorise and take upon me all his actions Now in this he saith No man is bound by the words themselves either to kill himself or any other man and consequently the obligation a man may sometimes have upon the command of the Soveraign to execute any dangerous or dishonourable affair dependeth not upon the words of our submission but on the intention which is to be understood by the end thereof Mark Reader how immediately he contradicts himself first his consent is contained in these words c. Secondly it is not contained in the words but in the intention which is to be understood by the end thereof He indeed put them both together in the preceding page towards the bottom of that page and there you may find him telling what the end is Namely the peace of the subjects within themselves and their defence against a common enemy Now then since he gives the subject this latitude of interpreting the commands of his soveraign it is not credible that he will judge his own ruine or hurt or that of his Father Wife Children dear Friends shall conduce to the peace of the subjects within themselves so that there then he hath safe refuge for mischiefe by right and he may refuse to obey upon such grounds as he speaks and do it rightly CHAP. XXI Liberty given to criminals to assist one another against the sword of justice the greatest incentive to the late rebellion The murther of Charles the first legitimated by Mr. Hobbs his conclusions I Wish my self at an end of this but his gross errors make me stop at more particulars than I intended Look down towards the conclusion of this page you shall find that at the beginning of that paragraph he concluded it unjust in the defence of another man to resist the sword of the Common-wealth But saith he in case a great many men together have already resisted the soveraign power unjustly or committed some capital crime for which every one of them expecteth death whether have they not the libertie then to joyne together and assist and defend one another Certainly they have for they but defend their lives which the guilty may as well do as the innocent Let the Reader consider here what a justification this was of those men who bore unjust armes at that time when he writ this book in English It is true he allows the first rising to be unjust but all that damnable prosecution of that war even that act which I never think upon but with horror the murther of king Charles the first was lawful by him for when they had drawn their swords in rebellion their lives were forfeited and then all the future prosecution was just because in defence of their lives I but page 113. where I am at the bottom of that paragraph he gives a fair pretence for what he speaks which is The offer of pardon taketh from them to whom it is offered the plea of self defence and maketh their perseverance in assisting or defending the rest unlawful A goodly piece of nicetie if a soveraign do not give his subjects pardon for their rebellion they may continue on and only the first act is unjust all other murthers rapines iniquities of men are not to be reckoned in the catalogue of unjust actions as if one sin preceding which causeth the following might also justifie them and for offering pardon he knows they have answered that that cannot serve them as long as there is power in the offended partie to make his revenge and justifie his proceeding against them and unless they take away that there is no security for them These things I thought to have passed by but being so abominable it was necessary to lay hold upon them at the least with this animadversion And now I pass over twenty more and leap to his 26. Chap. 148. CHAP. XXII SECT I. Mr. Hobs his endeavour to render the Christian religion suspected Of the assurance we have of revelations The difference of assurance from the object from the acts Assurance from science from opinion from faith The assurance of faith greater than that of science The assurance we have of the truth of Christian religion by divine revelation from the things themselves revealed from the manner of their delivery and the persons who delivered them to us The particulars of the creation described by Moses not possible to be known without divine revelation An argument from reason to confirm the former assertion WHich Chap. is entitled of Civil laws but treats of all laws and divers distinctions of them but in this page about the middle of the page he enters into a discourse of divine positive laws which he distinguisheth from natural laws that the one are eternal I will cavil at nothing that is he means always consisting with men to whom they are given the other had a beginning the one are universal to all men that have humane nature but he saith the positive are instituted in time and to particular persons or nations and declared for such by those whom God hath authorised to declare them But saith he this authority of man to declare what be these positive laws of God how can it be known God may command a man by a supernatural way to deliver laws to other men But because it is of the essence of laws that he who is to be obliged be assured of the authority of him that declareth it which we cannot naturally take notice to be from God I transcribe all this because the reader by it should understand from what ground he raiseth two questions which he answering unchristianly will require a better satisfaction from my pen. The questions are these How can a man without supernatural revelation be assured of the revelation received by the declarer and how can he be bound to obey them Two noble questions to be disputed against heathens and because upon all occasions he takes advantage to make himself seem such whether he be or no God knows I shall endeavour to refute him But withall give the reader this caution that throughout his Book he violently forceth himself to such disputes as may render Christian religion suspected as if he had an ambition to make this Bable shall I say or impious treatise of his to be authentick for what necessity had he here to raise those doubts It had been enough for him and his whole design to shew that the
by him His manifest declension of the divine positive Law and imposure of humane Laws in opposition to them censured The Law of Nature commands obedience to the positive law of God The pretensions of all Nations to divine institution observed ANd here I thought to have knocked off with the satisfaction of the first Quaerie but as I said before he made two enquiries the first concerning the assurance of these revelations I have spoke to that The second is how a man can be bound to obey the Laws so revealed This he saith is not so hard for if the Laws declared be not against the Law of Nature which is undoubtedly Gods Law and he undertake to obey it he is bound by his own act Thus far Mr. Hobbs but indeed he utters in my judgment a most obscure doctrine â—r if clear he speaks very weakly 'T is obscure for although the Law of Nature do oblige yet it is not apparent to every man what this Law of Nature is no not to learned men for in many cases it is disputed vvhether such or such actions are according to the Lavv of Nature or no And therefore although the major proposition be unquestionably true that the Lavv of Nature is instituted by God yet the assuming of a Minor to it this is the Lavv of Nature may be full of dispute and from thence it vvill be hard to conclude Again consider that vvhen the question vvas put in the former page it vvas concerning the obedience to the revealed lavvs of God hovv a man may be bound to obey them of vvhich he affirmed that vve could have no assurance and that I have immediately before refuted but novv his vvhole discourse runs upon mans obedience to humane Lavvs Thus the Notion and Conceipt shuffled and changed a Reader is distracted and vvhilst he finds something seemingly proved he thinks the undertaken proposition is clear for vvhere hath he satisfied yea but seemingly this Question How a man can be bound to obey the Revelations But saith he if he undertake to obey a Law which is not against the Law of Nature he is bound by his own Act. That is that Act by vvhich he saith rather than thinks he instituted a supreme and that Act only reflects upon humane Lavvs established by the supreme vvhich he instituted But I do not finde this expressed there in that latitude he novv formes it but rather I thought that he vvould have supposed that the supreme should be obeyed in such things as cross not the Lavv of God vvhatsoever either natural or positive but it seems novv he must be obeyed in all vvhich is not against the Lavv of Nature onely he vvould have the Scriptures and positive Lavvs laid aside By this if a King shall command us not to be baptized not to receive the Communion or like Darius not to pray to God for a certain time not to repent c. vvhich are not acts of the Lavv of Nature but positive Lavvs vve should not doe them vvhich must needs be most odious to any Christian man But indeed had not Mr. Hobbs distinguished these tvvo the positive and natural Lavvs of God before in the former page and raised these doubts to disgrace the positive laws of God I could have answered that there is no Law more Natural than that we should obey the positive Laws of God for he being the supreme power must needs have that authority to make Laws for the government of men and this is universally received All Nations in the World pretend to have divine Laws for their direction I mean positive divine Laws onely Mr. Hobbs denyeth it clearly in this place Let us examine what follows CHAP. XXII SECT XIII Obedience founded upon the belief or acknowledgment of his power that commands Mr. Hobbs his complacency in quarrelling with Religion The want of reason in his proofs discovered and censured Faith commanded by God urged by promissory and penal Laws The dreadful punishment of such as believe not or disturb other mens belief with frivolous arguments God the searcher of hearts and punisher of evil thoughts contrary to Mr. Hobbs his Doctrine HE is bound saith he to obey it but not bound to believe it A strange proposition for take his particle i how you please for obedience to divine or humane Laws he can be bound to obey none when he hath no belief for he cannot have an obligation to divine Laws unless he believe they are given by God nor can he perform obedience to humane Laws unless he have a belief that they are made by the supreme power So that obedience in all kinds supposeth a belief of that authority which commands But again consider what he means by this word belief He is bound to obey but not to believe Certainly as I said he must believe the authority that commands and 't is as true that he must believe that that authority commands this Act or else he can have no ground for his obedience This man had a mind to be quarrelling at Religion but could not find expressions to do it But he proves his conclusion for saith he Mens belief and interiour cogitations are not subject to the commands but only to the operation of God ordinary or extraordinary The vainest and weakest Argument that ever was urged First in Logick it cannot follow because they are subject to the operations of God they therefore are not subject to commands as Charity and all the restraint of exorbitant lusts are subject to his operations are they not therefore subject to commands This is a pitiful inference but then consider further that faith and the cogitations of men are commanded by God that faith is commanded first Heb. 11.6 Without faith it is impossible to please God for he that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them who diligently seek him Now it is necessary that he who requires us to come must in that exaction require such things as are necessary to obtain it and therefore faith without which Heaven cannot be attained And God hath given a blessed promissory Law that he will bless such as do believe and penal also that he will punish such as do not believe For the first John 3.15 16. Whosoever believeth in him that is in Christ should not perish but have eternal life The same is added in the 16 verse God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life Here is a Law made concerning happiness an eternal Law concerning an eternal life all terms indefinite The same is repeated in the 18 verse of the same Chap. but with the addition of the penal Law He that believeth not is condemned already As likewse our Saviour Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned and this is no more but a promise performed by God which was made
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
any thing in the world And therefore faith and the means of getting faith which is most ordinately by hearing and no doubt but reading likewise which are the means by which men may be acquainted with the will of God so likewise hearing comes by those accidents as he speaks rightly which guide us into the presence of them that speak to us What can be deduced out of this but that a man using such means as hearing and such accidents as bring him into that presence God blesseth them and pours into them those graces which enable them with faith and sanctification I but saith he which accidents are all contrived by God Almighty and yet are not supernatural but only for the great number of them that concurr to every effect unobservable All this is nothing to the purpose that is to prove that faith and sanctity are not infused for whether God contrives those means or man which beget faith or whether those means which bring us to hearing be natural or supernatural yet God blesseth them our eyes are natural which see it our ears are natural which hear those things which bring us to faith and sanctity yea our understanding is natural which apprehends them but God blesseth both the one and the other as his holy will hath appointed with supernatural graces He goes on Faith and Sanctity are indeed not very frequent Let that be granted but yet they are not Miracles And that is true likewise for Miracles as they are supernatural so they are things beyond the ordinate and set way of Gods working which these holy operations of his are not but most congruous to his set and prescribed way of acting them upon such productions according to his Covenants He proceeds but are brought to pass by education discipline correction and other natural wayes by which God worketh them in his elect at such time as he thinketh fit It is true and yet these are wayes of Gods prescribing and which he blesseth therefore he adds And these three Opinions pernicious to Peace and Government have in this part of the World proceeded chiefly from the Tongues and Pens of unlearned divines who joyning the words 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 cannot 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 Natural 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 A Fifth 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
of this regard that he is the Nobler Sex and why not He is so undoubtedly for although it may happen out in particulars that the Woman may be more prudent or strong then her Husband yet certainly the generality is not so and the rules of governing and obeying are not to be taken from a few particular instances but the common condition of the Sexes Servants may be wiser or stronger then their Masters Subjects then their Kings children then their Parents yet these sacred Laws of governing and obeying must not be varied for such few particular instances SECT IV. The brawling of Man and Wife improperly called war War only between Nations VVisdom not strength enable to Government VVives submit to their Husbands by the Law of God under the first and second Adam St. Pauls Argument from the Law of Nature explained WHat he saith that this cause must be determined by war is ill expressed For first the contention betwixt man and wife cannot properly be called war but brawling or fighting at the worst War is betwixt Nations in the genuine signification I remember Aelian tells a story of the Sacae that when a Man and a Maid married they were to fight at the first and he or she that conquered was afterwards served by the other for the term of their lives This was a pretty gambal whether true or false it is not much material I read it only in him but surely a most unreasonable practice Is the power of Government proper to strength or wisdom Can any man think that a Bull or a Horse is fitter to govern a man then he them because they are of more strength though he have more wisdom But surely for us that are Christians there is no need to fly to such poor little instances or customs or the accidental prudence or strength of the woman if she have more wit let her use it to the gaining and winning him to vertue if she have more strength let her use it to the assistance of her Husbands weakness by that means her excellencies will be imployed to their right uses she shall be a helper to him not a Ruler over him I need not here repeat what of late I delivered concerning this Doctrine out of Gen. 3. But that Gods Command is clear to this purpose not only in Adam but those that are descended from the second Adam consider what S. Paul writes in the fifth to the Ephesians v. 22. Wives submit your selves to your own Husbands as unto the Lord. But methinks Mr. Hobbs should answer to this that this is only a positive Law yet I can reply to that that it is universal or what is equivalent indefinite and comprehends all wives But then go further and read the Apostles Argument in the following verse For the Husband is the Head of the Wife even as Christ is the Head of the Church Thus the Apostle argues from the Law of Nature First that by the Law of Nature the rest of the body submits to the Head so must Wives do to their own Husbands Then this is exemplified from Christianity in the manner of his Headship such a Head as Christ is over his Church which I hope no Christian will say but that it must submit to and be governed by him And I hope both Nature Gods Law and Christian duty may be sufficient to determine this controversie without war And I may add that since all Nations have consented to it sure we ought not now to demur upon the case because Mr. Hobbs interposeth his Authority with little or no reason SECT V. This Paragraph contrary to Mr. Hobbs his principles and the supposed institution of a Commonwealth but yet most true not from Mr. Hobbs his reason but the Law of God Fathers of Families have the disposition of their Families The invalidity of Mr. Hobbs his reasons His example of the Amazons inconcludent HE proceeds In Commonwealths this controversie is decided by the Civil Law and for the most part but not always the sentence is in favour of the Father because for the most part Commonwealths have been erected by the Fathers not by the Mothers of Families Now I am come to page â—03 but I would fain know how the Fathers rather then the Mothers should come to be Erectors of Commonwealths Certainly if Commonwealths were instituted as he feigns by the general suffrage of all who had interest in the Government then women as well as men Mothers as well as Fathers had the management of that business for they have their interest in the publick constitution as well as men But he hath let fall an excellent truth which is clear against the whole Body of his Politicks which is that the Fathers of Families not the Rabble were the Erectors of Commonwealths For if they did as I am confident with him here they did then his former discourse which is built upon the institution of a Commonwealth by the universal consent of all who have interest in it must fail for not the Fathers and Mothers only but even the meanest child or servant may challenge their shares in it And certainly the Fathers of Families could not be the Erectors of Commonwealths but only out of this regard that they were the chief in their Families and by that reason had right to dispose of himself and them And here let the Reader consider that Mr. Hobbs never remembers that great Authority given by God to Moses which regulated him and his Posterity many Generations nor the confirmation that Law laid from our Saviour in the New Testament which are obligatory to us in all Ages He only clouds the truth with this pittiful poor reason or rather shew of reason only that men were the Law-makers and they were partial to their own Sex No Master Hobbs God was the Law-maker who is no accepter of persons or Sexes but in an infinitely wise manner disposeth all things in the best and surest method that may be according to his most just Laws But because he said but not always that is that the Fathers of Families were not always the Erectors of Commonwealths intimating that some Commonwealths were erected by the Mothers of Families I should thank him or any man else who can shew me any such in the world It may be he will fly to that beggerly instance which he gives presently of the Amazons but let it suffice for them if there were any such that they were Widdows or single Women not united in Marriage and so not subject to Husbands and therefore were free to dispose of themselves as they pleased and might have made what just Laws they thought fit for their condition but if they were joyned in marriage to Husbands they must then submâ—t to that yoak and be governed in their domestick affairs according to his discipline The dispute is here betwixt Husband and Wife not betwixt man and woman Wives must submit to their own Husbands not every woman to every man SECT VI. Mr.
judge whether this or that act which he is about to undertake be according to that rule or no. And perhaps he may in many cases find work enough for all the wit he hath to regulate himself according to that rule and although he calls this the poyson of a Common-wealth yet I dare boldly say it is that bread which doth most wholesomly nourish support and maintain a Common-wealth viz. that every man should consider and judge what is legal and fit for him to do Let us go on with him CHAP. XXIII SECT III. Of the rule of Actions The Law of Nature the measure of humane Actions in opposition to the Civil Laws where the case is contradistinct Instances of Civil Laws commanding unjust things If the Civil Law command any thing against the Divine Law or the principles of Faith and Reason Mr. Hobbs his arrogancy in venting principles contrary to the received opinion of the whole World noted and censured The case stated and determined Good Men obedient to bad Laws not in acting according to them but by suffering the penalties inflicted by them BVt saith he otherwise it is manifest that the measure of good and evil actions is the Civil Law and the Judge the Legislator who is alwaies representative of the Common-wealth Here are two Propositions I shall handle them apart they are both indiscreet and very impertinent to the Question The first is that the Civil Law is the measure of our Actions the measure is indefinite without any limitation what not the Law of Nature shall not that be a measure How shall a man be able to commit Treason then se defendendo against the Civil Law which is one of his popular Aphorisms delivered in many places of this Book for if the Civil Law be the measure of his actions he must not violate that for the pretence of the Law of Nature I urge this ad hominem as an invincible argument against his wicked doctrine but see it overthrown out of most received principles It is possible that the Civil Laws may be wicked and dishonest and so against the Law of God as even in this Nation they have made sacrilegious Laws shall not I judge in my self whether it be fit for me to act according to these Laws The Law made in Queen Maries days which shed so much innocent blood it was fit for every man in that time to suffer rather than to conspire with them And therefore he must be judge himself what is vertuous for him to do and that Law is not a rule to guide him safely by Let this suffice for the first proposition The second is And the Judge is the legislator who is alwaies representative of the Common-wealth What an impossible Judge for such doubts is here delivered Make the legislator what you will King or Senate or what you please The question to be determined may be whether it is fit for Titius at this hour or instant to act according to this Civil law concerning which the scruple ariseth whether it be not against the Divine law the duty is instant now required It is not possible for this man to obtain leave to enquire of the legislator or if he could is it not probable that the legislator may not be at leisure to answer such doubts It cannot be therefore that the legislator can be a proper Judge of such questions Titius alone must do it himself neither indeed is it possible for any legislator to foresee all such particular scruples which may arise out of general rules and therefore there is a necessity for every man to be judge of good and evil concerning his own particular actions what he should do But he reduceth great mishaps and ill consequences which follow upon this doctrine which must be examined From this false doctrine saith he men are disposed to debate with themselves and dispute the commands of the Common-wealth And why not good Reader There is no man that hath reason with him when he studyeth a Law-book or indeed any other besides the holy Scripture but he considers whether that law or discourse be agreeing to the principles of Faith and Reason whether it be consonant with equity if a man have not his judgement free to himself how comes is about that Mr. Hobbs hopes to prevail with his discourse against all the laws in the Christian World but that he himself thinks there is a freedome of judgement left amongst men to determine by their reason what is good or evil But then he adds And afterwards to obey or disobey them as in their private judgment they shall think fit whereby the Common-wealth is distracted and weakned Certainly every man living will obey or disobey as he thinks fit and this is done by vertuous and good men without distracting or weakning the Common-wealth For if a vertuous man find the Civil law contradicting Gods law either in Nature or Scripture he cannot think it good moraliter for him to act according to its direction But his opposing of an established law shall be with submission to the penalty not contending martially against it for the accommodation of this present contented being which is his doctrine and by this means the Common-wealth will suffer no distraction but rather confirmation and establishment when a mans private evil shall be patiently endured rather than the peace of a kingdom shall be disquieted I speak no more of this because the sence is much the same with that doctrine which he censured next and condemns CHAP. XXIII SECT IV. Mr. Hobbs his proposition everted Conscience defined and distinguished Of conclusions secondarily or remotely deduced from the first principles No conscience properly and strictly erroneous but being such according to the vulgar acception of the phrase however obliges The case put upon the misinterpretation of Scripture supposed to prohibite swearing though for the confirmation of a truth and the error asserted to be obliging Two objections answered and the proposition fully cleared our Saviours command of not swearing at all examined and elucidated Of promissory or assertory Oaths The paragraph and question concluded ANother Doctrine repugnant to Civil Society is That whatsoever a man doth against his Conscience is sin and it dependeth on the presumption of making himself Judge of good and evil Certainly the proposition is true whatsoever a man doth against his Conscience is sin for Conscience includes in its Name and Nature Science so that there can be no Conscience without there be a knowledg of the condition and circumstances to which his Conscience is applyed I would be loth to involve my self into many intricate Questions But intreat the Reader to consider that Conscience is the conclusion of a practical Syllogisme in which the Major is either the Act of a principal law of Nature or some general rule equivalent to it To understand this observe that there are two innate qualities in man which the Philosophers call Habitus Principiorum habits of principles which do
assurance he hath of his being born at Malmsbury cap. 22. sect 1. 148. The Authors opinion of his Book c. 23. s 18. 235. Honour Titles thereof conferred by the Soveraign cap. 12 sect 4. 46. Husband the head of the VVife cap. 16 sect 4. 68. Hyperbolus banished cap. 20 sect 5. 141. I Jephthas Vow cap. 20. sect 2. 129. Jews witnesses of the old Testament cap. 22. sect 2. 152. their Government ceased cap. 18. sect 12. 101. Incarnation of Christ not to be known but by revelation cap. 22. sect 5. 157. Inclination distinct from the will and desire c. 19. s 6. 115. Incorporate why men Incorporate into bodies Politick cap. 11. sect 1. 39. Infant whether it can give consent cap. 16. sect 1. 64. Injury VVhat it is cap. 8. sect 3. How a man may injure himself cap. 8. sect 3. 25. Injustice what it is ibid. A Soveraign may do it cap. 8. sect 4. 27. Innocents not justly punished cap. 2. sect 3. 4. Israelites why obeyed they Moses cap. 22. sect 17. 182. Judge what it is properly to Judge cap. 23. sect 1. 190. Not the same to be a Judge and constitute a Judge cap. 10. sect 10. 38. He is to observe not make a Law cap. 18. sect 9. 96. Every one is Judge of good and evil cap. 23. sect 5. 6. 207. 209. What Judgement private persons may pass upon publick actions cap. 23. sect 1. 2. 3. 190. 19. 193. K Kingdom VVhat is an acquired Kingdom c. 15. s 58. Not always acquired by force ibid. The condition of a conquered Kingdom not the same with an instituted cap. 15. sect â—â— 62. Kings v. Supremes and Soveraigns Only accountable unto God c. 5. s 4. c. 6. s 1. 15. 17. Their account unto him great cap. 12. s 5. 46. Not punishable by the People and why c. 9. s 1. 28 Their power in matters of Religion c. 10. s 1. 30. That subject to the commands of God ibid. No absolute obedience due to them c. 18. s 4. c. 87. No taking Armes against them cap. 16. sect 7. 72. They not only sin against God cap. 20. sect 4. 134. Their power about preaching and Printing c. 10. s 2. 32 They have not right to whatsoever the subject possesseth cap. 18. sect 8. c. 93. Kill VVhen lawful to kill cap. 23. sect 4. 196. Lacedaemon VVhether that state was Monarchical cap. 13. sect 3. 7. 50 5â— Laws Humane Laws cannot make something good or evil cap. 11. sect 5. 34. Positive Laws of God to be obeyed c. 22 s 12. 171. Where that obedience is founded cap. 22. s 13. 173. How far the the Civil Law and Law of Nature are the Measure of our Actions cap 23. sect 3. 193. The Execution of good Laws make a Nation happy cap. 23. sect 10. 19. Laws for private interest conduce much to the publick good cap. 23. sect 8. 218. Liberty What it is cap. 19. sect 1. 107. from Coaction cap. 19. sect 1. 7. 108. 116. from necessity cap 19. sect 1. 7. 107. Who is properly a free-man cap. 19. sect 2. 109. Not proper only to bodies cap. 9. sect 2. 3. 109. 110. VVho or what is the subject of it cap. 19. sect 5. 112. VVhat is the Liberty of Man cap. 19. sect 5. 13. Life None hath power over his own life c. 20. s 1. 127. Likeing or disliking produce not difference in the things themselves cap. 3. sect 2. 48. M Majority He who dissents from it ought not therefore to be destroyed cap. 7. sect 1. 22. Man Superior to VVoman cap. 16. sect 3. 66. The Nobler Sex ibid. Whether he hath power to do any thing in defence of himself cap 18. sect 7. 92. He only actively capable of Commands cap. 19. sect 9. Mancipium what it signifies cap. 16. sect 12. 79. Marriages No state without rules about it cap. 16. s 8. One born out of it is filius populi ibid. Means How he hath right to them who hath right to the end cap. 19. sect 2 116. Militia belongs to the Soveraign cap. 12. sect 2. 45. Miracle What it is cap. 22. sect 8. cap. 23. sect 6. 163. 209. God the only Author of them cap. 22. sect 9. 165. Never wrought to confirm a lye cap. 22. sect 9. 166. The gift of tongues miraculous in the Apostles cap. 22. sect 11. 169. As also their Learning ibid. And the success of the Gospel ibid. Mishpol What it signifies cap. 18. sect 6. 7. Mixed Actions what they are cap 19. sect 6. 115. Bodies denominated from the predominant c. 13 s 3. 50. Monarchy how distinguished from Tyranny c. 13. s 2. 48. None so absolute as Mr. Hobs Phansies cap. 3 sect 3. 47. cap. 23 sect 15. 50. 227. Money How the levying of it is like the Nutrive faculty cap. 23. sect 14. 224. Moses His integrity cap. 22. sect 5. 157. Why the Israelites obeyed him cap. 22. sect 17. 182. Mother Not to be obeyed before the Father c. 16. s 3. 66. What power she hath over the Child cap. 16. sect 8. 9. 174. 175. Whether the Child is first in her power cap. 16. sect 8. 174. Murder A Sin a gainst God and Man cap. 20. sect 4. 139. N Nourish Greater respect due to the Father then to him who nourisheth the Child cap. 16. sect 10. 76. Numbers Small Numbers joyned together may live peaceably cap. sect 1. O Oaths lawful to take an Oath cap. 23. sect 4. 197. Obedience better then sacrifice cap. 20. sect 2. 129. No absolute obedience due to Kings cap. 18. s 4. c. 87. What obedience due to the commands of God and of Men cap. 18. sect 11. 99. Ostracism in use at Athens cap. 20. sect 5. 140. P Parents love their Children naturally cap. 16. sect 9. 75. Their power over their Children cap. 22. sect 16. 179. Paul His conversion cap. 22. sect 15. 177. Peace Wherein it consisteth cap. 10. sect 1. 30. the fruit of Truth cap. 10. sect 5. 34. Truth not always regulated by it cap. 10. sect 4. 5. 6. 33. 34. Peaceable Doctrines only true cap. 10 sect 4. 33. Whether it be consonant to the Laws of Nature cap. 10. s 5. 34. People not give Authority to the Prince c. 2. s 2. 3 4. 6. c. 14. s 2. c. 20. s 13. s 23. s 16. P. 3. 4. 5. 6 57. â—03 If they could it were dangerous to the Prince cap. 2. s 5. 6. Supreme not their Person c. 2. s 2. c. 5. s 12. 3. All do not consent to give power to the Supreme cap. 4. 9. 69. sect 1. cap. 16. sect 5. Not the Authors of Right cap. 4. sect 3. 11. Profitable that they have some interest in Government cap. 13. sect 6. 54. Pharisees they and the Scribes not Soveraigns c. 18. s 2. 85. Power v. Authority It comes from God cap. 20. sect 1. cap. 18. sect 7. Not from the People v. People Whether one hath power to do any thing in defence of himself cap.
without a propriety examined The impossibility of this Fiction according to his own grounds from the contradictions which follow upon it BUt he seems to go another way and settles this building of his Commonwealth upon the foundation of a sort of men which have no propriety in any thing or suppose a hundred thousand a less number will scarce make a good City all these having no interest in the world besides their being which is as unimaginable as any of the rest which yet is affirmed by him in the following words For before Constitution of Soveraign Power as hath already been shewed all men had right to all things which necessarily causeth war and therefore this propriety being necessary to peace and depending on Soveraign Power is the act of that Power in order to peace This is a strange corceit that men in war have right to their Enemies Country before they have conquered it and when they have conquered it shall have right to very little both which by him are most true For before the chusing a Soveraign they are at war with all the world and have a right to all the world yet when they have conquered any piece it must be in the Soveraigns power to give them propriety only in what he pleaseth I know he may object to this that he saith the Supreme may give Rules that is make such Laws by which men may know what is their propriety but not that he shall give the propriety But for answer to this let him know that the Legislative Power can take away and alter them as well as make them and then it amounts to as much as if he had given the propriety its self for he can do it when he will And let us consider that those men who by nature have right to all the world yet by this industriously uniting themselves into a Commonwealth gain but this that whereas before they had right to every thing now they have right only to this little pittance which is allotted them SECT III. Mr. Hobbs his illogical deductions Propriety in the state of War What propriety is it may be without peace as peace may be without propriety HE proceeds And therefore this Propriety being necessary to Peace and depending on Soveraign Power is an act of that Power in order to the Publick Peace Surely there is no manner of Logical consequences in this therefore of his for let us consider to what this therefore relates can it look forwards to all mens rights to come and because of that therefore propriety should be an act of the Soveraign These have no conjunction one with another no nor because they are in war one with another for Nations that are in war one with another have right of some and people that have right to many things may have right likewise to what they have of some So that this therefore hath nothing before to build it self upon and indeed in Logick it should have been deduced out of the premises But let us see if there be any thing in this new sentence that can countenance this Proposition That propriety is an act of the Soveraign The first words that may seem to make for it will be these That Propriety being necessary to peace therefore Propriety is an act of Soveraignty This follows not First because Propriety may be where there is war therefore it cannot be necessary to peace I take Propriety for a peculiar right and title which a man hath to any goods This a man may have at that instant when he hath war with another And again he may live in peace in this Kingdom both with his Neighbour and all the rest of the Nation and have propriety in nothing but his being in the world So that if peace can be without propriety and propriety without peace it cannot truly be said that propriety is necessary to peace And then that Proposition which is the foundation of an argument failing the Argument likewise falls to the ground SECT IV. Propriety not depending only upon Soveraign power The propriety of the Soveraign independent His consequence again redargued Propriety the Act of Law THe second words which may give any semblance of an Argument if any are depending upon Soveraign power and such a Soveraign power as he makes his to be there is none in the world but men have propriety without it therefore no necessary dependance upon this without which it can be and is Again consider the Soveraign himself hath a propriety of his own and his propriety hath no dependance upon any but then consider that if it be so and he will have it understood of Subjects only or that the Soveraign hath his propriety by right of his Soveraignty because there is a Soveraign constituted and that the propriety of all others hath a dependance upon this Soveraign power yet it doth not follow that that propriety is an act of Soveraignty It may well be supposed that propriety may be setled by Contract before the constitution of the Commonwealth and then the Soveraign only looks and takes care for the right observation of those Laws which were consented unto concerning propriety and propriety is the Act of those Laws and he the Protector and preserver of them So that this consequence is not deduced out of any thing which is set down by him And these few words which are added are of no force in order to the publick peace for although he may direct yea inforce them to the publick peace yet propriety it self is an act of those Laws which settles it not of him which governs SECT V. Many things good or evil in their own Nature and therefore not alterable by Humane Laws HE goes on These Rules of Propriety or meum and tuum and of good evil lawful and unlawful in the actions of Subjects are the Civil Laws that is to say the Law of each Commonwealth in particular The Rules of Propriety that is of the particular estate are without question the Laws of each particular Commonwealth but for good or evil there are many things so framed in their own Nature that it lies not in the power of Humane Laws to make such things good or evil contrary to their beings as to love fear and worship God no Humane Law can make it evil or to hate or despise him no Humane Law can make it good And so for lawful and unlawful things which either by the Law of God in our hearts or that communicated to us in his holy Book these are Laws besides the Civil Law of the Nation which the Civil Law cannot alter or make good or evil otherwise then that goodness or illness which they received from the Law Divine That which follows in that Paragraph is nothing but an Exposition of Civil Law how it is understood by him which I conceive not to be material to his design or mine and therefore I let it alone and come to a new Inference CHAP. XII SECT I. The
Hobbs his contradiction again censured Antipodial Government introduced His conclusions not consistent one with another Contracts with Mr. Hobbs but words and advantaged by power may lawfully be broken Lawful Contracts sealed in Heaven HE goes on But the Question lieth now in the state of meer Nature where there are supposed no Laws of Matrimony no Laws for the education of children but the Law of Nature and the natural inclination of the Sexes one to another and to their children This is inconsistent with what he hath formerly taught and I have confuted viz. That naturally men are at war every man with every man Well then in this state before they are covenanted into a Commonwealth all things all rights are tryed by force and it may happen that the man who conquers this day may fall sick and grow weak and then the Woman may be Victor and so the case may be altered or both may grow old or sick and their children master them both and so bring in an Antipodial Government And then let any man think whether the wise constitution of Nature can agree with such abominable follies and how weak according to his Doctrine this conclusion is In this condition of meer nature saith he either the Parents between themselves dispose of the dominion over the child by contract or do not dispose thereof at all If they do dispose thereof the right passeth according to the contract This distinction cannot be denied either they must or they must not contract If they dispose saith he the right passeth according to the contract But let him remember the state and condition he speaks of is in mans nature before any imbodying themselves into a Commonwealth Then let him look back to what he hath writ Cap. 17. page 85. Covenants without the Sword are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all And again in the same page Therefâ—re notwithstanding the Law of Nature if there be no power erected or not great enough for our security every man will and may lawfully relye upon his own strength and art for caution against all other men Let us put these together the right passeth by contract saith he in this 20. Cap. Contracts are but words and have no force to bind saith he in his â—7 Cap. unless a Commonwealth be erected therefore no Covenant gives an active right to any thing without the Sword in a Magistrates hand to make it good So then the Sword rules every man in that state before a Commonwealth is instituted may lawfully relye upon his own strength or art for caution So that although the word be out in that state and the Contract made yet if the Husband or the Wife can find strength or art to avoid it they may lawfully use it and to defraud and force each other to the breach of this Covenant is lawful So that according to his principles there is no considerable strength in the state of Nature to keep any to their promises but according to mine it is not so who am assured that those lawful Contracts made on earth are sealed in heaven and the God of truth so loves truth that he approves it in all conditions of men and therefore these bargains ought to be observed unless it may happen out that they are contrary to the Divine Law as that a man should divest himself of all his Oeconomical right which God hath placed in him and the woman by such power should usurp a Superiority when God hath commanded her to be subject So that a man may as I think absolutely conclude where there is no Common-wealth a veracity is exacted by God in such contracts which are not against some Divine Law where there is a Common-wealth these bargains are confirmed as are not contrary to their Civil Laws SECT VII Mr. Hobbs his example of the Amazons further shewed to be impertinent HE proceeds and gives an instance We find saith he in History that the Amazons contracted with the men of Neighbouring Countries to whom they had recourse for Issues that the Issue Male should be sent back but the Female remain with themselves so that the Dominion of the Females was in the Mother Here is an instance from a Lawless Conjunction where man and woman meet together like beasts to enjoy that carnal familiarity but not like rational creatures to cohabit together in an Oeconomical Discipline Amongst them there were only the first names Man and Woman not Husband and Wife which began our discourse It is of Women renouncing mens society who neither themselves nor their children lived in the same Nation nor under the same Government with these whom they did converse with and so if they had kept the Male-child the father could no ways come to lay claim to it or any thing in the Amazonian Country And yet consider once more how weak and inconsistent his discourse is which contradicteth it self in almost every page He discoursed of men in meâ—r nature just before and presently after as his words are which men which are without all union in a Commonwealth and here in the middle of his discourse he gives his instance for proof of his Conclusion from the conversation of the Amazonians with their Neighbouring Countries both which were incorporated into several Commonwealths For it is evident from what is written of the Amazonians in Histories that their Commonwealth had many distinct Laws and Customes from other Nations if there were any such But let us go on with him SECT VIII His supposition of the state of Nature without Matrimony censured His reasons refuted The Father of the Family hath dominion of the Child born out of Matrimony HE enters now upon the second part of his distinction If there be no Contract saith he the dominion is in the Mother For in the condition of meer nature where there are no Matrimonial Laws it cannot be known who is the Father unless it be declared by the Mother and therefore the right of dominion over the child dependeth upon the will of the Mother and is consequently hers Here you find the state of nature again where are no Matrimonial Laws But stay there was never such a time or place for God gave the Law of the Wives subjection to her Husband in Paradise Gen. 3.16 of which I have formerly treated It was the first Law he gave after their eating the forbidden fruit therefore there was no such time or state of men in which there was no Law concerning Matrimony But if he understand by this word Law only Humane Politick Laws he receives his answer that where no Politick Laws restrain it there most abundantly Divine Laws are without controul But he hath reason for what he writes Because no man can tell who is Father of the child but the Mother only therefore he is at her dispose I would ask whether the child was born in Marriage or no if so then the child is his fathers and he is bound to maintain
life being the end for which one becomes subject to another every man is supposed to promise obedience to him in whose power it is to save or destroy him I answer preservation as the Philosopher speaks is continuata creatio or generatio so that the very being of any thing is the substance which is preserved and that must needs be more excellent then such an acciâ—ent as preservation It is true a châ—ld ought to obey him who hath nourished him but not in such a degree as to a Parental relation when that obedience shall cross the obedience to the Parents Preservation of life is the end saith he for which one man becomes subject unto another But consider what preservation that is with that which is to come upon this ground the unvanquished man submits himself to the Conquerour that he may protect his future being and preserve him from future danger but this subjection is not to him who hath preserved him but to him who will preserve him or if this subjection be due yet not such nor contrary to that of his Parents But I must not tire my self nor my Reader with such needless discourses upon errors which fall of themselves without any dispute only entreat the Reader in perusing them to consider his inferences how they depend one upon another and that will be light enough to shew him the weakness of them He goes on If the Mother be the Fathers subject the Child is in the Fathers power c. It is not worth the transcribing he now runs from Parents barely under the Law of Nature to such as are in setled Common-wealths to all which one answer will serve that they must be according to the National and peculiar Laws belonging to that Commonwealth for Oeconomical Laws must submit to National The next learned note of his is He that hath dominion over the Child hath dominion also over the children of that Chiâ—d I must confess a most true and excellent observation and such as he will hear of hereafter and so I let it pass for this present The next conclusion he enters upon is the right of succession to Paternal dominion which he saith proceedeth in the same manner as doth the right of succession to Monarchy of which he had spoke in the precedent Chapter I will dispute nothing about this The Customes and Laws of every Nation direct the Inhabitants to what they must obey every condition fits not every place yea though they may be better in themselves yet not to such people which are accustomed to other SECT XII Mr. Hobbs his immethodical procedure censured Mancipia quasi manu capta Servitude introduced by Conquest The right of servitude abolished amongst Christians After the heat of war and a settlement made commonly meliorated and erected into Tenures Mr. Hobbs his conclusions contrary to Aristotles Politiques The horrid consequence of this Doctrine discovered AT the bottom of this page and the beginning of page 104. he enters into a discourse of Dominion by Conquest In this he seems very erroneous in his method as well as his substance He entitled this Chapter of Dominion Paternal and Despotical In the first part of this Chap. he disputed about Dominion by acquisition which he defined to be such as is got by force or conquest and he shewed then that there is no difference betwixt Dominion by institution and that by acquisition but only the difference of their fears Then he treated of Dominion Paternal I wonder he did not call it Maternal for that he endeavoured to make it now again he comes to Dominion acquired by War which must needs appear to any man an immethodical method But let us pass on and come to censure divers passages in his Discourse Dominion saith he acquired by Conquest or Victory in War is that here which some Writers call Despotical from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth a Lord or Master and is the dominion of the Master over his servants He speaks truth when he saith that dominion acquired by Conquest is such if it be understood of one that is Mancipium taken in War Mancipium as it were manu captum taken by your hand in War surely such a person is a servant or if you will use a more unworthy term a Slave the Conquerour may sell him or do what else he will with him which is the condition of these despotical servants though this right all Civilians agree to be ceased amongst Christians But then if after a while these conquered men are left to themselves to Till the ground and live peaceably upon it and perhaps are governed by Vice-Roys or such other means as Politiques prescribe they then cease to be servants or slaves and come to be Colonies and live under a Civil Government We may observe this in the Conquest that David Alexander Pompey Caesar all the great Monarchs of the World so that they shall not for ever be under a despotical but at the last grow into a Civil Government as Arist and from him all learned Politicians termed it until Mr. Hobbs appeared But Reader I must here beg leave to look back again upon what he writ at the beginning of this Chap. for the confusedness of his method must needs make my discourse somewhat such who follow him closely foot by foot He there affirms that these two Governments by Institution and Acquisition differ not but in the manner of fear that by Institution is obeyed for fear of one another that by Acquisition is obeyed for fear of the Conqueror then the condition of all Subjects in the most civil estate is slavery The Supreme may kill ruine destroy beggar any of them without Law other then his own will nay he may do it rightly then which never was there a more horrid Proposition uttered in Politiques and if these two Dominions be the same which he affirms there and Dominion by Acquisition have the power to do so as he affirms here it must needs be so with all Subjects according to his Doctrine CHAP. XVII SECT I. Mr. Hobbs his fictitious contracts with the Conqueror censured Women by his conclusion obliged to prostitute themselves to the Conqueror The horror of this Doctrine and improbability of this contract I Return now to the place where I left And this Dominion saith he is then acquired to the Victor when the vanquished to avoid the present stroak of death covenanteth either in express words or by other sufficient signs of the Will that so long as his life and the liberty of his body is allowed him the Victor shall have the use thereof at his pleasure It was well he added or by sufficient signs for I think few men in any Conquered Nation did ever express such words nor indeed would half the people in any conquered Nation do it But consider Reader that in a conquered Nation women must do it as well as men and then all those women must prostitute their bodies to the lust of the
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 unto those that love thy name But it is not material to alledge more Quotations this Text will enforce this interpretation for in the 18 verse it is said Ye shall cry out in the day because of your King which ye shall have chosen you and the Lord will not hear you in that day Consider here that men do not clamour and cry out upon Justice when it is executed but upon injustice I know there are other Expositions given besides his or mine as that of Cajetan that it is not said the right of the Kingdom which is a Law but of the King as if Kings would esteem this right But this is scandalous to Kings to many of whom I doubt not but Justice and Mercy are as dear as to any men in the world There is another Exposition with a distinction that there is an ordinary and extraordinary right This Text sets down the extraordinary right to which I say I allow the distinction many things may be right and lawful for Kings to do upon extraordinary occasions which would not be just in his ordinary Government But how can a man conceive that these things should relate to extraordinary occasions to make Perfumes or to run before his Chariot to gather in his Harvest as if there should be exigencies of these poor trifles or the honour of a Kings Revenue could not yield such a return as might make every man fit for such an imployment ambitious of his entertainment I think this may suffice for the exposition of this Text to shew that it was spoke of the practise not the right of their Kings but if not look the seventeenth of Deut. at the fourteenth verse where you may see the passage foretold When thou art come into the Land c. and shalt say I will set a King over me like as all the Nations that are about me The very language which these men used ver 15. Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall chuse and so goes on to describe the Laws for their Kings in the following part of that verse and the 16 17 and 18. verses But there is none of these things reckoned there and in the 18 and 19 verses he is commanded to get him a Copy or a double Copy as some would have it of this Book which is Deuteronomy one Copy to lye by him and another to carry about with him as our marginal hath it and is most consonant methinks to the Text which saith He shall read therein all the daies of his life that he may learn to fear the Lord his God to keep all the words of this Law and these statutes to do them So that a King ought to take care to keep the Law of the Land which to them was Deuteronomy And from thence the madness of their Exposition will appear who think that the Law which was spoken of was this Law afterwards spoken of by Samuel But alas that needs no great study either to know or practise this therefore must needs be the sense of it But if this will not serve the turn you may read in the 46 of Ezek. ver 18. some part of the Kings Law delivered clear opposite to one clause delivered here that is That the Prince shall not take of the peoples inheritance by oppression to thrust them out of their possession but he shall give his sons inheritance of his own possession that my people be not scattered every man out of his possession Now this is clean contrary to that which is said He will take your fields and your vineyards and your Olive-yards even the best of them and give them to his servants This certainly is unjust for a Prince to do by Ezekiel and therefore these places must be reconciled which may easily be done by our Translation understanding the word Mishpot for a custom or usage for so Sam. describes what will be done but the Prophet Ezekiel from God commands what is right and just to be done And thus I think Mr. Hobbs hath got little advantage for his conclusion out of the Scripture SECT VII The History of Saul quoted by Mr. Hobbs improved against his Novel Institution and that other conclusion of his That a man may kill any man in right of himself Prayers and tears the weapons of Christians BUt I will try how I can advance this History against divers desperate and horrid Opinions of his First of his electing a King by the people which he makes to be the only way by which he is established in his Throne a thing as I have said before never done
questioned what crime he had done but what hurt he would do No they never questioned what he had done or what he would do for how could Aristides whose glory consisted in justice not in armes be mistrusted to endeavour hurt to the state for that vertue which he was so honoured for is so far from destroying that it is the very soul and life of a Common-wealth or rather I may term it the spirits which under the soul act with every part in the performance of their several duties and where that is lacking the inhabitants of a Common-wealth will be like walls built with loose stones without mortar which with ordinary storms will fall asunder and perish I will not trouble my self with the words which follow briefly he instanceth in Ostracism which was used there by which sometimes an Aristides was banished for his vertue and justice sometimes a scurrilous Jester as Hyperbolus Let us consider this Ostracism that is a legal act proper to that government not a meer arbitrary but a legal priviledge granted the people that when there was an occasion of any such danger they had their votes in it Now the proposition by him to be proved was that such an act as this might justly be done by the supreme only by his will which can never by any Logick be inforced hence and yet I can say further that even the laws of forraign nations may be censured by such as are not subject to them and have been in all ages without breach of duty or civility I joyn this therefore with that other Grecian city famous for its politie that of Lacedaemon in which it was one of the arcana imperii that when their country Tenants grew too numerous that they feared they might endanger the City they would in a night go out and slay thousands of them this was a most barbarous thing for subjects lives should be tender to Magistrates and the lives of vertuous subjects pretious and therefore I fear this Athenian custom of Ostracism is the worse because an Aristides was worth thousands of common people and therefore think such a law was most unworthy a wise state and not fit to be acted in any where there is no law for it CHAP. XX. SECT VI. This paragraph giving liberty to a person justly condemned to resist the execution of the sentence given against him the grand incitement to rebellion contrary to the dictate of St. Paul and practice of eminent Martyrs I Pass from this to page 111. In the midst of that page having discoursed of the liberty of subjects how that they have right to any such thing which they have not passed away by covenant he at the end of that page seems to give instances thus If the Soveraign command a man though justly condemned to kill wound or maim himself or not to resist those that assault him or to abstain from the use of food air medicine or any other thing without which he cannot live yet hath that man the liberty to disobey Truly in my judgement some pieces of this are great encouragements to Treason as that particle to resist them who assault him Certainly if a man may do it for his own defence he may do it for others who are men of a like condition in their humanitie and it may be in their sin and then it must follow where are many guilty persons they may lawfully combine and stand to each other in their defence and in order to that do what mischief they can for their safety Now St. Paul seemed to be of another mind when Act. 25.11 he told Festus if I have committed any thing worthy of death I refuse not to dye it is a sign of a rebellious spirit to resist authority to which he should be subject and for ought I know the pretence of most rebellions in the world is their own defence against imagined personal dangers Had his doctrine be true the Crown of Martyrdom had lost those thousands who filled the Roman Army and could by this pretence have defended themselves they chose rather to water and fructifie the seed of Gods word by their blood they thought it an injust war to defend their just lives how much more in an unjust cause should men less dare to do it CHAP. XX. SECT VII Mr. Hobbs his institution of a Common-wealth again examined and censured The absurdity and evil consequences of his doctrine WE pass now to his page 112. in the 7. line Again the consent of a Subject to Soveraign power is contained in these words I authorise or take upon me all his actions I have already and I think fully treated of the follies weakness and wickedness of this imagination of his heretofore which he makes the foundation of his whole Politiques He proceeds in which there is no restriction at all of his own former natural liberty What an impious proposition is this that he who had before affirmed that man by nature had right to any goods any life any thing which conduced to his own contented life before a Common-wealth was instituted hath now by these words which institute and give form and being to his doctrine of a Common-wealth these not liberties only but licenses but abominations must not be abridged or restrained But mark his reason for saith he by allowing him to kill me I am not bound to kill my self when he commands me So that it seems the authorizing he speaks of is of the supremes actions not his commands and then surely his former proposition is not good men are restrained by nothing of the Soveraign commands where his own interest is personally opposed to it If this be not insufferable doctrine in any well governed Common-wealth I know not what is for by this any man may act any thing which may conduce to his contented living nay what is more he hath right to do it and if so what a condition would a Common-wealth be in a King according to his doctrine may without injustice kill any man which he thinks fit and a subject hath right to kill him when he thinks it conduceth to his good for naturally every man hath this right by his doctrine and so cannot be supposed by any contract to part from his natural right all this is evident out of the beginning of the 14. Chap. where he defines the right of nature thus The right of nature which writers commonly call jus naturale is the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature that is to say of his own life and consequently of doing any thing which in his own judgement and reason he shall conceive to be the aptest means to conduce thereto And there is much more to this purpose of which I have already treated in my notes upon that Chap. So that it is clear by his doctrine That the constitution of a Common-wealth enables the Soveraign to act nothing by right more than
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
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 others yea many times the faults of vertuous men without which never man lived but our ever blessed Saviour But what then shall the Bee lose its hony because the Spider may suck poyson out of the same flower shall we avoid the Sun-shine because many are scorched by it By this means we should avoid all good things for there are none so good but foolish and wicked men have made ill use of them even the mercies of God and all his glorious attributes have by some been applyed to evil This Argument follows not therefore because weak and ignorant men have ill digested these excellent meats therefore better stomachs should not use them without doubt these stories have abundance in them to shew vertuous men how to lead their lives and expose them and lay them down pro focis aris which his self-seeking doctrine will not allow And yet these had been the most proper dictates from him who writes Politicks as conducing more to the publick good than any self-preservation which he so much labours for But a little after he proceeds to shew their folly who make ill use of them which I allow but presently again he in the bottom of that page seems to argue thus CHAP. XXIII SECT XI Truth desired in this Paragraph Tyrants distinguished An Vsurper justly killed by any subjects for the deliverance of his lawful Soveraign Lawful soveraigns not to be deposed or murthered for their ill government but left to the justice of God The former conclusion asserted A further vindication of the Books and Histories of the Grecians and Romans FRom the reading I say of such books men have undertaken to kill their Kings Surely I believe among all the declarations that such Traitors have made never any one made his study of such writers justify those horrid acts Because saith he the Greek and Latine writers in their books and discourses of Policy I am now in the 171 p. make it lawful and laudable for any man so to do provided before he do it he call him Tyrant I would have wished that he had named his Authours for then I could have discerned whether he had abused them or no to turn and examine all Authours were too tedious for me yet something I may say in general that I believe no man of honour for learning and policy did either amongst the Greeks or Romans affirm that if he hath called a Monarch a Tyrant it is laudable for him to kill him for certainly no man can found the justification of such a Villany upon his foolish calling him such but his being such Now as I remember they make Tyrants of two sorts such as invade the kingdome and usurp it from the right owner and no doubt but any of those Subjects that owe obedience to their lawful King may vindicate him and their fellow subjects from that unjust invasion The other way of Tyranny is by such a man who is a lawful King by his succession or election according to the Laws of the Realm but governs arbitrary by his will not the Law Now because his right of title and possession puts him above the reach of legal though he can never be out of the reach of private judgement and seeing it is not lawful for a man to kill any one upon a private judgement therefore it cannot ex abundanti be lawful to kill him but leave him Deo ultori so that if he find such doctrine amongst the Greeks and Romans he may rationally judge them amiss and it is no more reasonable for men to be barred the great happiness of the wisdome contained in these books because fools make ill use of them than to barr men a sober and healthful use of wine because vitious men abuse it by drunkenness He goes on from the same books saith he they that live under a Monarchy conceive such an opinion that the subjects in a popular Common-wealth enjoy liberty but that in a Monarchy they are all slaves I wonder why he should impute this to the Greek and Latine more than to the Italians Germans or Dutch stories Certainly most people when they find their own condition hard are willing to change and think any other would be better and it is the same with all other Common-wealths as well as Monarchies And therefore he truly added what follows I say that they who live under a Monarchy conceive such an opinion not they that live under popular government for they find no such matter But as I said before why this should be imputed to the Romans and Grecians only not to the Italians Germans and others who live equally with them in Common-wealths I cannot discerne and therefore cannot chuse but be offended with that which follows most hyperbolically false CHAP. XXIII SECT XII Mr. Hobbs his impossible remedy
opposeth what I have delivered in my 34 Cap. against his sixteenth which I find much alter'd in his Latine Edition and if the Reader will trouble himself so much as to peruse that Treatise of mine he will find that Mr. Hobs hath added nothing here that was not in the former nor answered any thing of my discourse which I doubt not to affirm doth much more clearly explain the nature of a person then any thing he hath put down for it and I will pass the rest of this Cap. as not opposing my former censures of him so likewise his second Cap. of Heresie which was only writ to excuse himself from Heresie which I never charg'd him with as I remember and do here so far acquit him that I think he never can be judged for one amongst us nor ever will be for by him a man may deny any Truths if Leviathan exact it yea he must be of Leviathans Religion and then he can never be judged an Heretick because Leviathan must be supream judge but withal I think he doth deliver Heretical Doctrine and that that very conclusion is one according to the Laws established in our Nation And I will pass to his third Cap. which is Intitled of certain objections against Leviathan and is entered upon Page 359. CAP. I. His Exordium Censur'd HE begins this third Cap. which concerns the objections against Leviathan with the story of these last unhappy times where he raiseth the cause of the War only from the difference between the Episcopal men and Presbyterian I will not undertake to rake up that Kennel although perhaps I might be able to speak something pertinent but this I dare affirm that although the Rebellious party had an animosity against the Episcopal as they had against all Authority until they had made themselves sole Governors yet their cheif aime was to pluck down the Regals and in order to that it was necessary first to take down Episcopy which was a support of it and indeed you shall find that almost all Treasons do pretend Religion that under the cloak of holyness they may cover such horrid impieties as must be acted by such parties It is in vain toe give instances which are much too frequent but then as he well observes P. 359. towards the bottom when the Episcopacy was plucked down Nulla amplius potestas nemansit inter Anglos There was no power left among the English of discerning Heresy but all Sects appeared in writing and publishing what divinity every one would I believe him and the mischeife of the indulgence is yet sensible amongst us well upon that opportunity saith he Page 360. the Author liveing at Paris used that Liberty in writeing But oh how much more honourable had it been for him to have writ against it and to have foreseen those unhappy events which might have been easily discerned without the help of his Mathematicks but I go on jura quidem Regalia saith he the rights of Kings he hath egregiously defended both in temporal and and spiritual matters here I must pause and in a little put down somethings more Largly delivered in the preceeding Treatise he hath supervindicated the Kingly authority in spirituall things for he hath made him above God himself so that if God himself command one thing in his word and the King command another we must obey the King he hath done as much in temporal things for although God by his infinite power confirms the Laws of men concerning meum tuum in appropriation of their temporal estates yet he gives Ahab leave rightly to take Naboths vineyard Nay I speak it freely as he hath exalted it in some things too high so in some conditions he hath made it nothing in regard that he hath made every man King of the whole world by nature which natur cannot be put off whilst he is a man and therefore whatsoever any man either by fraud or force can get from him is but a just acquiring that which was his natural right consider then whether this be egregiè vindicare jura Regalia egregiously to vindicate the Regal rights but saith A for all this is spoke by the Objector whilst he endeavoured to prove this out of Scripture he lapsed into unheard Opinions which by most Divines are accused of Heresie and Atheisme certainly the Objector spoke truely and B puts him to the proof what are those opinions saith he and so now I will apply my self to such things as reflect upon my former Treatise omitting such other unhandsome expressions which if I live I am likely in a fuller way to treat of CAP. II. In which is censured his Definition of Religion THat which immediately follows his making God a Body which is abominable but I will not speak of it here but page 361. towards the bottome he enters upon a third Objection which I have censur'd in my former Treatise Cap. 13. Sect. 4. which is thus framed by A the Objector Timor inquit invisibilium potentiarum the fear of invisible powers whether those powers be feigned by the man who fears or conceived from Fables publickly permitted is Religion but from them which are not publickly permitted Superstition quando vero when the powers which are feared are true it is true Religion Thus far the Objection and first I commend his Latine Edition better then the English for in his Latine Edition he changed this word Fables which is used amongst us for a vain or foolish relation and put in Hystories which hath a more graceful acceptance so that the sense is that Religion is drawn from Histories publickly permitted which is a milder expression although the best will be bad enough as you shall see presently That fear and reverential fear of these invisible powers is an Act of Religion I think no wise man will deny but that Religion should be shallowed up with fear and should be nothing else as he seems to require is too much for therefore in that 6 Cap. where these words are as that Cap. consists of nothing but definitions and these definitions pointed at in the Margent he puts in the Margent against this Religion so that this was his definition of Religion of which it is but one single Act there being many more of a higher nature proceeding out of it for Religion being as I defined it and as it is generally used that part of Justice by which we give God that Honour and Worship is due to him certainly faith in what he speaks trust and hope in what he promiseth Love of those excellencies which we discern in him are much more requisite and due to God then any fear but a Reverential fear which flowes out of those other fear opposeth trust and faith and love and consider again he divides Religion only according to the divers application of this fear to the object so that one way it is Religion another Superstition if conceived of Histories permitted Religion if otherwise Superstition when the