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
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
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
man performed his promise which he swore he would do it was no sin and it seems therefore to be spoken only of promissory Oaths not of such which were made to give Testimony of matters of fact if so then there is no prohibition of such Oaths which are for the decision of controversies commonly called Assertory Oaths and then again it may justly be conceived that they that is the Jews thought out of some tradition or other that it was only unlawful to swear by God but not by the Creature for our Saviours instances are only in them Thou shalt not swear by Heaven by Earth by Ierusalem by the Gold of the Altar or thy Head Which he sheweth relatively to reach even the Creator himself so that for these considerations it must be understood that it excludes not assertory Oaths vvhich decide controversies that it extends not to such Oaths vvhere God is religiously called to witness any thing And then for the second the affirmative precept it reacheth to our Communication and common conference one with another that Gods most Sacred Name be not slightly or in vain taken by us but that either some great business more than ordinary or else some supreme power must exact it from us So then this being thus expounded it must needs appear that in this case a man may justly depose his errour and he cannot be necessitated to sin when he hath an errour in his Conscience And truly it is an excellent rule for the practice of a mans life when he shall find a general practice of good and holy men in all Ages to practise any thing which he is offended at to suppress that averseness in himself and with study and pains to cast about which way he may reconcile himself to that common practice and not without strong and evident grounds which will hardly be possible oppose that which the universal practice makes us know that the universal Church understood as they practised for if there be an Error in such a practice a man may find something to excuse himself with erravimus cum patribus but in the other nothing but pride and self conceipt which makes him oppose these practices and surely in these cases it is a safe rule for any man when he finds a place of Scripture which seemingly opposeth the universal doctrine of the Church which is and hath been so heretofore to look about how that Scripture may be expounded according to the Analogy of faith and good manners or usage of the Catholick Church which then must be the sense and the other though more apparent at the first not the true meaning and by this means he shall not act contrary to his Conscience but if he do he must sin CHAP. XXIII SECT V. Every man Judge of his own Actions whether according to the positive Divine Laws or the Law of Nature Mr. Hobbs his consequencies observed and censured His absurd expression of a publick Conscience rejected Opinion and Conscience distinguished Thoughts not possibly to be regulated by humane Laws The external manage of Opinion The proper subject of Regulation The necessity of distraction from diversity of Opinions unless obtruded upon others This Argument retorted ad hominem HE proceeds And it dependeth on the presumption of making himself Judge of good and evil It doth say I for so every man will be in what concerns his own practice and must needs be so for else how can he judge that he doth right or no unless he may judge it and if there were no Law but what he speaks of the Civil he must judge whether his actions be according to that or no when he acts But Mr. Hobbs acknowledgeth a superiour Law to that to wit the Law of Nature and I have shewed another the positive Law of God and he must in both these use judicium privatum his private judgement whether his actions accord or no with these superiour Laws Now in all these he must judge and be responsible for that judgement whether he judge by such rules as ought to guide a prudent man but he gives a reason for what he speaks for a mans Conscience and his Judgement is the same thing and as the judgement so also the Conscience may be erroneous This doth not follow because he may erre therefore he should not be guided by it A man may have a false light shewed or his eyes may be weak as our eyes who are old men are must he therefore not make use of that light and sight which he hath Nay rather he must be more careful in the diligent using of his eyes and more seriously examining the light which is offered to them But in all these offers of reason which he makes in this Case they may be applyed to that judgement which he must make concerning the Law of Nature or the Civil Law which he allows a man must judge whether his actions be according to them and what is the meaning of them as well as what is the meaning of the positive Law of God and he must and will if he be a vertuous man act accordingly Therefore saith he though he that is subject to no Civil Law sinneth in all he doth against his Conscience because he hath no other rule to follow but his own reason yet it is not so with him that lives in a Common-wealth because the Law is the publick Conscience by which he hath already undertaken to be guided I cannot find how to apply this discourse closely to the question for he who is not imbodied in a Common-wealth saith he is ruled by his reason but hark you that reason ought to be ruled by the Law of Nature according to his own doctrine and according to mine by whatsoever is a known positive Law of God Likewise although there is no Civil Law And I will tell him farther that no Civil or Politick Law can have power to bind him to the breach of any of these and therefore what he speaks of a publick Conscience is an unheard of Language and not proper to be applyed to Conscience and most undoubtedly only educeable out of that before unheard of and most impossible principle of constituting a supreme which hath been abundantly confuted in my former discourses Let the Reader take notice that I am now in page the 169. Otherwise in such diversity as there is of private Consciences which are but private Opinions the Common-wealth must needs be distracted and no man dare to obey the soveraign power farther than it shall seem good in his own eyes In this clause he sets down the mischiefs as he thinks which may happen to a Common-wealth by diversities of Consciences or Opinions But before I proceed I will take notice of a mistake whereof he is guilty when he saith That private Consciences are but private Opinions To this I say there may be such Consciences which arise only out of private Opinions which ought to be overswayed with the greater weight
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
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.
not out of Moses his Chair but ex Cathedrâ pestilentiae as the Psalmist phraseth it Psal 1.2 and therefore our Saviour often forewarns them not only of the life but doctrine of the Pharisees in the 16. of Mat. 6. take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees which in the 12. verse is expounded the doctrine and in this very Chap. verse 4. They bind heavy burthens and grievous to be born and lay them upon mens shoulders and in the 13. verse they were said to shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men which must be by their doctrine In the 16th verse They are called blind guides which must also be by their ignorance in doctrine or teaching and if the blind lead the blind they will both fall into the ditch So likewise in the same verse he reproves their false doctrine about Oaths wherefore this whatsoever must be understood of whatsoever according to that they pretend So out of Moses his Chair what they from his Authority shall appoint to be observed must be observed but when they produce doctrine contrary to that they must be disobeyed their wicked lives shall not prejudice their godly doctrine nor shall Moses his Chair countenance their wicked doctrine or commands for if so S. Peter and S. Paul before spoken of were to blame who disobeyed their commands and the inhumane Murther of our Saviour might be justified which was acted by their direction Well I need speak no more to this it is apparent that this neither can prove Aristocraty nor deliver an infallible unerring rule for them to be regulated by And as he was to blame to found Aristocraty upon any of these places of Scripture so surely upon this hyperbolical expression That the power of every one of these Supremes is as great as possibly men can be imagined to make it For then all Supremes have a like power which certainly is not apparent and at all times for if such a greatness belong to a Soveraign as a Soveraign then in no Soveraign or at any time can it be missing Then the Subject cannot have right to rescue himself from bonds or such hardship which may render his life odious to him as he often perswades for such absolute power may be imagined to be made SECT XIII Mr. Hobbs his Hyperbolical Power scarce any where to be found and yet no such state of War as he imagines hath followed de facto His subsequent question answered by another Mr. Hobbs his Doctrine the foundation of Sedition Disputes concerning Governments dangerous but not to be prevented HE proceeds And though of so unlimited a power men may fancy many evil consequences yet the consequences of the want of it which is perpetual war of every man against his Neighbour are much worse Thus far he What a strange wild asseveration is this Mr. Hobbs I am perswaded hath lived in divers Commonwealths yet did he never find in any this absolute Hyperbolical Power of a Soveraign nor did he see any where that every man was at war with his Neighbour That which follows in that Paragraph I let pass because confuted by what hath been writ heretofore there being no new matter in it and pass to the next which he thus begins The greatest objection is that of the practise when men ask where and when such power has by Subjects been acknowledged Truly a wise question and shrewdly proposed and to which he makes an unsatisfactory answer which is But one may ask them again when and where hath there been a Kingdom long free from Sedition and Civil Wars That word long is a word of so large a capacity a man can hardly find any time which he cannot say is short But let that pass he may consider that Civil War and Tumults arise from divers occasions sometimes from diverse Titles sometimes from private injuries sometimes when people are taught that they may vindicate themselves from oppression by their own private force and strength sometimes when they shall be taught that they are the Fountain of all Power and therefore they may take away as well as give which two last are the Fundamental Props of his whole Leviathan and naturally produce Rebellion towards Superiours He goes on And in those Nations whose Commonwealths have been long-lived and not been destroyed but by Forreign War the Subjects never did dispute of Soveraign Power He should have done a great work if he had instanced in those Nations and had proved they never disputed that point In answer to this The less dispute there is about it 't is by so much the safer But who can hold men that have reason from disputing the reason of these great affairs which so nearly concern them SECT XIV Mr. Hobbs his bold censure of those who have written before him His Principles destructive to Humane Society BVt saith he howsoever an argument from the practise of men that have not sifted to the bottom and with exact reason weighed the Causes and Nature of Commonwealths and suffer daily those miseries that proceed from the ignorance thereof are invalid A bold assertion and censorious of all the world in a Subject of which hundreds of learned men have discoursed much more safely and rationally then himself and declared those things which he calls the Causes and Nature of Commonwealths much more excellently then he as may appear to any man who will peruse them Which Writers although they may have infirmities and errours yet I never read one man who maintained in Politiques Principles so destructive to Humane Society as himself But he gives an instance to confirm his answer to that argument For saith he though in all places in the world men should lay the foundation of their houses on the sand it could not thence be inferred that so it ought to be He saith truth but his instance is like his conclusion which he would illustrate by it and when he can shew me that all men have built their houses upon the Sand I will yield that all Nations in the world have founded themselves upon weak supports but until then he shall excuse me from thinking one or the other SECT XV. The Rules in Politiques not founded upon Demonstrations The judgments and humours of men equally various The Rule of Government must follow the present occurrences HE again The skill of making and maintaining Common-wealths consisteth in certain Rules as doth Arithmetick and Geometry not as Tennis play upon practise only which Rules neither poor men have the leisure nor men that have had the leisure have hitherto had the curiâ—siâ—y or the method to find out The first clause of this affirmation must be examined first where he saith the skill of making and ruling Commonwealths consists in certain Rules as doth Arithmetick and Geometry Rules without doubt all prudential actions are governed by but to say like Arithmetick and Geometry is more then can be justified for their Rules are most certain the demonstrations out of them most