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 felf defence and maketh their perseverance in assisting or defending the rest unlawful A goodly piece of nicetie I if a soveraign do not give his subjects pardon for their rebellâ—on 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 wâ—ich 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 hâ—th 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 holy Bible had manifested those positive laws to us and never to have raised such scruples whereby a man may doubt as it seems he doth whether these laws are divine or not Consider therefore his answer for the first question how a man can be assured of the revelation of another without a revelation particularly to himself it is evidently impossible and I answer it is possiible we will try it out and first let us consider this leading term for this discourse which is assuted how a man can be assured the power of that word must be explained There is a diversity of assurances Mathematical physical moral all which have their several force and differ only by degrees In the first kind we are assured that two and two make four and the like in the second that fire will burn whose nature doth if not hindred break out into the act in the third that when I see a debauched man stay with a company of drunkards along time at a Tavern I can be assured that they will be inflamed with drink so likewise when a pious man hears the bell tole to prayers he will go to Church Thus our assurance is vaâ—ied according to the object which it is busied about But there is another diversity drawn from the difference of this act which produceth assurance as thus there is an assurance from science from opinion from faith The certainty of science is drawn from the certainty of the medium by which it is proved and is exceeding great by some esteemed greater than that of faith at the least of a greater evidence although for my part I am not of that mind for it being a most clear and absolute truth that God is infinitely verax as well as verus true speaking as well as true being and faith I mean divine faith being an adhesion to what God speaks it is not possible to be a falsehood then there is the greatest argumentative evidence that can be of the truth of such a proposition which God hath delivered but I will not involve my self in niceties That which is proper to my immediate discourse is that science is from natural opperations of natur I causes faith divine faith from supernatural from God which must be more certain in
were Divine revelations from the Sanctity of the Persons who delivered it Hâ— answers that that may be feigned I reply It is improbable which were enough but I think I may go further and say it is impossible for the first clause that it is improbable we may discern Reason for it First in the Persons the Apostles who delivered these Revelations and affirmed they were such it is not probable they should be counterfeited all counterfeiting is for some end some wordly end for a man cannot think to get Heaven by counterfeiting and lâ—ing but the Apostles could have no worldlâ— end in what they did the asserting of these Revelations being the ready way to miseries and unhappiness which was foretold by their great Master our most blessed Saviour We have seen in this distracted world in which we have lived now and then a man proud with an imagined Enthusiasme persevere in an abominable lye even to death but for so many to do it and suffer for the relation of the same story it cannot be imagined And then consider that they were men blessed by God in having these Revelations and the relating them I say relating them for because the Doctrine was to be divulged to all Nations by them God assisted them with the gift of Tongues by which they were able suddenly to relate in their own Language to every Nation the wonderful things which concerned their salvation And from hence I will draw the impossibility of their feigning their sanctity in the delivery of these Revelations for as the Revelation was from God so the very delivery of them by the power of Tongues was from God who cannot countenance and make good a lye But yet certainly although their might be a possibility of being other I grant that for Arguments sake which I allow not yet when there is no probability of the contrary we have great assurance of that truth and his answer is most wicked as well as weak drawn from a possibility of feigning and counterfeiting in the Apostles CHAP. XXII SECT XI Mr. Hobbs his third Argument from the wisdom of the Apostles confirmed The miraculous consent of men to the revelations published by them An Argument from the propagation of Christianity against the opposition of the whole world A serious application and vow for Mr. Hobbs his conversion A Third Argument which he endeavours to put off is drawn from the extraordinary wisdome or extraordinary felicity of his actions all which saith he are marks of Gods extraordinary favour His answer to this is at the bottom of that page thus The visible felicities of this world are most often the work of God by natural and ordinary causes And therefore no man can infallibly know by natural reason that another has had a supernatural revelation of Gods will but only a belief everyone as the signs thereof shall appear greater or lesser a firmer or weaker belief Thus far he I no â—answer to the first which concerns their wisdome I do not remember that I have read the wisdome of these men to be produced for proof of their revelations yet because he has put it down and given one answer to it I will urge something for it that it was and is a great convincing argument that such poor ignorant illiterate fishermen should attain or rather be endued from above with such wisdome as to be able to confute the greatest and best studied Philosophers and reduce them to consent to their revelations this must need prove that these men were assisted by some knowledg above Nature But let that pass since he makes no answer but for the other the success of Christianity that is a most rational argument and his answer confutes himself for whereas he saith the visible felicities of this World are most often the work of God by natural ordinate causes I retor it to him that the felicities of this world hapning to these men were nothing but that general propagation of the Gospel which was wrought against the force and power of all natural causes all the Emperors Kings and Princes of this World fighting against and suppressing it with all the force and tyranny which they were able to use so that their strength grew by oppression Sanguis Martyrum was â—emen Ecclesiae And M. Hobbs cannot think that that was a natural seed And so I will conclude this discourse for this time hoping that God will so assist him that he may see his own error and with his own hand blot out all these unworthy doubts which he hath cast upon Christianity CHAP. XXII SECT XII Mr. Hobbs his second Question propounded and discussed his assumption not clear the Argument changed and the Reader eluded 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 â—e 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
positive Law but many Laws are limited not only by Gods Laws of Nature but his positive Laws likewise which have as great force as the other to whomsoever they are revealed Now I am in the 150 pageâ— let the Reader consider again how he takes occasion to lessen the authority of Scripture I am perswaded he can produce no Christian writer from our Saviours time downward that ever delivered so unworthy a conceipt of the positive Law of God it is as if he should say we should obey a Constables command against the Kings command by Statute for the difference is much less betwixt the King and a Constable than betwixt the greatest King in the World and God The common Law which I conceive to be an unwritten tradition is like the Law of Nature the Statute Law like the positive Laws It is lawful not considering a statute for a man to act any thing not against the common Law but if a positive i e. a statute Law intervene it is no longer lawful by any private power to act that which otherwise had been lawful Thus until a positive Law of God interpose whatsoever is not against the Law of Nature is lawful but when that positive Law is manifest it is necessary that that likewise be obeyed and no humane Law of mans making can have right to dispense with it He proceeds besides there is no place in the world where men are permitted to pretend other commandements of God than are declared for such by the Common-wealth Christian States punish those that revolt from Christian Religion and all other States those that set up any religion by them forbidden For in whatsoever is not regulated by the Common-wealth 't is equity which is the Law of Nature and therefore an eternal Law of God that every man equally enjoy his Liberty Here is an Argument drawn à facto ad jus Because this is done therefore it is rightly done and an equal weight put upon the acts of Heathens and worshippers of the Sun Moon c. with that of Christians who only worship the true God As if because Kings justly punish those who violate the Laws of those Kingdomes which they are intrusted with therefore Thieves justly may destroy such as break the Laws of their Combination when indeed the first are just but the other most unjust The case seems to be the same here for all those are combinations of Thieves who rob God of his due honour required by him the Christians only act by the Law of God So that here we may discern a great difference in the right of the two aâ—tings of the Christian and the Heathen but then consider what is the ground of them both we shall find it different from what Mr. Hobbs delivers He conceiveth the reason to be this why delinquents are punished because they swerve from the Law of the supreme but it is clearly otherwise The Christian doth not therefore receive the holy Communion or repent of his sin or do such like heavenly duties because the supreme Magistrate requires them but because he finds those duties exacted by God in his positive Laws and if the Magistrate shall controulit he knows God must be obeyed before man when he requires contrary to God And the same reason persvvades the Turk concerning his Alcoran vvhich he vainly imagineth to be the divine Lavv and if the Grand Signior himself do contradict that Lavv they vvill not obey him upon that reason And surely the same Argument prevails vvith all other Nations vvho have their Religion by tradition it is not the Lavv of man but the imagined Lavv of God vvhich they subject themselves unto in divine performances And therefore though soveraigns punish such transgressions vvhich are against those Lavvs vvhich they have established for divine yet it is therefore because they are esteemed divine Therefore they made such Lavvs not that they could think that they ought to be esteemed divine because they established them I vvill add but one observation more vvhich is this That although he saith that all Nations practise this that is that they allovv only such divine Lavvs vvhich they have established to be such yet I believe no Nation in the World no Christian I am assured would have allowed this doctrine to be published but only such as were in that distracted condition as our poor Nation was when he published it For since every Christian Kingdome professeth a conformity to divine Law it cannot be imagined that they durst obtrude such an impossible thing to be credited as that they could make divine Laws but only confirm and exact an obedience to them Nay I can think the same of all even Heathen Nations So that it is a conclusion abhorring to Christianity yea humane Nature wheresoever it is planted with any Religion For since all do conceive God to be an infinite able and wise Governour even of Kings supremes and kingdomes how can they think it afe for them out of humane obedience to subject his rules to the controul of his Subjects which all Kings and Potentates are I have handled this Paragraph verbatim and although there are many more expressions in this case which may deserve censure yet I pass them over and indeed did think here to have concluded his Politiques and so not to have passed any further censure upon them in this place But there are some egregious errors hereafter which must not be passed over with silence I will also skip over his twenty seventh and twenty eight Chapters as containing things in general less malitious and I will enter upon his twenty ninth Chapter which he intitles Of those things which weaken or tend to the dissolution of a Common-wealth CHAP. XXIII SECT I. Mr. Hobbs his second Paragraph purged The signification of the word Judge Inferiour Judges apply the determinations of Laws concerning good and evil to particular persons and facts Private men have judicium rationis and therefore may determine upon their own ratiocination No man to intrude upon the office of a judge but by deputation from the Soveraign THe first of these I let pass as having spoken something of it already materially and begin with his second which he enters upon page 168. towards the bottom of that Page which begins thus In the second place I observe the diseases of a Common-wealth that proceed from the poyson of seditious doctrines whereof one is that every private man is Judge of good and evil actions To purge this doctrine from all poyson observe first that this word Judge sounds like a legal Officer and truly to speak properly I think the supreme legislative power is the Judge of politick good and evil the other subordinate Judges are only Judges of the application of the supreme to particular cases for instance thus The legislative power commands that no man shall steal if he do he shall be thus and thus punished the Judge applyes this sentence of this evil to â—itius who is brought
S. 2. C. 16. S. 6. the first obligeth C. 5. S. 1. They may be made immediately with God C. 5. S. 3. If made with God against the Soveraigne they do not oblige ibid. Not necessary that the Covenant in government should be made â—ith all as one person or severally with every one Cap. 5. Sect. 4. The Prince may Covenant in taking his Authority and not take it upon Covenant C. 6. S. 1. The Sword hath no power but from the Covenant C. 6. S. 3. Creation the description of it by Moses not to be known but by Revelation C. 22. S. 1. D Darius his Kingdom not every way absolute C. 13. S. 3 4. Denominations are a principatiori C. 19. S. 6. Desire the difference betwixt it the will and inclination ib. Disputes concerning Government dangerous C. 18. S. 3. Doctrines which are peaceable only true C. 10. S. 7. By the negligence of Governors and Teachers false Doctrines are received C. 10. S. 7. Christian Doctrines to be introduced by reason and sufferings and not by force cap. 10. sect 9. Dominion not the same in an instituted and acquired Kingdom cap. 15. sect 5. c. 16. s. 12. c. 17. s. 1. All not acquired by force cap. 16. sect 1. What is Paternal cap. 15. sect 1. Whether a Child can give consent in his Infancy c. 16. s. 1. What is Dominion by conquest cap. 16. sect 12. What over the conquered cap. 16. sect 12. c. 17. s. 1. How it becomes Despotical cap. 16. sect 12. Dominion by Conquest vid. Conquest E End he who hath right to the End how he hath right to the Means cap. 9. sect 2. England one only Soveraign in England cap. 23. s. 16. The good constitution of the Realm c. 23. s. 15 16. Especially in relation to Taxes cap. 23. sect 17. Ephori first introduced amongst the Lacedaemonians and why cap. 13. sect 6. Equity what it is cap. 20. sect 3. F Faith resolved into Divine Revelation cap. 22. sect 7. Commanded by God c. 22. s. 13 14 15. c. 23. s. 6. 'T is wrought by ordinate means cap. 22. sect 15. 'T is both inspired and acquired cap. 23. sect 6. Faith and Prophecy different things ibid. It comes by hearing cap. 23. sect 6. Its impediments cap. 22. sect 14. Father to be obeyed before the Mother cap. 16. sect 3. where he is unknown to whom the Child belongs c. 16. s. 8. greater respect due to him then to him who nourished the Child cap. 16. sect 10. Fear whether it induceth obedience cap. 15. sect 2. 'T is an impediment to Faith cap. 22. sect 14. Free and Freedom vid. Liberty G Generation more excellent then Preservation c. 16. s. 11. Glory vain-glory an impediment to Faith c. 22. s. 14. God only the Author of Power c. 18. s. 7. c. 20. s. 1. not the Author of those things which are contrary to his commands cap. 19. sect 11. His positive Laws to be obeyed cap. 22. sect 12. where that obedience is founded cap. 22. sect 13. Good humane Laws cannot make some things good or evil cap. 11. sect 5. Gospel Its success Miraculous cap. 22. sect 11. Government remisness of it an occasion of tumults c. 10. s. 9. The Formes thereof ought to be suited to the disposition of the People cap. 13. sect 5. 'T is profitable that the people have some interest in it cap. 13. sect 6. Mr. Hobs's imaginary foundation of it cap. 14. sect 1. Disputes about Government dangerous cap. 18. s. 13. Gifts are free cap. 19. sect 3. H History useful for Princes cap. 23. sect 10. 11. Especially the Greek and Roman c. 23. s. 10 11 12. Mr. Hobs's Commonwealth no where to be found c. 4. s. 1. 'T is not consistent with Reason cap. 4. sect 2. He first called it Leviathan cap. 3. His imaginary foundation of Government c. 14. s. 1. He gave dangerous Council to the Protector c. 14. s. 2. full of contradictions cap. 16. sect 2. Magnifies his own Politicks cap. 18. sect 14. Incourageth Rebellion cap. 20. sect 8. He makes the Estates in Parliament factious c. 23. s. 15. What assurance he hath of his being born at Malmsbury cap. 22. sect 1. The Authors opinion of his Book cap. 23. sect 18. Honour Titles thereof conferred by the Soveraigne cap. 12. sect 4. Husband the head of the Wife cap. 16. sect 4. Hyperbolus banished cap. 20. sect 5. I Jepthas Vow cap. 20. sect 2. Jews witnesses of the old Testament cap. 22. sect 2. their Government ceased cap. 18. sect 12. Incarnation of Christ not to be known but by Revelation cap. 22. sect 5. Inclination distinct from the will and desire c. 19. s. 6. Incorporate why men Incorporate into bodies Politick cap. 11. sect 1. Infant whether it can give consent cap. 16. sect 1. Injury What it is cap. 8. sect 3. How a man may injure himself cap. 8. sect 3. Injustice what it is ibid. A Soveraign may do it cap. 8. sect 4. Innocents not justly punished cap. 2. sect 3. Israelites why obeyed they Moses cap. 22. sect 17. Judge What it is properly to Judge cap. 23. sect 1. Not the same to be a Judge and constitute a Judge cap. 10. sect 10. He is to observe not make a Law cap. 18. sect 9. Every one is Judge of good and evil cap. 23. sect 5. 6. What Judgement private persons may pass upon publick actions cap. 23. sect 1 2 3. K Kingdome What is an acquired Kingdome c. 15. s. 1. Not always acquired by force ibid. The condition of a conquered Kingdom not the same with an instituted cap. 15. sect 5. Kings v. Supremes and Soveraigns Only accountable unto God c. 5. s. 4. c. 6. s. 1. Their account unto him great cap. 12. s. 5. Not punishable by the People and why c. 9. s. 1. Their power in matters of Religion c. 10. s. 1. That subject to the commands of God ibid. No absolute obedience due to them cap. 18. s. 4. c. No taking Armes against them cap. 16. sect 7. They not only sin against God cap. 20. sect 4. Their power about Preaching and Printing c. 10. s. 2. They have not right to whatsoever the subject possesseth cap. 18. s. 8. c. Kill When lawful to kill cap. 23. sect 4. L Lacedaemon Whether that state was Monarchical cap. 13. sect 3. 7. Laws Humane Laws cannot make somethings good or evil cap. 11. sect 5. Positive Laws of God to be obeyed cap. 22. sect 12. Where that obedience is founded cap. 22. s. 13. How far the Civil Law and Law of Nature are the Measure of our Actions cap. 23. sect 3. The Execution of good Laws make a Nation happy cap. 23. sect 10. Laws for private interest conduce much to the publick good cap. 23. sect 8. Liberty What it is cap. 19. sect 1. from Coaction cap. 19. sect 1. 7. from Necessity cap. 19. sect 1. 7. Who is properly a free-man cap. 19. sect 2. Not proper only to bodies
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 therefâ—re hath nothing before to build it self upon and indeed in Logick it should have been deduced out of the prâ—mises 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 bâ—ing in the world So that if peace can be without propriety and propriety without peace it cannot truly be said that prâ—priety 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 1. The Soveraign obliged to take care for the decision of Controversies and accomptable to God as for his own so also for his Officers neglect EIghthly saith he â—s annexed to the Sâ—veraign the Rights of Controversies which may arise â—â—â—erning Law either Civil or Natural or concerning Fact for without the decision of Controversies there is no protection of one Subject from the injuries of another That is true which he speaks so that he understands by it not a natural immediate Agent but a moral political act by his Deputies and inferiour Officers as Judges and then it is not only a right which he may but a duty which he ought to do And I may go further then Mr. Hâ—bbs here and say that he shall be responsible to the great King of Kings for not taking care that those his Officers do his duty of Justice in deciding causes Jethro Mâ—ses Father-in-law gave him good counsel not to take that burthen impossible for his shoulders to bear upon himself alone but divide it to others and keep weighty causes only to himself SECT II. Mr. Hobbs ninth Inference affirmed Soveraigns in ordinary emergencies to use ordinary means Salus Populi Suprema Lex NInthly c. saith he truly Reader I am tired with transcribing his words distinctly The drift of this ninth Inference is to say That the Soverâ—ign hath right to the Militia of his Kingdom and so of all means to maintain his Army and he saith right without this all others are nothing The Subjects cannot be protected either from forreign or domestick injuries This is true but yet he hath right only to use right means for this I speak not of cases of necessity Salus Reipublicae est summa Lex but in the ordinary mannage of affairs he must reserve himself questionless to the ordinary ways SECT III. The choice of Councellors c. in the Soveraign Mr. Hobbs his reason of this Conclusion refuted FOr his tenth Inference which is his right of chusing Councellors Officers of his Army and the like I agree with him but not for his oft confuted reason because he hath right to the end he must have right to the means for he cannot have right to get his right ends by crooked means but because he is Supreme and is the Fountain of all Power in his Realm But yet there are in many Kingdomes great Offices belonging to Families as
more or less for his linking of his actions to God Almighty nay if his discourse be true Subjects have as great liberty as Kings for all their actions are alike necessitated by this Chain Here Reader I thought to have ended with his Politicks having as I think digged up his Foundation and then the Building must fall but meeting so many wicked interpretations of Scripture and so many abominable conclusions in Divinity intermixed with his Political discourses I am forced to proceed with some of them lest the Reader should be unhappily seduced but not prosecute them word by word as I have done but skipping from one hill to another leaving the lesser work and Mole-hills to be censured by any man who hath more leisure and spare time and to that purpose remove with me to the next page 109. about the middle where he begins thus CHAP. XX. SECT I. Mr. Hobbs his impious Proposition in this Paragraph discovered and censured Injustice and iniquity the same The Subject not Author of the actions of his Soveraign The Soveraign granting the former Proposition cannot kill an Innocent justly No man hath power to take away his own life justly Neither Subjects nor Kings have right to any thing but from God who gives not power to either to shed Innocent Blood The Law of Nature deserted by Mr. Hobbs to the murther of an Innocent His disapprobation of Scripture censured NEvertheless we are not to understand that by such liberty the Soveraign Power of Life and Death is either abolished or limited I conceive by Soveraign Power he means the power of the Soveraign and that Authority not limited by any Law which being violated he should do unjustly for this sense the sequel of this discourse will apparently justifie and then I say it is a wicked Proposition as will appear by the examination of his reasons which he enters upon in the following words For it hath been already shewn that nothing the Soveraign Representative can do to a Subject on what pretence soever can properly be called injustice or injury Yes he hath shewn it with a nice and learned distinction betwixt Injustice and Iniquity concerning which I may justly say they are hardly two words but not two things as I have shew'd But what doth he mean by a Soveraign Representative here I think he hath delivered that all Soveraigns are Representatives of the people What he can mean by this addition of Representative I know not but he explains himself in the words following Because saith he every Subject is Authâ—r of every act the Soveraign doth so that he never wanteth right to anything otherwise then as he himself is a Subject of God and bound thereby to observe the Laws of Nature The first part I have spoken to heretofore and shewed that every Subject is not Author of the Soveraigns acts where he saith he hath shown it But now I shall go further and prove that if they were Authors of his acts yet by their Authority he cannot kill an Innocent justly which I do thus The people cannot authorize him to act any thing which they themselves have not just power to do but the people conjunctim or divisim have no just power to take away an innocent mans life therefore they cannot authorize him The major is grounded upon that invincible Axiom No man gives what he hath not therefore if they have not that power they cannot give it The minor will be proved thus Before a Commonwealth be instituted no man hath just power to take away anothers life as is most evident I but they may answer every man hath power over his own which every man may yield to the Soveraign 〈◊〉 rejoyn No man hath just power to take away his owâ— life he may give his goods but not his life God is the God of life and hath given no private man Authority to cut off his own life and therefore undoubtedly he cannot give power to another which he hath not himself And if there were no other argument against his popular Constitution of a Supreme this were enough for confutation of it for there must be a power of life and death in a Common-wealth upon the emergency of great iniquities it cannot subsist else And so I pass to the second part of that conclusion which is Otherwise then as he himself is the Subject of God and bound thereby to observe the Laws of Nature There is much folly if not wickedness in these few words First I say neither Kings nor any man hath right to any thing but as they are Gods Subjects The earth is the Lords and all that is in it and to whom he giveth it they have right to such pieces and none else He is King of Kings with a much greater Prerogative then they can have over their Subjects They can have no power therefore or right to act any thing which is not a power delegated from him and certainly he can never shew me any power given to Kings by God to shed innocent blood Secondly it is a strange phrase used by him and bound thereby to observe the Laws of Nature First because the Law of Nature in particulars is to preserve not to take away life in general and concerning Commonwealths to reward Virtue and punish Vice when this wicked book would have it the Law of Nature to kill an Innocent yea a virtuous person Secondly consider that being bound because he is Gods Subject to the Law of Nature and only that he should not be bound to Gods positive Laws in Scripture a distinction which he himself makes use of and therefore may more powerfully be retorted to him but he loves not Scripture and this odious expression of his is most abominable SECT II. Mr. Hobbs his Proposition in this Paragraph examined and censured His dubious expressions discovered from his former Assertions and refuted Scripture seldom cited by Mr. Hobbs but to give a celour and Authority to Impiety Jephta's rash Vow examined The execution of that Vow impious Jephta's Sacrifice no President for others HE goes on And therefore it may and doth often happen in Commonwealths that a Subject mâ—y be put to death by the Command of the Soveraign Power and yet neither to the other wrong There is one shift in this Proposition by which it may be justified as thus That a Soveraign may punish a Delinquent who formally did him no wrong or an inconsiderable one that is to the Prince himself but for an injury to another of his Fellow Subjects as for robbing or burning his Neighbours house But as it seems by that argumentative word therefore which must relate to the precedent matter he may do it when the murthered Party hath done no wrong to any body and then it is wickedly false he gives instances two or three We will examine them next As saith he when Jeptha caused his daughter to be sacrificed in which and the like cases he that â—o dyeth had liberty to do the
action for which he is nevertheless put to death without injury I could wish he would let Scripture alone for he loving it not with a due reverence seldom naâ—es it but to countenance some wickedness as here This story is recorded Judges the 11. And Mr. Hobbs I am perswaded did know how it is with sharpness disputed by Divines whether he sacrificed her or made a Votary of her I will embroile my self in no unnecessary controversies but will grant all he requires in that dispute that he did sacrifice her what follows then that he did iâ— justly certainly no the actions of bad Kings yea the bad actions of good Princes cannot be justifiable precedents for following ages The world and the particular men in it are compounded of good and evill there is not any man so bad as hath no good but that he may be worse nor any man so good but he may be better he hath some ill actions falling from him That is it which I speak of this very gallant person Jephta he might have such an ill action out of a foolish mistaken Zeal that that rash vow of his was to be kept it was a foolish and a rash vow for for my parâ— I cannot guesse what he could imagine what he could conceive should come out of his doors which should be fit for a sacrifice to God Domestick creatures as dogs servants or children are all of them hated by God for sacrifices Calves Rams Cows Goats c. which are the proper things for sacrifices are not domestick inhabitants but to shed innocent blood in offering his daughter for a sacrifice was without doubt most impious and this is reckoned by David in Psalm 106. verse 38. amongst the abominations of the Israelites that they shed blood in their offering up their Sons and Daughters to Divels I but it may be objected that he had vowed it to God A vow made to do evil is ipso facto void God never confirmed it he ought not to keep it but to repent for making it this was to shed innocent blood which was a sacrifice fit for none but the Divel from whom the instigation to it proceeded so that if Jephta did kill her for a sacrifice he did wickedly There is a certain humour in many men who will be peremptory in some point of religion that they may seem godly who value not much the reality of it they will keep a rash or which amounts to the same a not well advised oath although to sin when they will neglect obedience to do righteously this was evident in King Saul you may find 1 Sam. 14. 24. Saul curseth any man who should eat any food until eventide here was a most rash curse and the 27. verse Johnathan who knew nothing of this curse of his Fathers eats a little honey in the 44. verse Saul swears again that he shall surely dye what a horrid injustice had this been in Saul to slay that gallant person a man of so much honour and worth for the satisfaction of his rash oath You shall find in the next Chap. that Samuel gave Saul a commandment from God to do execution upon Amalek and then he can in the 9. verse spare Agag and the best of their cattle see the same humour in both that which God had prohibited murther even upon his own son he would have committed although against Gods law because it was agreeing with that religion which he had instituted for God to wit his oath but then upon the same reason he spared Agag when God commanded his destruction because it suited better with his phancie that they should make a glorious sacrifice to God of what they had taken and therefore in the 22. v. Sam. gives him this heavy reproof Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord behold to obey is better than sacrifice When God hath given laws for mens actions it is a disobedience to invent witty ways of our own which cross them to spare what God would have us destroy and destroy that which God would have us save This was the humour of Sauls religion I dare not censure Jephta he was a person of as spotless integrity as any I find amongst the Judges unless Samuel but if he did kill his daughter I may justly say it was a most unjust act and a satisfaction of his fancy in religion which imagined what he had sworn in re illicita must be performed although against Gods law which forbids killing which in sacrifice required no such thing but not a religious act nor can this be a precedent for others nor a justification of others in doing the like although a better man than he be joyned with him which is David and so I come to his second instance CHAP. XX. SECT III. The murther of Uriah discussed Mr Hobbs his distinction censured Killing of an innocent contrary not only to the equitable part but the very letter of the law of nature The law not the executioner kills a Criminal No power given by Uriah to David to kill him being an innocent Mr. Hobbs his errors multiplied from his fictitious institution of Soveraignes by popular election Uriah not impowered to dispose of his own life HIs words are In which and the like cases he that so dyeth had liberty to do the action for which he is nevertheless without injury put to death I have shewed the contrary it is an injury to put any man to death for that which he had liberty that is was not bound by law not to do and such a law which enjoyned such a penalty for the breach of it Again he And the same holdeth also in a Soveraign Prince that putteth to death an innocent Subject What a Tautologie is this I thought he had discoursed of a Soveraign Prince all this while if not it is more abominable I but he hath reason for what he hath delivered for sath he Though the action be against the law of nature as being contrary to equitie as was the killing of Uriah by David yet it was not an injury to Uriah but to God A very fine and delicate distinction of which I have spoke before But now concerning this language as it is used here though the action saith he be against the law of nature as being contrary to equitie First Reader consider if he take equity as many times it is for a mitigation or a gentle exposition which moderates the extream rigor of the law this surely may be deduced out of the law of nature then saith he it is against the law of nature because against the kind and charitable exposition of the law of nature only but without question killing an innocent is most directly contrary to the very letter of the law of nature and the full sence of it for although he makes nothing of the positive law of God in this discourse yet the ten commandments being by all understood to be an
illustration or explication of that law writ in our hearts as he himself seems to allow hereafter therefore that law being clear Thou shalt not kill and this killing an innocent being the most detestable of all other it is most clearly not only against the equity but the letter that is that sence which the law intends for the law of nature directs and commands that vertue and vertuous men should be rewarded and incouraged and vice punished Thou shalt not kill for the satisfaction of thy passion whom the law doth not direct but if the law command killing lest the Common-wealth be hurt by so wicked a person lest vice may be nourished then the law kills not thou who art an executioner of the law And therefore to kill an innocent is a monstrous crime whom no law kills he gives an instance again as was the killing of Uriah by David yet it was not an injury to Uriah but to God yes the greatest injury could be done to him No saith he not to Uriah because the right to do what he pleased was given him by Uriah himself Shew that concession or gift from Vriah and it will go a great way to my satisfaction nay certainly there was never such a concession from Uriah or any Subject that the King shall kill him being an innocent It is not good for the Common-wealth that any have such a power because by such a wicked act the Commonwealth loseth a worthy member as was vriah but that abominable false foundation of the only way of instituting a Common-wealth by the popular election that impossible error leads him into many more but suppose vriah yielded such a power yea if it had been done by such a consent as he expressed yet they had no power over their own lives and therefore could not impower him over them especially when embodied into a Common-wealth for his country hath a share in every Subjects life and good subjects well-being by which it is amended and bettered so that he must needs do an injury to others by such an act for it is wrong and again all justice that man should suffer by weldoing This may suffice for the first piece of that sentence now we will examine the second CHAP. XX. SECT IV. Davids sin in murthering Uriah a sin against God because an injury to man St. Ambrose explained David his soveraignty freed from the punishment of sin but not from the guilt of it Rom. 13. 4. the first epistle of St. Peter 2. 14. explained The former assertions proved against Mr. Hobbs by the authority of S t. Basil S t. Chrysostome St. Hierom and St. Augustin The authors sence of these words tibi soli peccavi Mr. Hobbs his variation from the authority and reading of England The former conclusions recapitulated and asserted against Mr. Hobbs from the meaning of this text A And yet to God because David was Gods Subject and prohibited all iniquity by the law of nature Well now let us consider why this was iniquiâ—y for no other reason certainly but because it was injustice done to another man The law of nature prescribes all and nothing but in justice if it be towards God it is called religion which payes to God the duty which we owe him and is set down in the four first commandements of the Decalogue but all the justice which is due to man is set down in the six latter I must then tell him that that act of Murther in David was not a sin against God but only out of regard that it was an injury to man for therefore the law of nature written in mens hearts and the positive law of God was against it because it was unjust for man to do it so that the reason why it was an offence against God being only because it was an injury to man it must follow that it cannot be an injury to God but it must likewise be an injury to man I but saith he it was against God because King David was Gods subject Yet give me leave although King David was Gods subject yet it doth not follow that in murthering his fellow subjects he did no injury to them no more than the Kings subjects officers or Judges under him may be said in condemning innocent blood to injure only the King and not the person whom he so murthered it is most evident therefore that that sin was against both God and man But he brings scripture for what he writes which distinction David himself when he repented the fact evidently confirmed saying To thee only have I sinned Which text you may read Psalm 51. 4. and to â—nderstand the sence of it let us reflect upon the story of this Psalm as it is recorded with 2 Sam. 12. where we may observe that after he had committed these hainous sins of adultery and murther God sent Nathan the Prophet to him and he told David his own story under a Parable of a Rich man who took a poor mans lamb from him to entertain his friend with it This was a picture of Davids crime was not this injustice Consider then in the 9. verse where he acquaints the King with Gods sentence against him he doth not lay to his charge only that he had offended God but that he had killed vriah the Hittite with the sword and had taken his wife to be his wife and had slain him with the sword of the Children of Ammon so that the sins of David were against men for though all sin is against God even the trespass against men is therefore a sin because against Gods law yet it is a sin against men and therefore prohibited by Gods law because unjust to men I speak of all such sins which are suâ naturâ in their own nature sins of which kind murther is then let us look to the 14. verse of this Psalm Deliver me from blood-guiltiness O God Blood-guiltiness what is that Nothing but the guilt of that sin which he had committed by that murtherous act of killing Vriah and therefore as a murtherer is guilty of the crime untill he is absolved of his Judge and his only Judge God Almighty had acquitted him he untill then was guilty of blood of murthering Vriah Well then undoubtedly that was an unjust act let Mr. Hobbs say what he will or can But I will do him right he goes not alone in this opinion but hath St. Ambrose a person of great honour both for judgment and integrity along with him and because I will urge this argument to the full I will say he was no Court parasite one who would flatter Kings into sin as was evident in that contest he had with the Emperour Theodosius in which was apparent both an incomparable Emperour and a pious and zealous Prelate This St. Ambrose utters some things in his book called Apologia David like Mr. Hobbs where in his tenth Chap. at the beginning he expounds these words tibi soli peccavi Rex utique erat nullis
ipse legibus tenebatur I have sinned only to thee for he was a King he was held or confined by no laws because saith he Kings are free from the bonds of laws neither by any laws are they called to punishment being safe by the power of Empire This a man would think abundantly full but yet he never used Mr. Hobbs his Phrase to say he did not unjustly But his first speech must be understood that he was not with held by any humane laws for Mr. Hobbs confesseth that he is responsable for the breach of divine laws by the law of nature Secondly that speech of his that Kings are freed from the bonds of their faults that must be understood of such bonds as imprisonments or such punishments which by humane laws are injoyned offenders and that is clearly expounded by his last sentence that they are by no laws called to punishment being safe in the power of Empire that iâ— safe from the questioning of their subjects so that his whâ—le sence is this That David as a King was not responsable for his subjects to any man nor lyable to any punishment for them I could speak more to this and shew how that Sâ— Ambrose prodâ—ced another exposition presently after but certainly neither he nor any man but Mr. Hobbs will say it was not injustice it is suâ naturâ â—â—just to punish with the greatest punishment death an innocent person Nor doth his being a King make it less injustice â—ut rather aggravate it because his chief office under God and for which he is constituted by God is to distribuâ—e justice equally and reward the vertuous and punish the evil as St. Paul excellently and clearly speaks Rom. 13. 4. He is the minister of God to thee for Good that is to thee who dost that wâ—ich is good as he speaks in the 3. verse but if thou dost evil be afraid for he beareth not the sword in vain for he is the minister of God a Revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil So likewise St. Peter 1. Epist. 2. 14. makes it their business to punish evil doers and the praise of them who do well Now if these be the contents of the commission from God to these his Dâ—puties they must needs be guilty of injustâ—ce who punish citra condignum where there was no desert of it and they who aâ—e Kings so much the more by how much it is their particular duty to take care of the contrary I have now cleared the sence of Sâ— Ambrose as I guess but lest any scruple might remain from his authority with any man who might mistake his sence I will therefore weigh down the Scales with the weights of others his near contemporaries of no less honour in Christendom than himself And the first I shall present you with is St. Basil the great so he is called in his scholia upon this verse of this Psalm Tibi soli peccavi cùm multis magnis donis tuis sum positus Since I enjoy many and great gifts of thine but have returned contrary things he doth not say here that he had not sinned against Uriah he had indeed offended against him and against his wife but the greatest prevarication was committed against God himself who had câ—oâ—en him and constituted him King and therefore he rightly added and done this evil in thy sight thus far St. Basil. The next which I shall produce shall be Sâ— Chrysostom upon this Psalm and this verse and he agrees very much with St. Basil. To thee only have I sinned Many saith he and great benefits have I received from thee but I have returned them with contrary things for these things which by thy law are interdicted I have not doubted to commit neither doth he say that I have not hurt Uriah for he had both hurt him and his wife but the greatest iniquity was against God Thus far St. Chrysostum Next consider St. Hierom Tibi solùm peccavi to thee only have I sinned for to thee every man sins when he sins because thou art only without sin as the Apostle speaks Rom. 3. 4. God is true but every man a lyar or else David saith I have sinned and thou only art without sin as saith the Prophet Isaiah 53. Who did no sin nor was guile found in his mouth St. Augustin likewise harps upon the same string To thee only have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight what is this saith that heavenly man Had not he adulterated anothers wife and slain her husband Did not all men know what David had done What is that he saith then to thee only have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight He answers because thou only art without sin he is a just punisher who hâ—th nothing in himself to be punished he is a just reprehender who hath nothing in himself to be reprehended Here you may see how holy and learned men living near together about one time with St. Ambrose men famous in their generations and to whom the Church of Christ owes exceeding much for the propagation of the Gospel gave their sense of this text of scripture as well as he and St. Augustin was one who honoured St. Ambrose living and dead yet you see varies from him in his judgment in this point Give me leave to shew my sense of these words and then conclude And first I will allow Mr. Hobbs his reading to thee which is not according to our translation which is against thee and certainly by men learned in the Hebrew both amongst the ancient and modern writers with a great conâ—ent 〈◊〉 is acknowledged to be true yet it profits his cause nothing to read it as he doth insomuch that Bellarmine in his Comment upon this Psalm saith To thee only have I sinned he doth not say against thee only he had offended against vriah against Bathsheba he had scandalized the people but to thee only as Judge and none else can judge and condemn me as he illustrates it So that although Mr. Hobbs varies from his own rule of scripture yet he gets nothing to his cause by it But to proceed in expounding I ask leave and beg pardon of such eminent men from whom I may seem to differ for my part I do not think that David here acts the part of a King or so much as thinks of his great Regality if he did it was to aggravate not to extenuate his sin but of a penitent and in his penitence is a pattern to other men as well as Kings how they should demean themselves even Kings in those duties are reconciling themselves to their King in respect of whom they are poor and mean people and if they should consider themselves Kings they should by this increase their humility considering that he who oâ—es so much to God should be so ungrateful and unmindful of him The Prophet therefore now considering his offence to God cryes out To thee only have I sinned before Nathan the
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 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 aâ—thority 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 prâ—mise performed by God which was made Deut. 18. 15. urged by St. Peter Acts 3. 22. A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your Brethren like unto me him sâ—all you hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you v 23. And it shall coâ—e to pass that every Soul which will not hear that Prophet shall be dâ—stroyed from among the People Let Mr. Hobbs and his Followers read these thrâ—e words and tremble Condemned Damned Destroyed who believes not c. What shall such be who have not only this privative infidelity but a positive which opposeth and disturbs the faith of such as do believe with foolish and unnecessary Arguments Faith is commanded and exacted by God upon a dreadful penalty So likewise John 3 23. This is his commandement that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ. There in express terms this belief is commanded and as I have shewed obedience could not be given to other Laws if faith did not preceed which is the first step towards Heaven I need not speak of other cogitations of the Heart as Pride Self-conceitedness Covetous desiring others goods c. are all prohibited by God and he will punish them Mr. Hobbs was therefore to blame very much in saying that faith and the interiour cogitations are not subject to Gods commands had they been humane Laws of which he spoke it had been somewhat to the purpose men cannot know and therefore cannot punish the interiour cogitations and so not make Laws for them but God knows and searcheth the heart and reins and will punish them and therefore it is fit for him to give commands concerning them CHAP. XXII SECT Xâ—V External and inferiour Acts subject to divine regulation Faith the fuâ—filling of that Law which commanded it Vain-glory and fear equally impeding practical Faith BUt it seems there is more in this argument of his where he saith but only to the operation of God ordinary or extraordinary I have spoken somewhat to this a little before where I shewed that other vertues which cannot be denyed to be commanded are subject to the operations of God who worketh both to will and to doe who creates and preserves and although he gives the will yet if he goe not on in the operation it will
Upon what ground but on this submission of their own Exod. 20. Speak thou to us and we will hear thee but let not God speak to us lest we die By which two places saith he it sufficiently appears that in a Common-wealth a Subject that has no certain and assured revelation particularly to himselâ— concerning the will of God is to obey for such the command of the Common-wealth That is by his Logick the soveraign of the Common-wealth How this conclusion can be drawn out of these two places of Scripture I cannot imagine Why it should not I shall give these reasons First that although these two particular cases were to be understood as he conceits yet they are but particular cases which concerned those only affairs which were under their proper management and there is no one word which points at them to make them presidents for others or to give an universal rule for all others Secondly whereas he saith that in a Common-wealth a Subject should do thus as he sets down in one of his instances to wit that of Abraham there was no Common-wealth setled but only a noble family many things may be proper to a family which are not for a Common-wealth nay indeed the government of the Israelites under Moses was as yet not a pefect established Common-wealth but only in fieri the Common-wealth was in moulding the Laws for the government were in making Then consider in Moses his case for I have writ enough concerning the other the People said they would hear Moses and good reason for it because they discerned that he had conversation with God that Gods terrour was so great that no man durst injure him by doubting his Laws who had such near converse with God as he had when called up to the top of the Mount and therefore might be trusted on his relation And therefore it seems their promise of hearkning to whatsoever Moses should deliver for Gods Law was to him as a Prophet rather than as a King which indeed was in that regard more to be considered And certainly those dictates of the holy Scripture for our practices which are delivered by King David or Solomon have not that great obligation upon us as they were Kings but Prophets nor are the books which are Scripture and commanded to be so received amongst us therefore of divine authourity because Kings declare them to be such but contrariwise Kings declare them to be such because they are such And good Reader consider further that this reason of Mr. Hobbs might have excused all the worshippers of Baal all the idolatries and abominations committed in the reign of Jeroboam and the rest of those wicked Kings over Israel For if the â—eople were to receive that and that only for the word of God which their supremes authorized then they authorizing those and only those commands which were directed to those impieties were so to be accepted and obeyed unless they had particular revelation which in general the common people never had and then how could God justly punish them for violating those Laws which he had given them as he did often when their Kings exacted otherwayes But he gives reason for what he hath delivered for saith he if men were at liberty to take for Gods commandements their own dreams and fancies or the dreams and fancies of private men scarce two men would agree upon what is Gods commandements and yet in respect of them every man would despise the commandement of the Common wealth Alas poor man what a dream and fancy hath he vainly uttered this is like to what he affirmed before that we have no assurance of revelations unless we had particular revelations our selves And what I opposed to that will serve for this Were all those Councils all those Fathers all the consent of the Christian Church nothing but dreams all the blood of holy Martyrs nothing but fancies yea the blood of Christ whereby he hath subdued all the Kings of this Christian World nothing but dreams and fancyesâ— which yet are those Medium's by which men oppose Kings and ought to do it when they command contrary to our Christian Faith Certainly Mr. Hobos said right when he affirmed That private men must not oppose their dreams or fancies to the Laws of the Land wherein they live But under that Notion he doth amiss when he terms our assent to the revealed vvill of God â— clearly and intelligently apprehended a dream or fancy But because he terms it the Lavv of the Common-vvealth vvhich hath some sense according to his impossible principles viz. That the supreme represents the vvhole I vvill tell him it is a phrase of speech never used by any Author before for a Common-vvealth consists in the ordination of all the members 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 Heathnish 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
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 vâ—t 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 aud 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 Legislatâ—r 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 in definite 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 aâ—â—nvincible 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 sâ—â—rilegious Laws shall not I judge in my self whether
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 â—s 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 of publick Authority but there are other Consciences which are drawn out of the evident Law of Nature or clear text of Scripture these are so strong foundations to build Conscience upon that a Conscience erected upon one or both of them cannot be shaken by that which he calls a publick Conscience howsoever it is an improper Phrase used by â—im to call Conscience Opinion or Science for it is rather a Conclusion deduced out of either as I have shewed But then when he is angry in these Politicks with diversities of Consciences or Opinions as he terms them I would fain have him consider how any Common-wealth should be able to make a Law to regulate mens thoughts for they can judge of them only by outward acts it is only God who can search the hearts and reins and therefore he only can make â—aws for them Men may consine the external manage of Opinions and Consciences which is fit the legislative should do in all such things which might impede or trouble the well government of a Common-wealth and punish the expression of them but let all the power in the World make what Laws they can men will think what appears most reasonable to their understandings thoughts are far from the controul of any Leviathan whatsoever And although it is true in some part that distractions in Common-wealths arise from diversity of Opinions yet it is not true what he saith the Common wealth must needs be distracted by them for so long as they are but Opinions they do no harm but to those Persons who have them but if they justify their Opinions to the withdrawing others or themselves from obedience than they are dangerous And therefore the Leviathan although he cannot know mens Consciences and therefore not judge of them must not make Laws for them yet because he can know and judge of the outward act which may distrub the peace he must be severe both in making Laws against and punishing those faults yet I cannot chuse but wonder how he who dares publish so many doctrines against all the Leviathans in the World should not allow others the liberty of thinking against them CHAP. XXIII SECT VI. Faith
of holy Scripture together otherwise than is agreeable to reason do what they can to make men think that sanctity and natural reason cannot stand together Give me leave Reader to retort this discourse to his Person who not long since in the 26 Chap. page 149. maketh faith not a duty but a gift of God and saith it is barely an operation of God's as likewise internal sanctity And there put me to the trouble of proving mans concurrence in these acts and I may assuredly affirm that he is there exceeding guilty of what he chargeth ignorant Divines with here viz. incongruous putting places of Scripture together and as much as in him lies to make men believe that sanctity and natural reason canot stand together for if faith be only a gift and no act in the receiver or use of it insomuch as no command can be given concerning that or sanctity as he speaks there certainly natural reason hath nothing to do with it and as there I was forced to prove the concurrence of man in these Heavenly duties so here to justifie his former doctrine I must prove the co-operation of God which he seems to deny Let the Reader put that with this and he shall find the affirmative part true and the negative false in both CHAP. XXIII SECT VII Soveraigns obliged by the positive Laws of God The Laws of Nations The Law Naturals The Royal Laws or Laws of government obligatory to the soveraign The soveraign free from penal Laws A Fourth opinion repugnant to the Nature of a Common-wealth is this That he that hath the soveraign power is subject to the Civil Laws Truly I conceive by this Gentleman that he imagines Soveraigns to be strange things which must be subject to none but the Law of Nature for so he expounds it presently not to the positive Law of God which having by him no assurance that it is such but from the supreme he can no further be obliged by it than he pleaseth And so that Devilish speech of that wicked woman to her imperial Son would be made good Quod libet licet But this term Subject troubles me to find out what he means thereby if he mean not to be guided by it or else he offends without all doubt he ought to be ruled by the positive Law of God and not only by the Natural Law he ought to be ruled that is guided by his own Civil Laws which he hath made or given life unto For how can he expect an observance from others who will not keep his Laws himself But if he means by Subject subject to penalty that cannot be I am confident in a well contrived Common-wealth because all penalty for breach intimates an inferiority and as he rightly speaks aftewards He who punisheth either bodily or with shame or with whatsoever is in that act superior to him who is punished But his dispute is out of his own principles which have been twenty times confuted that is He that is subject to the Law is subject to the Common-wealth that is to the Soveraign representative that is to himself This is a weak argument because he is not the representative of the Common-wealth but the head and rules it One word more there may be Laws in a Common-wealth for Kings and for Subjects he must be guided by these which are the Royal Laws the Laws of governing although not by these which are inferiour and Laws for Subjects he must be allowed those prerogatives which are not fit for Subjects to have But yet he ought to observe the rules of governing This I conceive is enough for what he hath delivered in that Paragraph He begins another thus CHAP. XXIII SECT VIII Propriety derived from the soveraign of soveraigns The quiet enjoyment of Estates The reason according to Mr. Hobbs of the imbodying of men The propriety of the Subjects The foundation of the publick interest It excludes not the prerogative of the soveraign The title of the King of England in many cases decided by the Judges Mr. Hobbs his indulgence to the late usurped power observed AFifth doctrine which tendeth to the dissolution of a Common-wealth is that every private man has an absolute propriety in his goods such as excludeth the right of the soveraign I do not know what he means by this term absolute Certainly both private and publick men have their rights depending upon the Soveraign of Soveraigns and all they have is at his dispose But otherwayes certainly it tends to the dissolution of a Common-wealth to deny an absolute propriety in private men and to affirm that in no Common-wealth a Subject can have such propriety for it being the reason according to his own Philosophy why they imbodied themselves into a Common-wealth that so they might enjoy the fruits of their labours peaceably not only plough and sow peaceably but reap the fruits of that pains they take and call it there own It cannot be denyed that that justly can be denyed them and if it be they are in such a state as they were without the fruits of their vertuous labours It is true in the Eastern Monarchies I read they have not inheritances as they have here but pro termino vitae and then all return to that sea out of which they came but it is otherwise in our European Countryes throught and the Laws of every Nation are justly to be observed but still according to that right which each person hath and this propriety is so naturally dear unto every man as there can be no wiser Laws made for the publick than such as private men shall be bettered by them for then every man will more industriously endeavour the publick good when his private benefit results out of it I but saith he such as excludeth the right of the Soveraign Indeed I think in that he said more rightly than he meant for certainly the Soveraign hath a right of a Soveraign over all his kingdom or dominion nay the propriety of a Soveraign that is his legal propriety over his Subjects is over their estates to determine their Controversies to have dominion over their Persons legally to punish according to his just prerogative But the title of propriety in his estate is belonging to the subject in all such things as are not included in the supremes legal prerogative So that when he has granted Laws which do limit the extent of his power and indulge the vertuous industry of his subjects he cannot justly infringe them and call that his right which he hath condescended not to use And upon this reason with us the Title of the King in many occasions is decided by the Judges in point of Propriety And therefore he did ill in publishing this book in Engliâ—h so that it principally concerns us and at that time when the liberties and proprieties of the Subject were so abominably invaded by the usurped powers as if he would provoke them to out-do themselves and oppress more and more lawfully
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 〈◊〉 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 fâ—rce 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 preseâ—t occurrences HE again The skill of making and maintaining Common-wealths consisteth in certain Rules as doth Arithmetick and Geometry nâ—t 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 methâ—d 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 justificd for their Rules are most certain the demonstrations out of them most undeniable but the affairs of Politique Government most weak the subjects which it treats about most unconstant which is men united and because the judgments of men their humours their passions are all obnoxious to variation there can be no certain Rules which can meet with all accidents at home or abroad with other Nations which are variable one as the other but much and many designs must be daily changed according to divers occasions and indeed they are so many that no wit of man can foresee all Let Achitophel himself advise never so cunningly yet if Absolon do not follow it which no man can foreknow but by guesses his directions can effect nothing and therefore there is no conformity in the Rules of the Mathematicks and these of Politiques the one like the subject most immutable the other like its subject most uncertain The last clause of that Paragraph and Chap. is nothing but a great Rant and express contempt of all other Writers and an implicite magnifying his own Politiques To which I may justly say it would have become other mens mouths or pens better than his own and what I think of it is this that if his former expression be true of them that they have built upon Sand I may say his building is upon Quagmire building upon Sand will support a building until storms fall but his will not support an Edifice but fall of its self the very Foundation sinks without any other weight upon it or violence to it And so I have run over this Chap. and thought to have gone no further in his Politiques but the Title of the next Chap. enticeth me on which is Of the Liberty of Subjects CHAP. XIX SECT I. Mr. Hobbs his Comment upon his own Text censured Libertas coactionis necessitatis the second proper only to men HE begins this Treatise thus Liberty or freedom signifieth properly the absence of opposition by opposition I mean external impediments of motion and may be applied no less to irrational and inanimate Creatures than to rational Consider Reader what a strange perplexed kind of writing this is where he is forced to write a Comment upon his own Text. To begin with him Liberty or freedom What need of freedom here when the subject he treats of is Liberty Secondly What need of that
Son of God and his conversation amongst us in the flesh which indeed clouding and vailing the extremity of that infinite glory which was in the Deity with his humanity he made it more clearly and brightly appear to us then it could have been discerned by humane eyes without it and in that regard he may well be said to be the brightness of his Glory because it made that glory which was invisible in its self visible to us and those glorious Attributes with it which were not possible for Nature to reach or any way comprehend to be apprehended by Faith in him the Son And in all this we find neither substance nor substantiated which should be founded upon it But then to proceed to the second passage in that verse which he made the first and the express Image or Character of his person conceive Reader if you can how it is possible to make an Image of substance meerly substance not cloathed with any accident colour figure or any such thing which is subject to sense for these are the only things by which we can Caracterize any thing and these are not in God this Image or Character thereof must needs be some substantial thing and that must needs be some substantial thing and that must be represented to the understanding not the sense which only can apprehend substances especially abstracted from all accidents then consider whose Character it must be to wit Gods who is infinite immense unimmaginable unintelligible not to be represented by any thing less than himself it must needs therefore be another of the same another it must be because the Representors and the Represented must be Two the same it must be because nothing no Art or Conceipt or any thing can imagine any thing to Characterize God but God here then in clear termes are two Persons and one Nature and not his imagination of a substance and accident or indeed nothing Then we will explain his second place Heb. 11. 1. faith is there the Hypostasis of things hoped for we read it substance there will be no difference about that he ingeniously confesseth it to be a Metaphor and surely so it is and the likeness consists in this that as a substance is it out of which accidents are produced which supports and maintains them so hope as he expounds it or the things hoped for that is the blessings of God either in this or the other world for Gods blessings in this world may be hoped for arise out of Faith in which God hath founded them and which is the sole and only thing by which God hath Covenanted to continue and preserve them to us thus taking it Metaphorically as he but then take it litterally as the Schools distinguish subjectum quo and subjectum quod a subject by which this subsists in another and a subject which supports really the inherent accident so may I speak of substance or fundamentum the foundation of hope without doubt is the reasonable soul of man out of which this act or habit is produced and to which it doth adhere or inhere this soul is the subjectum or fundamentum quod but faith the substance or fundamentum quo by the mediation of which hope is there fixed and setled for he that hopes for blessings from God without Gods revealed promises which are apprehended only by faith trusts in his own wit not in God thus this Text being explained there is no violation offer'd to any Term but each word hath its proper and genuine signification and it lays open a clear and manifest truth which cannot be denyed but contrarywise by his explanation every word is wrested out of its proper sense and meaning for faith which is an accident a habit must be a substance hope to exist in the Aire where is no foundation no substance to support it SECT III. Some other things Examined HE comes next in that 340 Page to enquire Quid est essentia which is answered it is not distinguished from substantiae the next quaere is what is substans the same with ens the same with a thing that is whatsoever is truly existing distinct from fancy and name Here the Reader may discern how violently he prosecutes the former conceipt that there is no real thing besides substance as if to inhere or adhere were not to exist but only subsistance were existance but I shall prosecute this no further now it being a conclusion to which I do not remember that I have objected any thing heretofore which are the only things I intended to vindicate in this paper next he enters upon a long discourse how the Greeks and Latines have distorted names as he termes it which I omit upon the same reason before although a most unhappy perswasion of his But in pag. 342. in his discourse of a person he 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 Kenuel 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