another man because that constitution doth not restrain the right of nature and the right of nature impowers every man to act any thing which shall appear to him for his particular advantage by his Book I shall treat no more of this now CHAP. XX. SECT VIII Mr. Hobbs his contradictions discovered and censured His conclusions tending to disloyalty I Will step to the next paragraph but first consider that in the beginning of this I last discoursed about he saith The consent of a subject to soveraigne power is contained in these words I authorise and take upon me all his actions Now in this he saith No man is bound by the words themselves either to kill himself or any other man and consequently the obligation a man may sometimes have upon the command of the Soveraign to execute any dangerous or dishonourable affair dependeth not upon the words of our submission but on the intention which is to be understood by the end thereof Mark Reader how immediately he contradicts himself first his consent is contained in these words c. Secondly it is not contained in the words but in the intention which is to be understood by the end thereof He indeed put them both together in the preceding page towards the bottom of that page and there you may find him telling what the end is Namely the peace of the subjects within themselves and their defence against a common enemy Now then since he gives the subject this latitude of interpreting the commands of his soveraign it is not credible that he will judge his own ruine or hurt or that of his Father Wife Children dear Friends shall conduce to the peace of the subjects within themselves so that there then he hath safe refuge for mischiefe by right and he may refuse to obey upon such grounds as he speaks and do it rightly CHAP. XXI Liberty given to criminals to assist one another against the sword of justice the greatest incentive to the late rebellion The murther of Charles the first legitimated by Mr. Hobbs his conclusions I Wish my self at an end of this but his gross errors make me stop at more particulars than I intended Look down towards the conclusion of this page you shall find that at the beginning of that paragraph he concluded it unjust in the defence of another man to resist the sword of the Common-wealth But saith he in case a great many men together have already resisted the soveraign power unjustly or committed some capital crime for which every one of them expecteth death whether have they not the libertie then to joyne together and assist and defend one another Certainly they have for they but defend their lives which the guilty may as well do as the innocent Let the Reader consider here what a justification this was of those men who bore unjust armes at that time when he writ this book in English It is true he allows the first rising to be unjust but all that damnable prosecution of that war even that act which I never think upon but with horror the murther of king Charles the first was lawful by him for when they had drawn their swords in rebellion their lives were forfeited and then all the future prosecution was just because in defence of their lives I but page 113. where I am at the bottom of that paragraph he gives a fair pretence for what he speaks which is The offer of pardon taketh from them to whom it is offered the plea of self defence and maketh their perseverance in assisting or defending the rest unlawful A goodly piece of nicetie if a soveraign do not give his subjects pardon for their rebellion they may continue on and only the first act is unjust all other murthers rapines iniquities of men are not to be reckoned in the catalogue of unjust actions as if one sin preceding which causeth the following might also justifie them and for offering pardon he knows they have answered that that cannot serve them as long as there is power in the offended partie to make his revenge and justifie his proceeding against them and unless they take away that there is no security for them These things I thought to have passed by but being so abominable it was necessary to lay hold upon them at the least with this animadversion And now I pass over twenty more and leap to his 26. Chap. 148. CHAP. XXII SECT I. Mr. Hobs his endeavour to render the Christian religion suspected Of the assurance we have of revelations The difference of assurance from the object from the acts Assurance from science from opinion from faith The assurance of faith greater than that of science The assurance we have of the truth of Christian religion by divine revelation from the things themselves revealed from the manner of their delivery and the persons who delivered them to us The particulars of the creation described by Moses not possible to be known without divine revelation An argument from reason to confirm the former assertion WHich Chap. is entitled of Civil laws but treats of all laws and divers distinctions of them but in this page about the middle of the page he enters into a discourse of divine positive laws which he distinguisheth from natural laws that the one are eternal I will cavil at nothing that is he means always consisting with men to whom they are given the other had a beginning the one are universal to all men that have humane nature but he saith the positive are instituted in time and to particular persons or nations and declared for such by those whom God hath authorised to declare them But saith he this authority of man to declare what be these positive laws of God how can it be known God may command a man by a supernatural way to deliver laws to other men But because it is of the essence of laws that he who is to be obliged be assured of the authority of him that declareth it which we cannot naturally take notice to be from God I transcribe all this because the reader by it should understand from what ground he raiseth two questions which he answering unchristianly will require a better satisfaction from my pen. The questions are these How can a man without supernatural revelation be assured of the revelation received by the declarer and how can he be bound to obey them Two noble questions to be disputed against heathens and because upon all occasions he takes advantage to make himself seem such whether he be or no God knows I shall endeavour to refute him But withall give the reader this caution that throughout his Book he violently forceth himself to such disputes as may render Christian religion suspected as if he had an ambition to make this Bable shall I say or impious treatise of his to be authentick for what necessity had he here to raise those doubts It had been enough for him and his whole design to shew that the
by him His manifest declension of the divine positive Law and imposure of humane Laws in opposition to them censured The Law of Nature commands obedience to the positive law of God The pretensions of all Nations to divine institution observed ANd here I thought to have knocked off with the satisfaction of the first Quaerie but as I said before he made two enquiries the first concerning the assurance of these revelations I have spoke to that The second is how a man can be bound to obey the Laws so revealed This he saith is not so hard for if the Laws declared be not against the Law of Nature which is undoubtedly Gods Law and he undertake to obey it he is bound by his own act Thus far Mr. Hobbs but indeed he utters in my judgment a most obscure doctrine â—r if clear he speaks very weakly 'T is obscure for although the Law of Nature do oblige yet it is not apparent to every man what this Law of Nature is no not to learned men for in many cases it is disputed vvhether such or such actions are according to the Lavv of Nature or no And therefore although the major proposition be unquestionably true that the Lavv of Nature is instituted by God yet the assuming of a Minor to it this is the Lavv of Nature may be full of dispute and from thence it vvill be hard to conclude Again consider that vvhen the question vvas put in the former page it vvas concerning the obedience to the revealed lavvs of God hovv a man may be bound to obey them of vvhich he affirmed that vve could have no assurance and that I have immediately before refuted but novv his vvhole discourse runs upon mans obedience to humane Lavvs Thus the Notion and Conceipt shuffled and changed a Reader is distracted and vvhilst he finds something seemingly proved he thinks the undertaken proposition is clear for vvhere hath he satisfied yea but seemingly this Question How a man can be bound to obey the Revelations But saith he if he undertake to obey a Law which is not against the Law of Nature he is bound by his own Act. That is that Act by vvhich he saith rather than thinks he instituted a supreme and that Act only reflects upon humane Lavvs established by the supreme vvhich he instituted But I do not finde this expressed there in that latitude he novv formes it but rather I thought that he vvould have supposed that the supreme should be obeyed in such things as cross not the Lavv of God vvhatsoever either natural or positive but it seems novv he must be obeyed in all vvhich is not against the Lavv of Nature onely he vvould have the Scriptures and positive Lavvs laid aside By this if a King shall command us not to be baptized not to receive the Communion or like Darius not to pray to God for a certain time not to repent c. vvhich are not acts of the Lavv of Nature but positive Lavvs vve should not doe them vvhich must needs be most odious to any Christian man But indeed had not Mr. Hobbs distinguished these tvvo the positive and natural Lavvs of God before in the former page and raised these doubts to disgrace the positive laws of God I could have answered that there is no Law more Natural than that we should obey the positive Laws of God for he being the supreme power must needs have that authority to make Laws for the government of men and this is universally received All Nations in the World pretend to have divine Laws for their direction I mean positive divine Laws onely Mr. Hobbs denyeth it clearly in this place Let us examine what follows CHAP. XXII SECT XIII Obedience founded upon the belief or acknowledgment of his power that commands Mr. Hobbs his complacency in quarrelling with Religion The want of reason in his proofs discovered and censured Faith commanded by God urged by promissory and penal Laws The dreadful punishment of such as believe not or disturb other mens belief with frivolous arguments God the searcher of hearts and punisher of evil thoughts contrary to Mr. Hobbs his Doctrine HE is bound saith he to obey it but not bound to believe it A strange proposition for take his particle i how you please for obedience to divine or humane Laws he can be bound to obey none when he hath no belief for he cannot have an obligation to divine Laws unless he believe they are given by God nor can he perform obedience to humane Laws unless he have a belief that they are made by the supreme power So that obedience in all kinds supposeth a belief of that authority which commands But again consider what he means by this word belief He is bound to obey but not to believe Certainly as I said he must believe the authority that commands and 't is as true that he must believe that that authority commands this Act or else he can have no ground for his obedience This man had a mind to be quarrelling at Religion but could not find expressions to do it But he proves his conclusion for saith he Mens belief and interiour cogitations are not subject to the commands but only to the operation of God ordinary or extraordinary The vainest and weakest Argument that ever was urged First in Logick it cannot follow because they are subject to the operations of God they therefore are not subject to commands as Charity and all the restraint of exorbitant lusts are subject to his operations are they not therefore subject to commands This is a pitiful inference but then consider further that faith and the cogitations of men are commanded by God that faith is commanded first Heb. 11.6 Without faith it is impossible to please God for he that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them who diligently seek him Now it is necessary that he who requires us to come must in that exaction require such things as are necessary to obtain it and therefore faith without which Heaven cannot be attained And God hath given a blessed promissory Law that he will bless such as do believe and penal also that he will punish such as do not believe For the first John 3.15 16. Whosoever believeth in him that is in Christ should not perish but have eternal life The same is added in the 16 verse God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life Here is a Law made concerning happiness an eternal Law concerning an eternal life all terms indefinite The same is repeated in the 18 verse of the same Chap. but with the addition of the penal Law He that believeth not is condemned already As likewse our Saviour Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned and this is no more but a promise performed by God which was made
of it supreme and inferiour the supreme is soveraign the inferiour are subjects but by a common vvealth here he only understands the soveraign But let us proceed vvith him out of the former confuted premisses he dravvs this conclusion I conclude therefore that in all things not contrary to the Moral Law that is to say to the Law of Nature all subjects are bound to obey that for divine Law which is declared to be so by the Laws of the Common-wealth Certainly the Moral Lavv or the Lavv of Nature doth not bid us be baptized or receive the holy Communion nay it doth not command us to make a profession of our faith in Jesus Christ The Law of Nature did not command Daniel Shedrack Meshack and Abednego to refuse the voluptuous meat which Nebuchadnezar allowed them and fed upon pulse and water but the fear that they should break the Law of God by obeying the King I mean the positive Law which God had not writ in their Natures but in Tables so that this conclusion of his was most Heathenish CHAP. XXII SECT XVIII Mr. Hobbs his further reasons to prove the former assertions examined and censured His diminution of the authority of the divine positive Law and constant vilifying of scripture censured The Law of Nature restrained by the divine positive Law Obedience in Religious dutyes not founded in the command of the soveraign but of God The perswasion of the Turks that the Alcoran contains the Law of God not the command of the Grand Signiour causes their conformity to it The difference betwen the commands and acts of Christian Princes and their subjects from those of other Religions All other Societies as that of Theeves illegitimate combinations Mr. Hobbs his doctrine abhorrent to Christianity BUT he labours further to prove it Which also saith he is evident to any mans reason for whatsoever is not against the Law of Nature may be made Law in the Name of them that have the Soveraign power and there is no reason men should be the less obliged by it when it is propounded in the Name of God I answer that whatsoever is not against the Law of Nature may be made Law by God i. e. his positive Law but many Laws are limited not only by Gods Laws of Nature but his positive Laws likewise which have as great force as the other to whomsoever they are revealed Now I am in the 150 page let the Reader consider again how he takes occasion to lessen the authority of Scripture I am perswaded he can produce no Christian writer from our Saviours time downward that ever delivered so unworthy a conceipt of the positive Law of God it is as if he should say we should obey a Constables command against the Kings command by Statute for the difference is much less betwixt the King and a Constable than betwixt the greatest King in the World and God The common Law which I conceive to be an unwritten tradition is like the Law of Nature the Statute Law like the positive Laws It is lawful not considering a statute for a man to act any thing not against the common Law but if a positive i e. a statute Law intervene it is no longer lawful by any private power to act that which otherwise had been lawful Thus until a positive Law of God interpose whatsoever is not against the Law of Nature is lawful but when that positive Law is manifest it is necessary that that likewise be obeyed and no humane Law of mans making can have right to dispense with it He proceeds besides there is no place in the world where men are permitted to pretend other commandements of God than are declared for such by the Common-wealth Christian States punish those that revolt from Christian Religion and all other States those that set up any religion by them forbidden For in whatsoever is not regulated by the Common-wealth 't is equity which is the Law of Nature and therefore an eternal Law of God that every man equally enjoy his Liberty Here is an Argument drawn à facto ad jus Because this is done therefore it is rightly done and an equal weight put upon the acts of Heathens and worshippers of the Sun Moon c. with that of Christians who only worship the true God As if because Kings justly punish those who violate the Laws of those Kingdomes which they are intrusted with therefore Thieves justly may destroy such as break the Laws of their Combination when indeed the first are just but the other most unjust The case seems to be the same here for all those are combinations of Thieves who rob God of his due honour required by him the Christians only act by the Law of God So that here we may discern a great difference in the right of the two actings of the Christian and the Heathen but then consider what is the ground of them both we shall find it different from what Mr. Hobbs delivers He conceiveth the reason to be this why delinquents are punished because they swerve from the Law of the supreme but it is clearly otherwise The Christian doth not therefore receive the holy Communion or repent of his sin or do such like heavenly duties because the supreme Magistrate requires them but because he finds those duties exacted by God in his positive Laws and if the Magistrate shall controul it he knows God must be obeyed before man when he requires contrary to God And the same reason persvvades the Turk concerning his Alcoran vvhich he vainly imagineth to be the divine Lavv and if the Grand Signior himself do contradict that Lavv they vvill not obey him upon that reason And surely the same Argument prevails vvith all other Nations vvho have their Religion by tradition it is not the Lavv of man but the imagined Lavv of God vvhich they subject themselves unto in divine performances And therefore though soveraigns punish such transgressions vvhich are against those Lavvs vvhich they have established for divine yet it is therefore because they are esteemed divine Therefore they made such Lavvs not that they could think that they ought to be esteemed divine because they established them I vvill add but one observation more vvhich is this That although he saith that all Nations practise this that is that they allovv only such divine Lavvs vvhich they have established to be such yet I believe no Nation in the World no Christian I am assured would have allowed this doctrine to be published but only such as were in that distracted condition as our poor Nation was when he published it For since every Christian Kingdome professeth a conformity to divine Law it cannot be imagined that they durst obtrude such an impossible thing to be credited as that they could make divine Laws but only confirm and exact an obedience to them Nay I can think the same of all even Heathen Nations So that it is a conclusion abhorring to Christianity yea humane Nature wheresoever
without a propriety examined The impossibility of this Fiction according to his own grounds from the contradictions which follow upon it BUt he seems to go another way and settles this building of his Commonwealth upon the foundation of a sort of men which have no propriety in any thing or suppose a hundred thousand a less number will scarce make a good City all these having no interest in the world besides their being which is as unimaginable as any of the rest which yet is affirmed by him in the following words For before Constitution of Soveraign Power as hath already been shewed all men had right to all things which necessarily causeth war and therefore this propriety being necessary to peace and depending on Soveraign Power is the act of that Power in order to peace This is a strange corceit that men in war have right to their Enemies Country before they have conquered it and when they have conquered it shall have right to very little both which by him are most true For before the chusing a Soveraign they are at war with all the world and have a right to all the world yet when they have conquered any piece it must be in the Soveraigns power to give them propriety only in what he pleaseth I know he may object to this that he saith the Supreme may give Rules that is make such Laws by which men may know what is their propriety but not that he shall give the propriety But for answer to this let him know that the Legislative Power can take away and alter them as well as make them and then it amounts to as much as if he had given the propriety its self for he can do it when he will And let us consider that those men who by nature have right to all the world yet by this industriously uniting themselves into a Commonwealth gain but this that whereas before they had right to every thing now they have right only to this little pittance which is allotted them SECT III. Mr. Hobbs his illogical deductions Propriety in the state of War What propriety is it may be without peace as peace may be without propriety HE proceeds And therefore this Propriety being necessary to Peace and depending on Soveraign Power is an act of that Power in order to the Publick Peace Surely there is no manner of Logical consequences in this therefore of his for let us consider to what this therefore relates can it look forwards to all mens rights to come and because of that therefore propriety should be an act of the Soveraign These have no conjunction one with another no nor because they are in war one with another for Nations that are in war one with another have right of some and people that have right to many things may have right likewise to what they have of some So that this therefore hath nothing before to build it self upon and indeed in Logick it should have been deduced out of the premises But let us see if there be any thing in this new sentence that can countenance this Proposition That propriety is an act of the Soveraign The first words that may seem to make for it will be these That Propriety being necessary to peace therefore Propriety is an act of Soveraignty This follows not First because Propriety may be where there is war therefore it cannot be necessary to peace I take Propriety for a peculiar right and title which a man hath to any goods This a man may have at that instant when he hath war with another And again he may live in peace in this Kingdom both with his Neighbour and all the rest of the Nation and have propriety in nothing but his being in the world So that if peace can be without propriety and propriety without peace it cannot truly be said that propriety is necessary to peace And then that Proposition which is the foundation of an argument failing the Argument likewise falls to the ground SECT IV. Propriety not depending only upon Soveraign power The propriety of the Soveraign independent His consequence again redargued Propriety the Act of Law THe second words which may give any semblance of an Argument if any are depending upon Soveraign power and such a Soveraign power as he makes his to be there is none in the world but men have propriety without it therefore no necessary dependance upon this without which it can be and is Again consider the Soveraign himself hath a propriety of his own and his propriety hath no dependance upon any but then consider that if it be so and he will have it understood of Subjects only or that the Soveraign hath his propriety by right of his Soveraignty because there is a Soveraign constituted and that the propriety of all others hath a dependance upon this Soveraign power yet it doth not follow that that propriety is an act of Soveraignty It may well be supposed that propriety may be setled by Contract before the constitution of the Commonwealth and then the Soveraign only looks and takes care for the right observation of those Laws which were consented unto concerning propriety and propriety is the Act of those Laws and he the Protector and preserver of them So that this consequence is not deduced out of any thing which is set down by him And these few words which are added are of no force in order to the publick peace for although he may direct yea inforce them to the publick peace yet propriety it self is an act of those Laws which settles it not of him which governs SECT V. Many things good or evil in their own Nature and therefore not alterable by Humane Laws HE goes on These Rules of Propriety or meum and tuum and of good evil lawful and unlawful in the actions of Subjects are the Civil Laws that is to say the Law of each Commonwealth in particular The Rules of Propriety that is of the particular estate are without question the Laws of each particular Commonwealth but for good or evil there are many things so framed in their own Nature that it lies not in the power of Humane Laws to make such things good or evil contrary to their beings as to love fear and worship God no Humane Law can make it evil or to hate or despise him no Humane Law can make it good And so for lawful and unlawful things which either by the Law of God in our hearts or that communicated to us in his holy Book these are Laws besides the Civil Law of the Nation which the Civil Law cannot alter or make good or evil otherwise then that goodness or illness which they received from the Law Divine That which follows in that Paragraph is nothing but an Exposition of Civil Law how it is understood by him which I conceive not to be material to his design or mine and therefore I let it alone and come to a new Inference CHAP. XII SECT I. The
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 colour 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 â—o 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 so 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 names 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 it 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 evil 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 part 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 St. Basil St. 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 iniquity 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 understand 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 is safe from the questioning of their subjects so that his whole 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 S. Ambrose produced another exposition presently after but certainly neither he nor any man but Mr. Hobbs will say it was not injustice it is suâ naturâ unjust to punish with the greatest punishment death an innocent person Nor doth his being a King make it less injustice but rather aggravate it because his chief office under God and for which he is constituted by God is to distribute 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 which 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 Deputies they must needs be guilty of injustice who punish citra condignum where there was no desert of it and they who are 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 S. 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 chosen 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 St. 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
it is planted with any Religion For since all do conceive God to be an infinite able and wise Governour even of Kings supremes and kingdomes how can they think it safe for them out of humane obedience to subject his rules to the controul of his Subjects which all Kings and Potentates are I have handled this Paragraph verbatim and although there are many more expressions in this case which may deserve censure yet I pass them over and indeed did think here to have concluded his Politiques and so not to have passed any further censure upon them in this place But there are some egregious errors hereafter which must not be passed over with silence I will also skip over his twenty seventh and twenty eighth Chapters as containing things in general less malitious and I will enter upon his twenty ninth Chapter which he intitles Of those things which weaken or tend to the dissolution of a Common-wealth CHAP. XXIII SECT I. Mr. Hobbs his second Paragraph purged The signification of the word Judge Inferiour Judges apply the determinations of Laws concerning good and evil to particular persons and facts Private men have judicium rationis and therefore may determine upon their own ratiocination No man to intrude upon the office of a judge but by deputation from the Soveraign THe first of these I let pass as having spoken something of it already materially and begin with his second which he enters upon page 168. towards the bottom of that Page which begins thus In the second place I observe the diseases of a Common-wealth that proceed from the poyson of seditious doctrines whereof one is that every private man is Judge of good and evil actions To purge this doctrine from all poyson observe first that this word Judge sounds like a legal Officer and truly to speak properly I think the supreme legislative power is the Judge of politick good and evil the other subordinate Judges are only Judges of the application of the supreme to particular cases for instance thus The legislative power commands that no man shall steal if he do he shall be thus and thus punished the Judge applyes this sentence of this evil to Titius who is brought before him and accused of this crime the legislative determins and judgeth that it is evil in general but the Judge upon his Bench determines that this person is guilty of this evil in neither of which a private man hath right to pass a conclusive sentence concerning other men But yet give me leave to tell the Reader that in both these he hath judicium rationis a rational sentence in his own thoughts as thus before a Law is made he judgeth that this would be fit to be made and so may discretely interpose with the legislative power to advise them to act according to those reasons which appear to him as perswasive for else the Legislator will lack that great assistance which he may receive from the premonitions of prudent men who many times although they are not lifted up to the dignity of such as sit at the Helm yet have either by study or experience equal abilities with them And in the second viz. the application when a private man shall stand by at the pleading or hearing a cause he perceiving that the Judge carries himself partially to one side and doth pass his sentence accordingly this private man cannot chuse but judge in his Soul that this was a wicked sentence As contrarily when it is justly carried with indifference he may judge with himself that this was a righteous judgment But the intruding into the Office of a Judg is altogether unfit without a special deputation to it But since God hath pleased to give man that most excellent faculty of ratiocination both in Natural and Political affairs he shall desert humanity who should deny himself the exercise of that ability Nay he may indeavour if he can to avert that execution of that sentence when it is wickedly pronounced as was the case of Daniel in the unrighteous sentence decreed upon Susanna but still not to usurp a judicatory power without lawful authority But even in these cases there must be left judicium rationis and discretionis a power of reason and judicial discretion to think upon and consider what is right but he seems to deny that truth concerning the private actions of that particular man whether it shall be good to do this or that for so he proceeds CHAP. XXIII SECT II. The former assertion of private ratiocination further cleared in Acts commanded against the Law of Nature or the positive Laws of God Mr. Hobbs his argument retorted against himself THis is true saith he in the condition of meer Nature where there are no civil Laws and also under civil government in such cases as are not determined by the Law Consider now Reader that by the Law he understands here the civil Law Consider then that the Laws of any Nation may be against the Law of Nature in which case he himself hath limited the power of civil Laws A man is commanded by the National Law to act against the Law of Nature shall not this private man judge it unfit for him to do that And without question in many particulars the positive Law of God in Scripture is as clear to many men as that Law written in mens hearts and therefore in such cases there is no doubt but as God hath imparted to men the power of reasoning so he hath given men Laws by which they should regulate themselves according to his directions they must and ought to use that reason in the guidance of their actions by his rules But then concerning the civil Laws themselves a man may judge in private of them whether they are prudential or no yea every man who is versed in Politicks will judg and think so of them and sometimes judge they are not prudent and yet give no disturbance to the peace of the Kingdome but think it more prudent to be subject to an imprudent Law than for it to hinder the end of all Laws which is the peace and quiet of the Kingdom But now consider further Turpe est doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum He hath writ a book of Politie he hath censured all the civil Laws in the World he is a private man and hath I believe no legislative power why should he take upon him to forbid others to act that which he himself doth in that very place where he forbids them And yet give me leave to add one Note more this judging he speaks of must be about his Actions in the future whether what he is about to do will be a good or an evil action Is it possible for a man to live honestly and not to judge of such actions wherein there is any scruple whether they are good or evil Suppose the civil law as he would have it were the only rule to walk by yet every private man must
man performed his promise which he swore he would do it was no sin and it seems therefore to be spoken only of promissory Oaths not of such which were made to give Testimony of matters of fact if so then there is no prohibition of such Oaths which are for the decision of controversies commonly called Assertory Oaths and then again it may justly be conceived that they that is the Jews thought out of some tradition or other that it was only unlawful to swear by God but not by the Creature for our Saviours instances are only in them Thou shalt not swear by Heaven by Earth by Ierusalem by the Gold of the Altar or thy Head Which he sheweth relatively to reach even the Creator himself so that for these considerations it must be understood that it excludes not assertory Oaths vvhich decide controversies that it extends not to such Oaths vvhere God is religiously called to witness any thing And then for the second the affirmative precept it reacheth to our Communication and common conference one with another that Gods most Sacred Name be not slightly or in vain taken by us but that either some great business more than ordinary or else some supreme power must exact it from us So then this being thus expounded it must needs appear that in this case a man may justly depose his errour and he cannot be necessitated to sin when he hath an errour in his Conscience And truly it is an excellent rule for the practice of a mans life when he shall find a general practice of good and holy men in all Ages to practise any thing which he is offended at to suppress that averseness in himself and with study and pains to cast about which way he may reconcile himself to that common practice and not without strong and evident grounds which will hardly be possible oppose that which the universal practice makes us know that the universal Church understood as they practised for if there be an Error in such a practice a man may find something to excuse himself with erravimus cum patribus but in the other nothing but pride and self conceipt which makes him oppose these practices and surely in these cases it is a safe rule for any man when he finds a place of Scripture which seemingly opposeth the universal doctrine of the Church which is and hath been so heretofore to look about how that Scripture may be expounded according to the Analogy of faith and good manners or usage of the Catholick Church which then must be the sense and the other though more apparent at the first not the true meaning and by this means he shall not act contrary to his Conscience but if he do he must sin CHAP. XXIII SECT V. Every man Judge of his own Actions whether according to the positive Divine Laws or the Law of Nature Mr. Hobbs his consequencies observed and censured His absurd expression of a publick Conscience rejected Opinion and Conscience distinguished Thoughts not possibly to be regulated by humane Laws The external manage of Opinion The proper subject of Regulation The necessity of distraction from diversity of Opinions unless obtruded upon others This Argument retorted ad hominem HE proceeds And it dependeth on the presumption of making himself Judge of good and evil It doth say I for so every man will be in what concerns his own practice and must needs be so for else how can he judge that he doth right or no unless he may judge it and if there were no Law but what he speaks of the Civil he must judge whether his actions be according to that or no when he acts But Mr. Hobbs acknowledgeth a superiour Law to that to wit the Law of Nature and I have shewed another the positive Law of God and he must in both these use judicium privatum his private judgement whether his actions accord or no with these superiour Laws Now in all these he must judge and be responsible for that judgement whether he judge by such rules as ought to guide a prudent man but he gives a reason for what he speaks for a mans Conscience and his Judgement is the same thing and as the judgement so also the Conscience may be erroneous This doth not follow because he may erre therefore he should not be guided by it A man may have a false light shewed or his eyes may be weak as our eyes who are old men are must he therefore not make use of that light and sight which he hath Nay rather he must be more careful in the diligent using of his eyes and more seriously examining the light which is offered to them But in all these offers of reason which he makes in this Case they may be applyed to that judgement which he must make concerning the Law of Nature or the Civil Law which he allows a man must judge whether his actions be according to them and what is the meaning of them as well as what is the meaning of the positive Law of God and he must and will if he be a vertuous man act accordingly Therefore saith he though he that is subject to no Civil Law sinneth in all he doth against his Conscience because he hath no other rule to follow but his own reason yet it is not so with him that lives in a Common-wealth because the Law is the publick Conscience by which he hath already undertaken to be guided I cannot find how to apply this discourse closely to the question for he who is not imbodied in a Common-wealth saith he is ruled by his reason but hark you that reason ought to be ruled by the Law of Nature according to his own doctrine and according to mine by whatsoever is a known positive Law of God Likewise although there is no Civil Law And I will tell him farther that no Civil or Politick Law can have power to bind him to the breach of any of these and therefore what he speaks of a publick Conscience is an unheard of Language and not proper to be applyed to Conscience and most undoubtedly only educeable out of that before unheard of and most impossible principle of constituting a supreme which hath been abundantly confuted in my former discourses Let the Reader take notice that I am now in page the 169. Otherwise in such diversity as there is of private Consciences which are but private Opinions the Common-wealth must needs be distracted and no man dare to obey the soveraign power farther than it shall seem good in his own eyes In this clause he sets down the mischiefs as he thinks which may happen to a Common-wealth by diversities of Consciences or Opinions But before I proceed I will take notice of a mistake whereof he is guilty when he saith That private Consciences are but private Opinions To this I say there may be such Consciences which arise only out of private Opinions which ought to be overswayed with the greater weight
any thing in the world And therefore faith and the means of getting faith which is most ordinately by hearing and no doubt but reading likewise which are the means by which men may be acquainted with the will of God so likewise hearing comes by those accidents as he speaks rightly which guide us into the presence of them that speak to us What can be deduced out of this but that a man using such means as hearing and such accidents as bring him into that presence God blesseth them and pours into them those graces which enable them with faith and sanctification I but saith he which accidents are all contrived by God Almighty and yet are not supernatural but only for the great number of them that concurr to every effect unobservable All this is nothing to the purpose that is to prove that faith and sanctity are not infused for whether God contrives those means or man which beget faith or whether those means which bring us to hearing be natural or supernatural yet God blesseth them our eyes are natural which see it our ears are natural which hear those things which bring us to faith and sanctity yea our understanding is natural which apprehends them but God blesseth both the one and the other as his holy will hath appointed with supernatural graces He goes on Faith and Sanctity are indeed not very frequent Let that be granted but yet they are not Miracles And that is true likewise for Miracles as they are supernatural so they are things beyond the ordinate and set way of Gods working which these holy operations of his are not but most congruous to his set and prescribed way of acting them upon such productions according to his Covenants He proceeds but are brought to pass by education discipline correction and other natural wayes by which God worketh them in his elect at such time as he thinketh fit It is true and yet these are wayes of Gods prescribing and which he blesseth therefore he adds And these three Opinions pernicious to Peace and Government have in this part of the World proceeded chiefly from the Tongues and Pens of unlearned divines who joyning the words of holy Scripture together otherwise than is agreeable to reason do what they can to make men think that sanctity and natural reason cannot stand together Give me leave Reader to retort this discourse to his Person who not long since in the 26 Chap. page 149. maketh faith not a duty but a gift of God and saith it is barely an operation of God's as likewise internal sanctity And there put me to the trouble of proving mans concurrence in these acts and I may assuredly affirm that he is there exceeding guilty of what he chargeth ignorant Divines with here viz. incongruous putting places of Scripture together and as much as in him lies to make men believe that sanctity and natural reason cannot stand together for if faith be only a gift and no act in the receiver or use of it insomuch as no command can be given concerning that or sanctity as he speaks there certainly natural reason hath nothing to do with it and as there I was forced to prove the concurrence of man in these Heavenly duties so here to justifie his former doctrine I must prove the co-operation of God which he seems to deny Let the Reader put that with this and he shall find the affirmative part true and the negative false in both CHAP. XXIII SECT VII Soveraigns obliged by the positive Laws of God The Laws of Nations The Law Natural The Royal Laws or Laws of government obligatory to the soveraign The soveraign free from penal Laws A Fourth opinion repugnant to the Nature of a Common-wealth is this That he that hath the soveraign power is subject to the Civil Laws Truly I conceive by this Gentleman that he imagines Soveraigns to be strange things which must be subject to none but the Law of Nature for so he expounds it presently not to the positive Law of God which having by him no assurance that it is such but from the supreme he can no further be obliged by it than he pleaseth And so that Devilish speech of that wicked woman to her imperial Son would be made good Quod libet licet But this term Subject troubles me to find out what he means thereby if he mean not to be guided by it or else he offends without all doubt he ought to be ruled by the positive Law of God and not only by the Natural Law he ought to be ruled that is guided by his own Civil Laws which he hath made or given life unto For how can he expect an observance from others who will not keep his Laws himself But if he means by Subject subject to penalty that cannot be I am confident in a well contrived Common-wealth because all penalty for breach intimates an inferiority and as he rightly speaks aftewards He who punisheth either bodily or with shame or with whatsoever is in that act superior to him who is punished But his dispute is out of his own principles which have been twenty times confuted that is He that is subject to the Law is subject to the Common-wealth that is to the Soveraign representative that is to himself This is a weak argument because he is not the representative of the Common-wealth but the head and rules it One word more there may be Laws in a Common-wealth for Kings and for Subjects he must be guided by these which are the Royal Laws the Laws of governing although not by these which are inferiour and Laws for Subjects he must be allowed those prerogatives which are not fit for Subjects to have But yet he ought to observe the rules of governing This I conceive is enough for what he hath delivered in that Paragraph He begins another thus CHAP. XXIII SECT VIII Propriety derived from the soveraign of soveraigns The quiet enjoyment of Estates The reason according to Mr. Hobbs of the imbodying of men The propriety of the Subjects The foundation of the publick interest It excludes not the prerogative of the soveraign The title of the King of England in many cases decided by the Judges Mr. Hobbs his indulgence to the late usurped power observed A Fifth doctrine which tendeth to the dissolution of a Common-wealth is that every private man has an absolute propriety in his goods such as excludeth the right of the soveraign I do not know what he means by this term absolute Certainly both private and publick men have their rights depending upon the Soveraign of Soveraigns and all they have is at his dispose But otherwayes certainly it tends to the dissolution of a Common-wealth to deny an absolute propriety in private men and to affirm that in no Common-wealth a Subject can have such propriety for it being the reason according to his own Philosophy why they imbodied themselves into a Common-wealth that so they might enjoy the fruits of their labours
assurance he hath of his being born at Malmsbury cap. 22. sect 1. 148. The Authors opinion of his Book c. 23. s 18. 235. Honour Titles thereof conferred by the Soveraign cap. 12 sect 4. 46. Husband the head of the VVife cap. 16 sect 4. 68. Hyperbolus banished cap. 20 sect 5. 141. I Jephthas Vow cap. 20. sect 2. 129. Jews witnesses of the old Testament cap. 22. sect 2. 152. their Government ceased cap. 18. sect 12. 101. Incarnation of Christ not to be known but by revelation cap. 22. sect 5. 157. Inclination distinct from the will and desire c. 19. s 6. 115. Incorporate why men Incorporate into bodies Politick cap. 11. sect 1. 39. Infant whether it can give consent cap. 16. sect 1. 64. Injury VVhat it is cap. 8. sect 3. How a man may injure himself cap. 8. sect 3. 25. Injustice what it is ibid. A Soveraign may do it cap. 8. sect 4. 27. Innocents not justly punished cap. 2. sect 3. 4. Israelites why obeyed they Moses cap. 22. sect 17. 182. Judge what it is properly to Judge cap. 23. sect 1. 190. Not the same to be a Judge and constitute a Judge cap. 10. sect 10. 38. He is to observe not make a Law cap. 18. sect 9. 96. Every one is Judge of good and evil cap. 23. sect 5. 6. 207. 209. What Judgement private persons may pass upon publick actions cap. 23. sect 1. 2. 3. 190. 19. 193. K Kingdom VVhat is an acquired Kingdom c. 15. s 58. Not always acquired by force ibid. The condition of a conquered Kingdom not the same with an instituted cap. 15. sect â—â— 62. Kings v. Supremes and Soveraigns Only accountable unto God c. 5. s 4. c. 6. s 1. 15. 17. Their account unto him great cap. 12. s 5. 46. Not punishable by the People and why c. 9. s 1. 28 Their power in matters of Religion c. 10. s 1. 30. That subject to the commands of God ibid. No absolute obedience due to them c. 18. s 4. c. 87. No taking Armes against them cap. 16. sect 7. 72. They not only sin against God cap. 20. sect 4. 134. Their power about preaching and Printing c. 10. s 2. 32 They have not right to whatsoever the subject possesseth cap. 18. sect 8. c. 93. Kill VVhen lawful to kill cap. 23. sect 4. 196. Lacedaemon VVhether that state was Monarchical cap. 13. sect 3. 7. 50 5â— Laws Humane Laws cannot make something good or evil cap. 11. sect 5. 34. Positive Laws of God to be obeyed c. 22 s 12. 171. Where that obedience is founded cap. 22. s 13. 173. How far the the Civil Law and Law of Nature are the Measure of our Actions cap 23. sect 3. 193. The Execution of good Laws make a Nation happy cap. 23. sect 10. 19. Laws for private interest conduce much to the publick good cap. 23. sect 8. 218. Liberty What it is cap. 19. sect 1. 107. from Coaction cap. 19. sect 1. 7. 108. 116. from necessity cap 19. sect 1. 7. 107. Who is properly a free-man cap. 19. sect 2. 109. Not proper only to bodies cap. 9. sect 2. 3. 109. 110. VVho or what is the subject of it cap. 19. sect 5. 112. VVhat is the Liberty of Man cap. 19. sect 5. 13. Life None hath power over his own life c. 20. s 1. 127. Likeing or disliking produce not difference in the things themselves cap. 3. sect 2. 48. M Majority He who dissents from it ought not therefore to be destroyed cap. 7. sect 1. 22. Man Superior to VVoman cap. 16. sect 3. 66. The Nobler Sex ibid. Whether he hath power to do any thing in defence of himself cap 18. sect 7. 92. He only actively capable of Commands cap. 19. sect 9. Mancipium what it signifies cap. 16. sect 12. 79. Marriages No state without rules about it cap. 16. s 8. One born out of it is filius populi ibid. Means How he hath right to them who hath right to the end cap. 19. sect 2 116. Militia belongs to the Soveraign cap. 12. sect 2. 45. Miracle What it is cap. 22. sect 8. cap. 23. sect 6. 163. 209. God the only Author of them cap. 22. sect 9. 165. Never wrought to confirm a lye cap. 22. sect 9. 166. The gift of tongues miraculous in the Apostles cap. 22. sect 11. 169. As also their Learning ibid. And the success of the Gospel ibid. Mishpol What it signifies cap. 18. sect 6. 7. Mixed Actions what they are cap 19. sect 6. 115. Bodies denominated from the predominant c. 13 s 3. 50. Monarchy how distinguished from Tyranny c. 13. s 2. 48. None so absolute as Mr. Hobs Phansies cap. 3 sect 3. 47. cap. 23 sect 15. 50. 227. Money How the levying of it is like the Nutrive faculty cap. 23. sect 14. 224. Moses His integrity cap. 22. sect 5. 157. Why the Israelites obeyed him cap. 22. sect 17. 182. Mother Not to be obeyed before the Father c. 16. s 3. 66. What power she hath over the Child cap. 16. sect 8. 9. 174. 175. Whether the Child is first in her power cap. 16. sect 8. 174. Murder A Sin a gainst God and Man cap. 20. sect 4. 139. N Nourish Greater respect due to the Father then to him who nourisheth the Child cap. 16. sect 10. 76. Numbers Small Numbers joyned together may live peaceably cap. sect 1. O Oaths lawful to take an Oath cap. 23. sect 4. 197. Obedience better then sacrifice cap. 20. sect 2. 129. No absolute obedience due to Kings cap. 18. s 4. c. 87. What obedience due to the commands of God and of Men cap. 18. sect 11. 99. Ostracism in use at Athens cap. 20. sect 5. 140. P Parents love their Children naturally cap. 16. sect 9. 75. Their power over their Children cap. 22. sect 16. 179. Paul His conversion cap. 22. sect 15. 177. Peace Wherein it consisteth cap. 10. sect 1. 30. the fruit of Truth cap. 10. sect 5. 34. Truth not always regulated by it cap. 10. sect 4. 5. 6. 33. 34. Peaceable Doctrines only true cap. 10 sect 4. 33. Whether it be consonant to the Laws of Nature cap. 10. s 5. 34. People not give Authority to the Prince c. 2. s 2. 3 4. 6. c. 14. s 2. c. 20. s 13. s 23. s 16. P. 3. 4. 5. 6 57. â—03 If they could it were dangerous to the Prince cap. 2. s 5. 6. Supreme not their Person c. 2. s 2. c. 5. s 12. 3. All do not consent to give power to the Supreme cap. 4. 9. 69. sect 1. cap. 16. sect 5. Not the Authors of Right cap. 4. sect 3. 11. Profitable that they have some interest in Government cap. 13. sect 6. 54. Pharisees they and the Scribes not Soveraigns c. 18. s 2. 85. Power v. Authority It comes from God cap. 20. sect 1. cap. 18. sect 7. Not from the People v. People Whether one hath power to do any thing in defence of himself cap.
not out of Moses his Chair but ex Cathedrâ pestilentiae as the Psalmist phraseth it Psal 1.2 and therefore our Saviour often forewarns them not only of the life but doctrine of the Pharisees in the 16. of Mat. 6. take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees which in the 12. verse is expounded the doctrine and in this very Chap. verse 4. They bind heavy burthens and grievous to be born and lay them upon mens shoulders and in the 13. verse they were said to shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men which must be by their doctrine In the 16th verse They are called blind guides which must also be by their ignorance in doctrine or teaching and if the blind lead the blind they will both fall into the ditch So likewise in the same verse he reproves their false doctrine about Oaths wherefore this whatsoever must be understood of whatsoever according to that they pretend So out of Moses his Chair what they from his Authority shall appoint to be observed must be observed but when they produce doctrine contrary to that they must be disobeyed their wicked lives shall not prejudice their godly doctrine nor shall Moses his Chair countenance their wicked doctrine or commands for if so S. Peter and S. Paul before spoken of were to blame who disobeyed their commands and the inhumane Murther of our Saviour might be justified which was acted by their direction Well I need speak no more to this it is apparent that this neither can prove Aristocraty nor deliver an infallible unerring rule for them to be regulated by And as he was to blame to found Aristocraty upon any of these places of Scripture so surely upon this hyperbolical expression That the power of every one of these Supremes is as great as possibly men can be imagined to make it For then all Supremes have a like power which certainly is not apparent and at all times for if such a greatness belong to a Soveraign as a Soveraign then in no Soveraign or at any time can it be missing Then the Subject cannot have right to rescue himself from bonds or such hardship which may render his life odious to him as he often perswades for such absolute power may be imagined to be made SECT XIII Mr. Hobbs his Hyperbolical Power scarce any where to be found and yet no such state of War as he imagines hath followed de facto His subsequent question answered by another Mr. Hobbs his Doctrine the foundation of Sedition Disputes concerning Governments dangerous but not to be prevented HE proceeds And though of so unlimited a power men may fancy many evil consequences yet the consequences of the want of it which is perpetual war of every man against his Neighbour are much worse Thus far he What a strange wild asseveration is this Mr. Hobbs I am perswaded hath lived in divers Commonwealths yet did he never find in any this absolute Hyperbolical Power of a Soveraign nor did he see any where that every man was at war with his Neighbour That which follows in that Paragraph I let pass because confuted by what hath been writ heretofore there being no new matter in it and pass to the next which he thus begins The greatest objection is that of the practise when men ask where and when such power has by Subjects been acknowledged Truly a wise question and shrewdly proposed and to which he makes an unsatisfactory answer which is But one may ask them again when and where hath there been a Kingdom long free from Sedition and Civil Wars That word long is a word of so large a capacity a man can hardly find any time which he cannot say is short But let that pass he may consider that Civil War and Tumults arise from divers occasions sometimes from diverse Titles sometimes from private injuries sometimes when people are taught that they may vindicate themselves from oppression by their own private force and strength sometimes when they shall be taught that they are the Fountain of all Power and therefore they may take away as well as give which two last are the Fundamental Props of his whole Leviathan and naturally produce Rebellion towards Superiours He goes on And in those Nations whose Commonwealths have been long-lived and not been destroyed but by Forreign War the Subjects never did dispute of Soveraign Power He should have done a great work if he had instanced in those Nations and had proved they never disputed that point In answer to this The less dispute there is about it 't is by so much the safer But who can hold men that have reason from disputing the reason of these great affairs which so nearly concern them SECT XIV Mr. Hobbs his bold censure of those who have written before him His Principles destructive to Humane Society BVt saith he howsoever an argument from the practise of men that have not sifted to the bottom and with exact reason weighed the Causes and Nature of Commonwealths and suffer daily those miseries that proceed from the ignorance thereof are invalid A bold assertion and censorious of all the world in a Subject of which hundreds of learned men have discoursed much more safely and rationally then himself and declared those things which he calls the Causes and Nature of Commonwealths much more excellently then he as may appear to any man who will peruse them Which Writers although they may have infirmities and errours yet I never read one man who maintained in Politiques Principles so destructive to Humane Society as himself But he gives an instance to confirm his answer to that argument For saith he though in all places in the world men should lay the foundation of their houses on the sand it could not thence be inferred that so it ought to be He saith truth but his instance is like his conclusion which he would illustrate by it and when he can shew me that all men have built their houses upon the Sand I will yield that all Nations in the world have founded themselves upon weak supports but until then he shall excuse me from thinking one or the other SECT XV. The Rules in Politiques not founded upon Demonstrations The judgments and humours of men equally various The Rule of Government must follow the present occurrences HE again The skill of making and maintaining Common-wealths consisteth in certain Rules as doth Arithmetick and Geometry not as Tennis play upon practise only which Rules neither poor men have the leisure nor men that have had the leisure have hitherto had the curiâ—siâ—y or the method to find out The first clause of this affirmation must be examined first where he saith the skill of making and ruling Commonwealths consists in certain Rules as doth Arithmetick and Geometry Rules without doubt all prudential actions are governed by but to say like Arithmetick and Geometry is more then can be justified for their Rules are most certain the demonstrations out of them most
which we just now treated of And then consider what fearful consequencies will follow out of his instances his first is Heb. 1.3 Our Saviour is called the Character of his person here saith he the word Hypostasis or person as we render it that is the substance to the Image of that substance And then observe by this Philosophy Christ is nothing being not the substance and he adds to make his conclusion more apparent he is in the same place called splendor the splendor of the Divine glory that is his Translation and therefore he adds five or which is the same lumen de Lucido light out of a lucid body so I render his words for Lucidum or the light body is the subject or substance and light is the accident or nothing rather which proceeds out of it so that by this Philosophy the Father should be a substance and the Son but an accident or nothing Let us go on with him Heb. 1.11 And the first faith is called the Hypostatis of things hoped for that is saith he for the Speech is Metaphorical Faith is the Fundament of hope Now Reader by his Philosophy Faith should be a substance a body for he allows no other substance but bodies which without doubt is a quality inhaerent in the Soul and by him the things hoped for or to give him what scope his words can bear the hope of future blessings which is founded upon faith is nothing or at the best but a Phancy He produceth another Text 2 Cor. 9.4 where I do not find the word Hypostasis nor any thing relating to his intent But now that the Reader may discern how these Texts are abused by him I will lend such assistance to him as my present conceipt administers to my self let him consider how in the first to the Hebrews the 3. it is said that the Son of God is the brightness of his glory here first is not any mention of Lumen de Lucido of Light proceeding out of a Lucid body as he expresseth it but the splendor or most Illustrious appearance of that unutterable Glory which was manifested by the Incarnation of the 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 contrary wish 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