Laws of Nature These Laws are the moral precepts of eternal justice and equity from which all civil Laws have their rise and are either conclusions drawn from them or certain rules tending to the better observation of them Which things well considered do make it very evident how little the power of civil Lords and Princes must needs be In some few indifferent things they may be absolute have arbitrary power and be in some respect above those constitutive Laws which they themselves enact His instance in Jephtah gives them power above and contrary to the Laws of God and Nature Yet who will grant him that Jephtah sacrificed his daughter The text will not evince it for it only saith that whatsoever cometh forth of my doors to meet me c. shall be the Lords or I will offer it up for a burnt-offering Judges 11.31 For the particle 〈◊〉 Vau turned by some copulatively for and is here as in many other places dis-junctive and signifies or Again if Jephtah did sacrifice her he sinned not only against the Law of Nature but also the written Law of Moses For God gave no command permission or toleration to any that we read of but only to Abraham to sacrifice with humane blood and that Commandment was but to try him for he would not suffer him to put him to death Besides God threatens ruine and destruction to such as did offer their children to Moloch and shed their blood And their sin was not only because they offered them to Idols and Devils but also because they shed innocent blood without any warrant or Commission from God the only supreme and absolute Lord of life Further how could the vow of man which was but a voluntary Obligation be above the Law of God and make that lawful which by a Superiour Law was unlawful I verily believe she was devoted only not sacrificed But suppose he did sacrifice her to God to whom he had vowed her yet he did not this as a Soveraign of her life but as a subject to God The example of David murthering Vriah can much less prove the absolute power of Soveraigns to take away the lives of their innocent subjects For David had no such power for 1. He was no absolute Prince but limited both by the written Laws of God and also the Natural 2. Neither he nor any other can have any such power because man cannot God doth not give any such power 3. David did not only iniquity but injustice to Vriah 1. As his fellow-subject in respect of God 2. As his own subject whom he was bound as innocent to protect not to destroy 4. His proof out of Psal 51.4 Against thee only is invalid For 1. Though it be so translated by some and so understood by Ambrose and others who follow him yet neither that translation nor the interpretation thereon can be evinced either out of the Original or the Septuagint or the vulgar or Junius or Vatablus 2. Genebrard Vatablus Junius Ainsworth and others understand it that God only was privy to and knew of this sin and the words following And done this evil in thy sight seem to confirm this sense 5. Yet suppose it should be turned against thee only yet others interpret onely to be principally as supreme Law-giver and Judge not only to me but all others who only hast the Original power of punishing and pardoning not only me but others and that not only temporally but spiritually and eternally Yet the exposition of Ambrose is taken up because Princes desire it to be so absolute and both Divines and other men are very ready to slatter such as are in present possession of power But to make the point more evident let me digress a little and search out the reason and cause of the power of life and death as in the hands of civil Soveraigns To this end observe That no man hath absolute power of his own life as he hath of his goods Man may have the use and possession but not the propriety and dominion of it Therefore it s granted on all hands that though a mans life be said to be his own yet he may not be felo de se and kill himself he is not Master of his life so far as to have any power or liberty to do any such thing It s true that God who is Lord of life and death gives liberty to man in some cases to hazard in some he commands to lay down his life He may hazard it in a just war and defence of his own Countrey and also of himself against an unjust invader He must lay down his life and God commands it for the testimony of Christ in which case he that loseth it shall find it From all this it follows that no people can by making a Soveraign give any absolute power of life and death unto him For nothing can give that which it hath not neither can they make themselves Authors of the unjust acts of their Soveraign much less of his murthers and taking away the lives of their innocent subjects Id enim quisque potest quod jure potest If thus it be then they must have power to take away life from God who alone hath power of life and this power he only gives in case the subject be guilty of such crimes as by his Laws are capital T. H. pag. 110. in the margent The liberty which writers praise is the liberty of Soveraigns not of private men G. L. By writers he means the Roman and Greek Historians and Philosophers who wrote so much of liberty amongst the rest especially Aristotle and Cicero By this it seems he never understood these Authors though he accuse others of ignorance The liberty which the English have challenged and obtained with so much expence of blood is not the power of Kings much less of absolute Soveraigns as he would make the world believe but that which is due unto us by the constitution of the State Magna Charta the Laws and the Petition of Right It s but the liberty of subjects not Soveraigns when he hath said all he can we are not willing to be slaves or subject our selves to Kings as absolute Lords Neither are we willing that either flattering Divines Court-Parasites or Unjust Ministers of State should wind up the pretended prerogative so high as to subject our lives and estates and also our Religion to the arbitrary absolute and unreasonable will of one man whom they did desire to advance so much for their own interest There is a difference between the subjects liberty whereby in many things he may command himself and supreme power which commands others under their Supremacy By liberty Aristotle Cicero meant such a priviledge as every subject might have in a free-State not that Soveraignty which belonged to the whole and universal body over several persons where it is to be noted that one and the same person who is a subject and at the best but a Magistrate
God had conveyed it in common 4. It was for peace and order as also for to preserve the distinction of Tribes divided yet so as the Soveraign dividing it was God who ordered the lot Eleazer and Joshua were but Superintendents of the lot and no Soveraigns neither had they any the least propriety more then others of the people The Text expresly saith That when they had made an end of dividing the Land they gave Joshua Timnath Serah in Mount Ephra in for his inheritance Joshua 19.49 50. where it is to be observed That the people gave it him T. H. The propriety of the subject excludes all other subjects from the use of them and not the Soveraign G. L. It doth not only exclude other subjects but the Soveraign too For 1. The Soveraign is bound to observe the Laws of nature which are the moral Laws of God and propriety as by the Law of nature 2. Imperium nihil aliud esse sapientes definiunt nisi curam salutis alienae saith one very well For civil supreme power was never given by any people to destroy their propriety but to defend it Otherwise no intelligent people in the world would advance one person or more to take away their goods and so put themselves in a worse condition then they were by the Laws of nature 3. It may be granted that the Soveraign hath dominium eminens so far as to command not only the estates but the lives of the subjects for the publike safety but what is this to propriety properly taken 4. If his assertion were true then that distinction of Civilians and the Authors of Politicks whereby they put a difference inter res possessiones publicas and privatas were in vain and false but so it is not 5. By the Soveraigns in England he means the Kings who were no Soveraigns at all nor could at any time raise any moneys or impose any subsidy upon the people without their consent in Parliament as not only English men but forrein Ministers of State who have either read our Histories or our Laws or our practice do well know and have made it known to others 6. There may be a device in Law to pass all the land in England upon the Crown for to derive all tenures from thence or to confirm propriety to the subjects for that every one might not only know but keep and recover his own the better Yet this gives the King no more propriety then a Peoffee in trust may have and that is none T. H. The publick is not to be dieted in the Margint G. L. His meaning is that the Soveraign cannot be confined to a certain revenue as sufficient to defray the publick charge Yet the wisest States in the world have certainly defined a constant standing revenue for the publick use For we read of the Dominion of France which though the Kings could neither alienate nor justly impare yet Henry the fourth hath wofully mangled and given occasion of those heavy oppressions of the people of that State and also we are not ignorant of the Crown lands and revenue of England And this is but agreeable to Scripture where we read that God commanded in the division of the holy Land that the Prince should have his portion that he may no more oppress Ezek. 45.7 8. For the Land must be divided into three parts The first must be for God to maintain the Priests and Levites The second for the Prince the third for the people and thus some say the Land in England was divided in the time of the pious Saxon Kings Yet it must be confessed that sometimes the publick charge may be so great as that a standing revenue cannot defray it and then the subjects for the general good and safety are bound and may be commanded to contribute But if this in a time of peace and safety be embezelled and mispent by a prodigal Prince and his favourites and followers this will no waies warrant him to fly upon the spoyl and plunder his subjects What William the Conqueror here in England did it matters not much For if he did derive his title from Edward the Confessor as some Histories say he did pretend then he was no Soveraign If he did act as Conquerer then all compact and right upon Covenant is void as his successors who insist upon that title of conquest give full liberty to the English to fight against them and depose them if they can and deal with them as enemies As for making Laws for the regulation of Traffick Trade Exchange the value stamp and coining of moneys the sending out of Colonies for new Plantations as also to make them as Provinces or exempt them from subjection because they will not allow protection I grant all these are prerogatives of the Soveraign CAP. IX Of the Second Part. The 25. of the Book Of Counsel THE heads of this Chapter are 1. The difference between command counsel exhortation dehortation 2. The difference between counsel and command made evident out of Scripture 3. The qualifications of good Counsellors 4. To advise with Counsellors apart is better then to advise with them openly and in assemblies 1. The difference between counsel command exhortation dehortation is easily known For Counsel given is a declaration of the means which tend unto some certain end and also of the order and manner how they should be used to attain that end Command is the will of a Superiour made known whereby the inferiour is bound to obey or otherwise to suffer Exhortation presseth the practise of some good to be done as dehortation is the contrary Counsel directs command binds exhortation endeavours to stir up or incite the will dehortation keeps it back Command is of a Superiour Counsel exhortation dehortation are of a superiour inferiour equal For any of these may counsel exhort dehort as any of them may be counselled exhorted dehorted It s true that these words are not alwaies taken strictly That command should be for the benefit of the party commanding and counsel for the good of the party counselled is meerly accidental in waies essential to them And though sometimes both the intention and the event of both may be such as he determines yet we know it is many times otherwise For command may sometimes nay often be beneficial to the party commanded and intended to be so as counsel may be intended not only for the good of the party counselled but also counselling and also prove so to be The nature of exhortation and dehortation is as falsly loosely and impertinently defined as the former 2. Upon the former supposed difference between counsel and command he determines Thou shalt have none other Gods Thou shalt not make any graven image c. to be commands Yet these are not for the benefit of God but man keeping them For in keeping them there is great reward But Go and sell all thou hast c. is only a counsel with him because the party
obligativa 4. Not content to give the definition he explains what is right and that is that which is not contrary to the Law and wrong and its that which is contrary But what he means by rule is hard to know If he mean by rule Law it self then its absurd if he intends some antecedent rule of divine wisdom manifesting what is just or unjust before a civil power command it he is obscure Though he undervalue the Philosopher so much as far below him though he was far above him he might with Marsulis of Padua in his Defensor Pacis pars 1. cap. 10. have observed out of him a better definition of a Law given Ethn. ad Nicho. lib. 10. cap. 9. Lex est sententia doctrina seu judicium universale justorum conferentium civilium suorum oppositorum cum praecepto coactivo per poenam aut praemium de ejus observatione in hoc saeculo destribuenda More briefly it s a coactive precept of the Soveraign binding the subject to obedience and upon the same to be rewarded or upon disobedience to be punished in this life where many things are to be observed 1. The matter of this Law is something in it self just and conducing to the publik good yet so that it reacheth to the contrary 2. This must be known and judged to be so by the wisdom and understanding of the Soveraign for all Laws arr made by wisdom Political 3. This judgement of the Law-giver must be made known unto the subject therefore the Philosopher saith its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word And he means not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word not only inwardly conceived in the mind of the Law-giver 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristotle saith but it must be uttered and made known as the ten Commandements are called the ten words therefore it s said Exodus 20. God spake all these words 4. It must be praeceptum which includes the will of the Soveraign intending to bind the subject and so declaring himself 5. It must be an universal precept binding the whole community of the subject 6. It must be a coactive precept and backt with the sword for to make the Obligation effectual In this respect the Philosopher saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Law must have a coactive force And the Apostle saith he beareth not the sword in vain which words imply the Law-giver must have a sword 7. This sword protects and rewards the obedient who observe this Law according to their obligation and it punisheth the disobedient and for these two ends the Law must be co-active and armed with a sword 8. These rewards and punishments are to be conferrd and inflicted in this life for it cannot reach the soul and the life to come and this doth difference the civil Laws of men from the Laws of God which bind men to obedience upon the promise of spiritual and eternal rewards and for defect of obedience unto eternal and spiritual penalties This hath far more of the definition of a Law then his and more fully declares the nature of a Law civil Yet if either he or any other will improve it I shall like it well for I know mine own imperfections From his definition he infers several conclusions the first whereof is T. H. The Legislator in all Common-wealths is the Soveraign Again the Common-wealth is the Legislator by the Representative G. L. That pars imperans is the Legislator in every State must needs be granted but that the Common-wealth should be the Legislator either by or without pars imperans the Soveraign I do not understand For it consists of two parts the Soveraign and the subject and if the whole Common-wealth make Laws then the subject as well as the Soveraign is Legislator In a Republick or free-State there is a difference between the Soveraign and the subject much more in other models and forms Therefore he must needs speak either improperly or untruly when he saith the State is Legislator T. H. Conclusion 2. The Soveraign is not subject to the civil Laws because he hath power to make and repeal them at pleasure G. L. That the Soveraign in divers respects and especially as a Soveraign is not subject unto but above the Laws is a certain truth For Laws do bind the subject not the Soveraign to obey or be punished but the Soveraign doth command as Superiour not obey as inferiour doth punish is not punished The power to make a Law when there is none and to repeal after that it s made is sufficient evidence of his superiority as also dispensations in judgement and pardons be Yet this supreme will Legislative over men is subject to the superiour will of God and must neither make nor repeal Laws but according to wisdom and justice T. H. Conclusion 3. Custom is not Law by long continuance of time but by consent of the Soveraign G. L. This follows from the first Conclusion For if the Soveraign only be the Legislator then continuance of time and practise of the people though universal cannot make a Law The Soveraign must give either an express or tacit consent and this consent is then most evident when he makes the custom a rule in judgement and observes it And the Civilians well observe that besides continuance of time and the Soveraigns consent A third thing is required and that is that the beginning of it be reasonable as the Author here doth note T. H. Conclusion 4. The Law of Nature and the Civil Law contain each other and are of equal extent For the Laws of Nature which consist in equity justice gratitude and other moral vertues on these depending in the condition of meer nature are not properly laws but qualities that dispose men to peace and obedience when a Common-wealth is once actually settled then are they Laws c. G. L. 1. This is no Conclusion from the definition except he mean that the rule of right and wrong be the Law of Nature 2. The Laws of Nature are the Laws of God and not of man and not only subjects but Soveraigns are bound by them 3. Therefore they bind not as commanded by the civil Soveraign but as written by the hand of heaven in the heart of man Neither is that which afterwards he makes the difference between the Law of Nature and the Law of civil Governors any difference at all that the one is written the other not For both are written one by the hand of man though every Civil Law be not written and the other by the hand of God the one in the heart the other upon some other material substance and that which is written in the heart may be written out of it 4. Equity justice gratitude and other moral vertues are not Laws of nature but either habitual or actual conformities unto the Laws of Nature 5. How the Laws of Nature and Laws Civil should be of equal extent and yet contain one
AN Examination OF THE POLITICAL Part OF Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan By GEORGE LAWSON Rector of More in the County of Salop. LONDON Printed by R. White for Francis Tyton at the three Daggers in Fleet-street near the Inner-Temple Gate Anno Dom. 165â— The Epistle to the Reader TO glorifie God and benefit man both by doing good and preventing and removing evil should be the endeavour as its the duty of every Christian in his station Upon this account I have undertaken this examination of Mr. Hobbs I was indeed at the first unwilling though sollicited to do any such thing because upon the perusal of the Political part of his Leviathan I conceived that as little good was to be expected so little harm was to be feared from that book Yet after that I understood by divers learned and judicious friends that it took much with many Gentlemen and young Students in the Universities and that it was judged to be a rational piece I wondered for though I knew the distemper of the times to be great yet by this I found it to be far greater then I formerly suspected And upon which considerations I judged it profitable and convenient if not necessary to say something to the Gentleman and did so After that I had communicated my pains unto divers worthy and learned friends they pressed me to give way to the Printing of them which I did if they after serious perusal should think them worthy the Press They were at length approved and again by some desired to be publick yet by others thought too brief and I was desired to enlarge But this I refused to do both because there is very little if any thing material at all in Mr. Hobbs his Civil and Ecclesiastical Politicks omitted by me and not examined and also because I had formerly finished a Treatise of Civil and Ecclesiastical Government which if it had not been lost by some negligence after an Imprimatur was put upon it might have prevented and made void the Political part of Mr. Hobbs and though one Copy be lost yet there is another which may become publick hereafter When thou hast read this brief Examination thou maist if judicious and impartial easily judge whether there be any thing in Mr. Hobbs which is either excellent or extraordinary and whether there be not many things inconsistent not only with the sacred Scriptures but with the rules of right reason But not willing to prepossess thee I commit thee to God and remain Thine in the Lord Geo. Lawson EA est plerumque Apologiarum aut Vanitas aut infelicitas ut injustam amoliendo Censuram justam ferant vel nova saltem Apologia indigeant Whereas in the close of the Preamble to this Examination the Learned Author upon the account of his Ministerial calling Apologizeth for his undertaking the Political part of Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan he is not so to be understood as if he looked upon Mr. Hobbs as such an Hercules as could not be conquered by less then two a States-man in the Civil and a Church-man in the Ecclesiastical Part of his beastly Politie but as intending at first the consideration of the Civil Part only This was thought meet by a Friend of the Authors to be thus communicated least the Reader should take occasion to grow more Censorious than he ought or Mr. Hobbs more Proud than he is T. G. CAP. I. Of Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan concerning the Causes Generation and Definition of a Common-wealth CIvil Government derives its Being from Heaven for it is a part of Gods Government over mankind wherein he useth the Ministery of Angels and the service of men yet so as that he reserves the supreme and universal Power in his own hands with a liberty to depose the Rulers of the World at will and pleasure and transfer the Government of one Nation to another to lay the foundation of great Empires and again to destroy them for their iniquity To think that the sole or principal Cause of the constitution of a civil State is the consent of men or that it aims at no further end then peace and plenty is too mean a conceit of so noble an effect And in this particular I cannot excuse Mr. Hobbs who in the modelling both of a Civil and also of an Ecclesiastical Common-wealth proceeds upon principles not only weak but also false and dangerous And for this reason I undertake him This should have been done by some wel-skill'd in Political Learning and not by me who do not profess it as being a Divine and one of the meanest amongst many And my intention is not to inform my Betters who know the vanity and absurdity of his discourse but to undeceive the ignorant Reader who may too easily be surprized The first Chapter of the second Part which is the seventeenth of his Book doth inform us First That the end of civil Government is Security Secondly This Security cannot be had in the State of Nature because it is the state of War nor by a weak nor a great multitude except united by one perpetual judgement Thirdly A great multitude are thus united when they conferr all their power and strength upon one man or assembly of men that may reduce all their wils by plurality of voices to one will c. From whence ariseth a Common-wealth Fourthly This Common-wealth is defined and distributed Against all this some thing may be excepted For First That the State of Nature is the State of War may be doubted if not denied For man is a rational creature and if he act according to his nature he must act rationally and though he may seek to preserve himself and that sometimes with the dammage or destruction of another yet he cannot may not do this unjustly but according to the Laws of Nature which are two The First Love thy neighbour as thy self The Second Do as thou wouldst be done unto These tend directly unto Peace not unto War which is unnatural and they may be kept by multitudes of men not united in a civil State or under a form of Government And this is evident from Divine and profane Histories For Families and Vicinities which had no dependance one upon another and also States both by confederation and without any such thing have lived peaceably together When the Apostle saith The Gentiles which have not the Law by nature do the things contaâ—â— in the Law he doth not mean by Nature a Common-wealth or form of Government civil It s true the Apostle brings in a Bill of Indictment against all mankind and accuseth them That their feet are swift to shed blood Destruction and calamity or misery are in their ways And the way of peace they have not known Rom. 3.15 16 17. Yet he understands this not of Nature but the corruption of Nature and the parties here accused are not men only as in the state of Nature but also under a Government and that not only Civil but Ecclesiastical
too For such the Jews here charged were So that all that can be either by him evidently proved or by others granted is That if by Nature he mean corruption of Nature and the same not only original and native but also acquired by perpetual acts so far as to quench the light of Nature and suppress the vigour of those Principles which God left as reliques of his image then his Position may be true That the state of Nature is the state of War Secondly That by a well-constituted civil Government to which Nature inclines man the Laws of Nature and Peace may be more easily and better observed But I hasten to his Definition of a Common-wealth and it is thus defined by Mr. Hobbs A Common-wealth is a Person of whose acts a great multitude by mutual Covenant one with another have made themselves every one the Author to the end he may use the strength and means of them all as he shall think expedient for their peace and common defence G. L. 1. This Definition is obscure and might have been made more plain and easie and such as we read in other Authors 2. It s imperfect and only tels us what pars imperans is and that most poorly if not falsly too 3. It may agree unto the Head or Captain of a sedition or rebellion or a company of Thieves and Robbers by Land or Pirats by Sea nay but that he speaks of a society or multitude of men it exactly agrees unto Belzebub the prince of Devils In a word it agrees to any unlawful multitude united to do mischief For here is no mention of reason or justice or law Aristotle and other Authors use to qualifie their Definition of a State with some such term For they make it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 legitimam ordinationem and do not give up all to the soveraigns judgement which may be blinded or his will which may be corrupted or his power which may act more like a beast then like a man 4. A Common-wealth may be defined in another manner thus It is a community of men orderly subjected to a supreme power civil that they may live peaceably in all godliness and honesty This Definition or rather Description is not so accurate yet it is sufficient to inform the Reader of the nature of civil Government somewhat better then the Author hath done In it we may consider 1. The community as the Matter and Subject 2. The supreme Power civil informing this Matter 3. The orderly Subjection unto it for peace and a good life 1. The community is the Matter of which some things may be observed as 1. That the name in Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latine Civitas which is not as the Author saith a Common-wealth in proper sense for that in Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latine Respublica 2. That it is a multitude of reasonable Men not a Leviathan which is an irrational Brute The number of this multitude may be greater or less and not certainly determinable For Ragusa a little City as well as the vast Roman Empire may be a community to make a perfect State 3. This community must be associated and united not only in vicinity of place which is convenient but also in some stricter bond before they can be capable of a supreme Power 4. The Members of this Society are by nature free and by God to whom they are subject left at liberty to choose what Governours or form of Government they please yet so that they must desire and endeavour the best and such as shall be most conducing to Peace and Righteousness 5. Sometimes it fals out and is so ordered by Providence that a People who have continued for a certain time under a form of Government return unto their first liberty yet even then when God doth offer them an opportunity to establish the best form and constitution that they are fearfully divided Some are for the former Government others idolize some new Idea framed in their own brains Others in the mean time get the sword into their hands and once possessed of Power are unwilling to part with it Yet these sometimes are dispossessed again in the mean time the People like so many waves of the Sea are tossed this way and that way by contrary winds like as in Daniels vision when he saw the four winds strive upon the great Sea out of which arose the great Empires of the world Dan. 7.2 3 c. And all this comes to pass through the just Judgement of God and the wilful folly of men who are enemies to their own Peace Lastly In these many alterations of Governours and forms of Government the Community abides the same except it be cut off by the sword as the Amalakites and Canaanites were or destroyed by some extraordinary Judgement as Sodom and Gomorrha with fire and brimstone from heaven The second part of the Definition is the Supreme Power And here we must consider 1. The Nature of Power in general 2. The Nature of supreme Power civil 3. The Original of it 4. The Subject wherein it s fixed 1. Power in Latine Potestas in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Jus imperandi a quality inherent in a Superiour as such whereby he can effectually command or bind any person subject as subject Imperium or Command is properly an act of a superiour Will whereby the person subject is bound to obedience or punishment It presupposeth the Understanding and practical Judgement whereby it is directed and is to no purpose without an executive power and coactive force sufficient to protect the Subject obeying and punish him if he prove disobedient And because the Judgement may be erroneous and the command unjust therefore there can be no Jus imperandi without Divine wisdom to direct the Understanding and Justice to regulate the Will which is to direct the coactive force And though Superiours may in many things abuse their Superiority yet they do not cease to be Superiours though as abusing their power they are not Superiours because Nulla datur Potestas ad malum none can have power to bind contrary to Divine Wisdom and Justice 2. Supreme Power civil which is in Latine called Majestas which is maxima Potestas in Civitate may be defined out of Rom. 13.1 2 3 4 5 c. and 1 Pet. 2.13 to be a Sword committed by God unto higher Powers for to punish the bad and protect the good For 1. In all Government civil there must be a sword which is an outward coactive strength and force and the same sufficient for the end it was ordained and given by God How otherwise can there possibly be any sufficient protection or punishment within the precincts of the community and territory And here two things are to be observed 1. That one and the same Sword must protect from enemies without and unjust Subjects within For the Sword of War and Justice are but one Sword 2. That there
good to deliver concerning the Nature of a Common-wealth civil The Distribution followeth Mr. Hobbs A Common-wealth is either by institution or acquisition G. L. This is not the distribution of a Common-wealth either into the integral parts which are two 1. The soveraign 2. The subject not into the kinds for those are usually taken from the several manners of disposing the supreme power in one or more to make it Monarchical or Polycratical but it s a distinction of the manner of acquiring supreme power And the ordinary way or rather means whereby it is acquired is either by force or consent Yet this distinction is imperfect for there be other means besides these neither when supreme Power is obtained either by force or consent is a Common-wealth framed The Power is alwayes derived from God as before and he takes it from one and gives to another either in an extraordinary or an ordinary way of Providence as by giving a finall victory or inclining mens hearts and that upon several reasons to submit and sometimes so that if they had liberty and power they would not consent at all And though men may be unjust in desiring and seeking yet he is just in giving it And by the way it s to be observed 1. That a Power acquired and held by force cannot govern without a tacit consent at least so that all Common-wealths are by consent 2. No man or men can govern any people long by force except it be the Will of God to punish and oppress them with an iron rod for their transgressions CAP. II. Of the Second Part and the Eighteenth of the Book Of the Rights of Soveraigns by Institution THis Chapter informs us what the rights of Soveraigns once constituted are In every Common-wealth there must be a supreme Power fixed in some certain Subject this is essential to it yet though this be a principal thing to be done yet it is not all neither being done doth it make a compleat Common-wealth His Covenant of every one with every one for to design a Soveraign is but an Utopian fancy For by the best Histories we may understand that many States have attained to a setled form of Regular Government by degrees in a long tract of time and that by several alterations intervening so that the Laws of their constitution are rather customs then any written Charter Some Communities come under a form of Government more suddenly and by a way fortuitous unto man though not so to God And in this point the practise of former times not the fancies and speculations of men must instruct us T. H. The first of the twelve Rights of the Soveraign is That Subjects cannot change the form of Government G. L. That Community which hath Power and Liberty to alter the form of Government to the better do not their duty or are not wise if they do it not And it were wisdom in any people to reserve the Power to the whole body to be used as occasion opportunity and necessity shall require As they are bound to reform the State when it is corrupted so they are bound to alter the form when without an alteration reformation cannot be obtained That the Subjects have no power to alter the form of Government may be granted for Subjects as Subjects must submit unto the Power established not take upon them the highest and most transcendent Prerogative of all others yet this is no right of the Soveraign nor to be reckoned inter Jura Majestatis For the Soveraign himself hath no right of himself to change the fundamental constitution Before this can be done the People must return unto the original State of Liberty and to a Community which in England is not a Parliament but the fourty Counties Upon this ground some have said that a Parliament cannot alter the Government what men may do upon a Dissolution and in a case of real not pretended necessity is another matter But let us hear his reasons T. H. The first upon supposition of no former Obligation is That it is a breach of that Covenant whereby they made themselves authours of every act the soveraign doth or shall judge fit to be done 2. If they depose the Soveraign that which is his own and they had formerly given him they take away unjustly 3. If any attempting to depose his Soveraign be killed or punished he is Author of his own punishment 4. A new Covenant pretended to be made with God cannot free them from offence and injustice in their disobedience unto their Soveraign because they can make no Covenant with God without his Leiutenant which is the Prince G. L. 1. I grant as formerly that a Subject as such cannot act to change the Government or depose his lawful Soveraign 2. They who set up a Soveraign and by Covenant advance him to the Throne must and ought to be free from all former superiour obligations which cannot stand with this But what is this to purpose The question is whether Subjects cannot change the form of Government in any case and whether the Subjects may not be freed and that lawfully from their allegiance and cease to be in the State of Subjects That it many times fals out so to be is evident For by civil wars by forraign invasions transmigrations and other wayes it comes to pass that Subjects are free from their Soveraigns who cannot protect them and in such cases if God give them Power they may alter the form of Government if it may be for the best But to come more close unto his first reason let us suppose as he affirmeth That a people by Covenant have set up a particular person to be a Monarch and so made themselves authors of all his acts whether is it lawful for you by a new Covenant to obey another or cast off Monarchy or transfer his person upon another without injustice He saith ye cannot without breach of Covenant do it But 1. He here presupposeth his former Utopian fancy of a Covenant of every man with every man whereas its plain few States of the world now in power were thus constituted 2. Soveraigns are of two sorts 1. Such as in whom the supreme power doth constantly and immediately abide 2. Such as are such only for execution and administration To these latter the subjects bind themselves to be faithful so far as they shall be faithful to the Kingdom and the Crown which is theirs not jurc dominii by absolute right with a power to alienate them or destroy them For every subject is first bound to be faithful to their Countrey then unto their King who swears to maintain the Laws Liberty and Religion by Law established These cannot bind us to do any thing against the Laws of God of Nature nor against our Countrey But with this Author every Monarch is absolute and in particular the Kings of England amongst the rest 3. Suppose a Covenant with a Soveraign absolute or limited be against the Laws of God
either moral or positive in force may not the subjects break this Covenant without injustice Nay is it not injustice for to keep it seeing Nullum juramentum ligat ad illicitum 4. If the Soveraigns Acts be directly contray to justice equity and the fear of God must the subjects who gave him no such power be Authors of these horrid acts as murther incest adultery blasphemy as also of his unjust commands and perverse judgements 5. To be obedient to another to transfer his power to depose him is not to change the form of government but to pull down one and set up another the form remaining the same 6. Subjects or rather they who are subjects as subjects cannot make any such Covenant as to make one who was no Soveraign to be their Soveraign If they can make a Soveraign they must be equal and equally free in making that Covenant whereby a supreme Governour is constituted 7. If they who were aequà liberi before and in the time of making this Covenant and after it is concluded become subjects afterwards rebel they cease to be subjects and become hostes enemies and are so to be dealt withall And what reason can be given why the Soveraign if he prove a Tyrant in the administration and challenge more power then was given him or could by the Laws of God or Nature be conferred upon him should not cease to be a Soveraign and the subjects free from their allegiance to him seeing he hath violated the essential part of the Covenant and perverted the main end of all Government Why should it be otherwise in this then in all other pacts and contracts This question is the more difficult to be answered by this Author because he allows the people a power to make a Soveraign and if he be such as is one onely for administration its unanswerable This point might have been more clearly determined if he had instanced in any particulars In all this I desire to be understood aright For 1. That power which the Bishop of Rome doth challenge and hath sometimes exercised in the excommunication and deposition of Princes and absolving their subjects from allegiance I detest 2. I desire all Covenants that are just and justly made whilest they are in force to be kept especially by all subjects to their lawful Soveraigns For no subjects are to be perswaded or encouraged to Treason or Rebellion 3. I would advise all people to beware how they rise against or resist the highest powers though the cause may be just and because the remedy may prove worse then the disease and often proves so and the confusions which follow such commotions are more mischievous then the former oppressions and a Tyrannie is better then an Anarchy His second reason is because they had given him the right of Soveraignty which the cannot take away Where 1. He grants That the people give the Soveraign his right and if so then they gave it him not as subjects and when they return to the same occasion again they may give the power to another 2. I deny that subjects do give any such right 3. Neither can he prove that there is any such Covenant of every man with every man in the constitution of civil States His third reason is not worth an answer But in the end of this paragraph he seems to take away the pretence and allegation of some new Covenanters with God What Covenant he means is not here expressed If he understand the National Covenant as it s very likely he doth then let those who pretend it answer for themselves For that Covenant could not give the least power either to England or Scotland or any in either Nation entering into it and in the same they only engaged to use lawful means to accomplish what they had promised Yet with him this and all other Covenants are void if made with God without his Vicegerent who is their Soveraign Yet if this were true then the Covenant made in Baptism by the converted Christians under the heathen Emperours cannot be valid This is evidently false because every man may voluntarily bind himself to God in those things wherein the Laws of God and man have left him free without the consent or express permission of his civil Soveraign T. H. The second right of a Soveraign is he cannot forfeit the reasons are 1. There is no Covenant made on his part either with them all joyntly or severally not with them joyntly because they cannot be one person before they subject unto him Not with them severally for they Covenant one with another not with him and if any one pretend freedom from subjection there can be no judge of the controversie 2. Words as all Covenants are be of no force without a sword publick G. L. This is the substance though not all the words to prove that Soveraigns cannot forfeit His 1. Reason takes that for granted which is false and cannot be proved For a community is one person moral by siction of Law as they use to speak or as the Civilians express themselves persona conjuncta opposed to singularis For a community is the immediate subject of a Common-wealth and must be associate before they can be capable of a form of Government and without union and communion too it cannot be civitas societas populus As thus united it may act and covenant by their Deputies who may be many or by a Deputy which may be one and here they may in the name of the whole Covenant with the person whom they like for Soveraign and upon conditions just and reasonable Thus Israel a meer community makes Moses their Deputy and Mediator to Covenant with God in their behalf Thus the ten Tribes by some of their principal men capitulate with Jeroboam Thus the Gileadites by their Messengers offer to contract with Jephtah and some of the Tribes make the same offer unto Gideon Thus a free people may invest one man or more either with original power or trust him and them only with the administration And they may put conditions upon them either to give them an unlimited or limited power as the wisest men amongst them shall think fit And there is great reason so to do For 1. They are free 2. He with whom they purpose to contract hath no right to command them no power over them before he be made Soveraign He is but a private person and they are mad men if they will subject themselves upon unreasonable conditions They are very unwise who will make a Butcher their Shepherd or set a Woolf over their Flocks And surely it s no point of wisdom in any free-people to trust any one man or assembly of men with an absolute unlimited power If an enemy come in by conquest they must be content with what conditions he pleaseth not with such as they desire For they are not free because their estates liberty lives are in his power As for the Covenant of every one with
every one it s a meer Chimera there was never any such thing neither can he give any instance of it and therefore all that he builds upon it must needs fall As for his second reason wherein he affirms Covenants to be but words and words are but breath and of no force without a publike sword it s no waies tolerable By these words he may be proved to be an Atheist whatsoever he pretends and to deny the immortality of the soul all Religion and fear of the Deity and his providence over the world and I should be very unwilling to trust his promise upon oath for any thing I could not recover by Law The principal force of a Covenant depends upon the will and consent of the immortal soul which fears a Deity and believes a supreme Judge of the world who will render to every man according to their works yet because Covenants are but words and breath therefore he inferrs T. H. That a Soveraign cannot be made or receive his power by Covenant or upon condition for so to think is is ignorance G. L. It s true that we are ignorant fools if we think when a Monarch is made such upon condition to which he is sworn that he will part with his power though he hath forfeited his right unto it if he have a long sword and a broad conscience he will be possessor as long as he can And by this passage he seems to affirm that few Monarchs have any conscience or fear of God For though they lose their right yet they will not part with their possession though their own conscience Laws of God and the dictates of nature perswade them to keep their Covenants and not violate their Oaths In a word though Soveraigns be made by Covenant and Oath yet the Obligation is in vain because the people cannot force them to the observation thereof for they have parted with their power and delivered the sword unto their Governors Yet they never gave them the sword to maintain their injustice but to protect the just and punish the unjust Yet in a popular State this seems to be clear That the Soveraign cannot be made upon condition for thus he writes T. H. No man is so dull as to say for example The people of Rome made a Covenant with the Romans to hold the Soveraignty on such or such conditions which not performed the Romans might lawfully depose the Roman people That men see not the reason to be alike in a Monarchy and a Popular Government proceedeth from the ambition of some c. G. L. Men are not so dull as to believe that the reason of not forfeiting the supreme power is alike in a Monarchy and a Popular State For we know that in such a Common-wealth the Community and the Soveraign are the same though in some respect different but in a Monarchy or Aristocraty it s far otherwise In the State of Rome after that Tarquin was deposed and that Government reduced unto a Republick every one severally though never so great was a subject and all joyntly was their Soveraign for in that form singuli subduntur universis universi praesunt singulis yet the universality of the people as a Community could not act and exercise the Soveraignty and therefore Consuls and other Officers were trusted with great power but not with the supreme and these might forfeit and be deposed by the people In all States we must distinguish between the constitution and the administration or as others use to express themselves Inter Statum exercitium They who are trusted only with the administration as such are not supreme though they will endeavour to usurp and possess that power Therefore the Authoreither is very ignorant or else goes about to delude his ignorant Reader The question therefore is whether a Soveraign may forfeit That he cannot is not at all by so much as a probable argument yet evinced 1. That he may forfeit unto God there is no doubt 2. That if any forfeit God will in his due time take the forfeit pass Judgement upon the party forfeiting and execute the same either by himself or by Angels or by forrein forces or by civil wars or some other way and in all this God is just though men may be unjust 3. Monarchs and Princes only trusted with the power of Execution and Administration may forfeit and justly be restrained or reduced or deposed 4. Absolute Princes may forfeit their right unto the Soveraignty when they pervert all Laws of God and man oppress murther raise war unjustly against their own subjects to butcher them as so many wild beasts violate their Oaths and Covenants without any fear of God or man For such as such are hostes humani generis rebels against God and agents for the Devil All powers are ordained of God and from him they receive Commssion to protect their subjects not destroy them and to punish the bad not to protect them and advance them and use them for the destruction of the good If any man dare plead for these let him I dare not 5. If the Author had stated the question and informed us of the several titles of Soveraigns which are many or had instanced in particulars and informed us of their particular titles it had been easie to determine the controversie Princes acquire their power many waies as by Election Succession Marriage the Sword and by that either justly or unjustly usurping the power which is not due and that out of revenge or covetousness or ambition with a desire to be great not do good The question is not whether a Soveraign according to the Apostles definition Rom. 13. can forfeit to his subjects as his subjects for so he cannot do but it is this whether a Soveraign may not cease to be a Soveraign and the subjects cease to be his subjects and to this the Author hath said nothing T. H. No man can without injustice protest against the institution of the Soveraign declared by the major part G. L. 1. There are very few Soveraigns thus instituted and if this be the only way what title have the greatest part of Soveraigns in the world 2. If they be not thus instituted whether is it lawful to protest against them or no of this the Author saith nothing 3. Suppose the major part be a faction and institute one of their own party Soveraign not for publick good so much as for private interest whether may not the dissenters protest 4. In all Assemblies and Societies which proceed by way of suffrage the major part concludes and determines for the whole to avoid confusion and dissention and to preserve unity and order Yet so that the major part may err because they are not infallible and one good reason being evident should prevail against ten millions of votes We find that most men in their suffrages follow the example of some eminent person or persons or their own affection few are determined by reason And
is to inform the King of his errours and never to cease petitioning in the name of the people till he reform and return to the observation of the Laws These also inform the King of the miscarriage of all other Officers though never so great The other rule and practise is every third year to make a severe and rigid inquisition into the administration of all Magistrates and to put out and punish the unjust negligent and unworthy and to establish the just The Author endeavours to prove the excellency of Monarchy above other forms because it hath conveniencies proper to it self and is free from inconveniencies incident to Aristocratical and Democratical States Yet this is to little purpose For 1. The best forms have their imperfections 2. The inconveniences mentioned are easily prevented by wise States-men even in other forms of Government The discourse following concerning elective and limited Monarchies so called yet are not such as also concerning succession I omit 1. Because others have discussed these points in their Political systems more accurately 2. Because though some things are both ignorantly and untruly affirmed yet they are not worthy to be taken notice of much less of any refutation CAP. IV. Of the Second Part the twentieth of the Book of Paeternal and Despotical Dominion THE method of Politicks is miserably perverted by the Author For whereas power is first acquired before a Common-wealth can be constituted he first informs us of the several kinds of Constitutions which arise from the different manner of disposing the power acquired and after that of several waies how the power is acquired And further to bewray his ignorance of the rules of Government he confounds Oeconomical power with Political so that I may truly say that he is one of the worst that ever wrote either of Civil or Ecclesiastical Politicks In this Chapter he undertakes 1. To define a Common-wealth by acquisition and to shew the difference between it and that by constitution 2. To declare how dominion is acquired 3. To prove the Soveraign rights out of Scripture 4. From thence to demonstrate that all Soveraign power is absolute T. H. A Common-wealth by acquisition is that where the Soveraign power is acquired by force And the difference of this from that of constitution is that in the former men subject themselves for fear of the Soveraign in the latter for fear of one another G. L. This is the substance though not all his words where we must observe That this is no distinction of a Common-wealth but of the manner how the power whereby any is made a Soveraign is acquired and that all Soveraigns do one way or other acquire their power for it s meerly accidental no waies essential to any man for to be invested with power And howsoever the Soveraignty civil be obtained it makes no difference in the Common-wealth For in every state the power is acquired and so there is no Common-wealth but its both by acquisition and constitution too So that he hath made a distinction without a difference T. H. Dominion is acquired two waies by Generation and Conquest The first is Paternal the latter is Despotical G. L. This is very defective as in this place its heterogeneous and impertinent What have we to do with Family-power in a Common-wealth For Familes as they make vicinities and vicinities a Community civil are but a remote material part of Politicks In a Family there is a threefold power acquired the power of an husband over his wife by marriage covenant or contract the power of parents over their children by generation the power of Masters over their servants acquired several waies for some servants are slaves some are free Slaves are vernae servants born in the Family or emptitii bought with money such as are free be conductitii The two former are more subject then the last and the Master hath more power over the former sort who are born and bought then over the latter who are only hired So that there is a difference of Despotical power even in a Family the one is more absolute the other more limited Soveraignty civil is acquired several waies and all may be reduced to two For men come unto this power either justly or unjustly Justly and that either in an extraordinary way as by special unction and designation from God thus Saul and David and Davids lawful Successors of his Family were made the two first by particular nomination the other by ageneral entail or in an ordinary manner and that is either by the Law of Nature or by institution By the Law of Nature when a multitude sufficient for their own protection and government associate and by union and communion become a Community the Soveraignty is virtually and eminently in themselves and in the whole body of the people being free and this is so natural a subject that upon the defect of succession it returns unto them again By institution and more formal contract and that is by a free and full election or by a submission to a Conquerer which is so far voluntary that if they had power to protect themselves they would not submit Unjustly by usurpation when he or they who have no right yet take the possession into their own hands in a way contrary to the Laws of God and the consent of men yet such an Usurper cannot be a Soveraign without some kind of consent of God and man In this case fraud or force gets the advantage over the people so far as that they must submit or do worse When any ascend the Throne by Marriage Succession Election they are made Governors by institution with free and full consent In all this I speak of the supreme not the subordinate power which is by Commission derived from the supreme In all these waies of acquiring power we must distinguish between power of constitution in constitution and in administration and also take special notice that there is no power which can govern without consent not only of man but also and especially of God who either in justice and severity or in mercy doth change and alter the Kingdoms of the world at will and pleasure For he alone doth rule in heaven and earth at all times Thus far concerning the acquisition of power and of the jura majestatis rights of Soveraigns which he conceives to have made clear by reason and now in the next place undertakes to prove out of Scripture yet in such a loose and implous abusive manner that I verily perswade my self he doth not believe them to be revealed and written from heaven or that Jesus Christ was an ordinary just man much less the Eternal Son of God incarnate T. H. pag. 105. Le ts now consider what the Scripture teacheth in the same point To Moses the children of Israel say thus Speak thou to us and we will hear thee but let not God speak to us lest we die This is absolute obedience to Moses G. L. This is
wherein we may observe 1. Solomons place and duty as King of Israel and that was to judge that people 2. That this duty could not be well performed without wisdom 3. God doth give wisdom for that purpose These things are implyed 4. Solomon prases for wisdom to that end Neither from his place or prayer will it follow that he had the supreme absolute legislative power in himself alone Neither indeed had he any such thing at all for God had made the Laws both Civil and Ecclesiastical And he could neither alter or abrogate them but was bound precisely and strictly to judge according to them and neither depart unto the right hand or the left And suppose Solomon had been invested with this power doth it therefore follow that all other Kings have the like The rest which follow are not worthy any answer He instanceth 1. In Saul whom being their Lords annointed David did not slay though he was in his power And what follows hence but only thus much That no man in Davids case and of Davids conscience dare secretly put to death a King annointed by Gods special and immediate Word 2. Servants must obey their Masters and Children their Parents in all things And what is this to purpose Doth it hence follow that all Kings have absolute power what impertinent and absurd illations are these But 3. Christs Disciples must observe and do all that the Scribes and Pharisees bid them as sitting in Moses Chair From hence it cannot be concluded that they had Soveraign power civil no more then Ministers of the Gospel have it because the people must observe and do all that they bid them out of the Gospel 4. Paul chargeth Titus cap. 3.2 to warn the people of Creet that they subject themselves to Princes and to those that are in authority and obey them And his gloss is this is simple obedience What is this to absolute and supreme power By this may be as easily proved that every petty Officer hath supreme power as well as any other for an Officer must be obeyed because he is in Authority 5. Christ commands to give to Caesar the things that are Caesars and paid taxes himself All that can be inferred from hence is That tribute is to be paid to whom tribute is due and that it is due from Provinces to their supreme Governors The summ of all these places amounts to thus much in Politicks That the chief commands in war just Judgement in peace or the exercise of Jurisdiction belonged unto the Kings of Judah and tribute to the Roman Emperour How many plain and express places of Scripture might have been produced to prove that there is a Legislative Judicial Executive power in every State and that it is to be exercised by some certain persons designed for that purpose And the Author had no need to lay the weight of his praise for these things upon such places as do but tacitly and by way of intimation point at some of them But why he should falsifie the translation abuse so many texts make such woful illations from some of them and so impertinently alledge them I know no reason and it seems to me intolerable that in the last example he should make Christ Jesus the civil Soveraign of the Jews in the time of his humiliation and by vertue of that civil power to take another mans Ass as his own which he did but desire to borrow and use for a little journey with the consent of the owner That the sin of our first parents in desiring to be as Gods knowing good and evil was an ambition to become civil Soveraigns he may perswade us to believe when he can prove it T. H. pag. 106. Soveraign power ought in all Common-wealths to be absolute G. L. This I read in the margent and to his understanding its plain both from reason and Scripture that it s as great as possibly a man can be imagined to make it This is plainly ridiculous For what cannot men imagine seeing their imaginations can reach to wonders impossibilities and many things far above a civil Soveraign power And here is a sit occasion offered to examine what absolute power is and in what respect Soveraignty is absolute There is no power as there is no being absolute but that of Gods whose power is his being Civil supreme power is said to be absolute because its soluta legibus free from the Laws and not limited and obliged by them Yet the Laws from which they are free as being above them are only civil Laws made by themselves for the administration of the States where they are Soveraign For they are so strictly bound by the Law of Reason Nature God which are but all one divine Law as they have not the least power to do any thing either as private persons or publike Soveraigns against them except they will dethrone themselves provoke the wrath of God and bring his Judgements upon them They are besides subject to the Law of Nature which is above any particular Soveraign though never so great They are indeed above their own Laws and may not only alter many things in them but abrogate them Yet so as all this tends to the publick good They may act upon occasion above and besides them as the general good shall require it They are not bound unto formalities but may omit them Yet all this is but little and confined to the narrow compass of things indifferent as they are subordinate to pure morals It s true that their power is in some respect arbitrary yet if they do any thing which either in it self or in the circumstances only is unjust they offend and transgress the bounds God hath put unto their power And here we must distinguish between the Soveraign for the Constitution and the Soveraign for Administration The former hath more power then the later who only is above the Laws of administration yet both must be just for they have no power to be unjust It s certain that Princes desire to be Gods absolute independent above all Laws and to have a priviledge to do what they list and a right to do wrong and it s a dangerous thing to flatter them and make them believe their power to be greater then indeed it is for this is the very high-way unto ruine Wise men have advised all Princes to observe their own Laws made by themselves and by their example encourage their subjects to obedience And this is an effectual means to procure their safety and confirm them in their power and the love of their subjects CAP. V. Of the Second Part the one and twentieth of the Book Of the liberty of subjects THE subject of this Chapter is as in the argument the liberty of subjects which follows the power of Soveraigns in this discourse And because his method is no method but rather a confusion I do forbear to reduce the Chapter either to certain Heads or Propositions and will only observe some
few passages to manifest that he never understood what liberty is Liberty of subjects is not Natural nor Moral nor Theologicall but Political and Civil In the Civil Law and Politicks it s opposed to servitude and bondage not simply and meerly to obligation by Laws as he fancieth for thus he writes T. H. So men have also made artificial Charms called Civil Laws which they themselves by mutual Covenants have fastened at one end to the lips of the Soveraign at the other to their own ears G. L. The Authors meaning is That so far as Laws bind the subject so far they take away his liberty and men by constitution of a Soveraign over them give a power absolute to make Laws and so far as they are virtually subject to his power and actually bound by his Laws they cannot be free yet this well examined will not prove true For not any kind of Obligation takes it away for then the Laws of Nature by which a man is bound before he be subject to a civil Soveraign should deprive him of his liberty yet they leave him as free a man as any possibly in a free-State can be The Obligation of just Laws and wise Edicts do regulate liberty keep it within its proper bounds and no waies destroy it or take it away Therefore that which follows is questionable For he affirms T H. That the liberty of a subject therefore lieth only in those things which in regulating their actions the Soveraign hath pretermitted G. L. But 1. In things left indifferent because not defined by Law the subject is not only liber sed dominus and hath not only libertatem but potestatem He is not only free but Lord of those actions and hath not only liberty but also an absolute power 2. Though wise and just Laws do regulate actions yet they do not make the agent a slave or a servant For to be a slave or a servant is to be cast below the condition of a man and make him subject to some thing below himself Wisdom and Justice are above the power of the Soveraign much more above the liberty of a subject They are particles of the divine perfection and to be bound by them is not only a liberty but an honour To be free from the dominion of our own base lusts and sins and the power of Satan is true liberty divine and so not to be subject to the lusts and imperious unworthy commands of absolute Soveraigns whose wills though irrational contrary to justice must stand for Laws is civil liberty And then a man is Politically free when he is so far Master of his life goods children and that which is justly his that they cannot be taken away from him but for some crime contrary to just Laws deserving such a penalty In a word the liberty of a subject is such a state or condition as that he is neither by the Soveraign power nor any Laws bound to do any thing which a rational and just man would not willingly do though there were no Laws or Penalties Civil at all This is not to be free from Laws And I do not know who they are which he saith demands any such thing The rude and ignorant people and also all children of Belial desire to have a licence not only to do good but evil too as they please and they judge all Laws as heavy burdens and grievous yoaks If he mean that the subjects of England demanding the benefit of Magna Charta and the Petition of Right did aim at any such extravagant liberty he must needs be a slanderer of his own fellow-subjects and an enemy to the English liberty as indeed he is and that through an erroneous notion and conceit of absolute power civil The liberty of the subjects of this Nation is very great and such as if we either consider the Laws of the Constitution or Administration the ordinary and common subjects of other Nations are but slaves unto them Our Free-holders have the choice of their Knights and Burgesses for the Parliament so that neither any Laws can be made nor moneys imposed upon them without their verbal consent given by their Representatives In all causes civil criminal capital no Judgement can pass against them but by the verdict of a Jury made up of their neighbours which in it self is an excellent priviledge The Civilians say Libertas est res inestimabilis and to be redeemed at any rate much more the English liberty is to be valued and ever was by our ancestors who obtained it recovered it kept it though with the blood of many thousands But the question is whether this liberty is consistent with the Soveraigns power His opinion is T. H. That by the liberty of the subject the Soveraigns power of life and death is neither abolished nor limited G. L. It s certain that the Soveraigns power and the subjects liberty are consistent For the Soveraign may take away the life of his subject yet according to the evidence of Judgement agreeable to Law no otherwise Yet he presupposeth 1. That the King is supreme and the primary subject owner and possessor of the original power which sometimes may be yet with us its far otherwise 2. That the power of civil Soveraigns is absolute For with him T. H. Nothing the Soveraign representative can do to a subject on what pretence soever can properly be called Injustice or Injury because every subject is Author of every act the Soveraign doth so that he never wanteth right to any thing otherwise then as he himself is the subject of God and bound thereby to observe the Laws of Nature When Jephtah sacrificed his daughter and David murthered Uriah both innocent yet they did them no injustice c. G. L. Here he seems to contradict himself For he grants two things 1. That the Soveraign is subject to God 2. That in that respect he is bound to observe the Laws of nature yet he saith he can do no injustice to the subject and that he hath right to any thing yet so as he is limited by subjection to God and the Laws of Nature 1. If he be Gods subject as certainly he is it follows 1. That in that respect he is but trusted as a servant with the Administration of the power civil 2. That he is fellow-subject with his subjects 3. He may do injustice as one fellow subject may wrong another Secondly If he be bound to observe the Laws of Nature which are the Laws of God then 1. He is not absolute or solutus legibus His power is limited and bounded by these Laws 2. Then he hath no power to murther oppress and destroy his innocent subjects who are more Gods then his and only trusted by God in his hands for to be protected righted in all just causes and vindicated from all wrongs 3. No Prince or Soveraign can assume or any people give to any person or persons any the least power above or contrary unto the
hath a share in the Soveraign power Yet this he hath not as a single person but as one person joyntly with the whole body or major part at least of the people So in our Parliaments every man there is as a single person and all of them any waies considered but as the joynt Representative of the people in a certain place at a certain time acting according to a certain order are but subjects yet in the capacity and habitude of a Parliament they are no subjects but in the name of the people have a Legislative power and exercise the highest acts of Government excepting those of the Constitution And this may be one reason why our English Ancestors have been so careful to maintain and preserve this great Court and Assembly of Parliaments because they knew upon that depended their liberty in the vacancy and intervals of Parliaments For take away this and our liberty is gone And wise men know that the liberty of the English subject depends upon these great Assemblies Some therefore have attempted either the total extirpation of them according to the example of France and Spain or a diminution of their power and priviledges so as to make them meer shadows If any say and infer from all this that therefore the form of our Government even under Kings is popular and hath the nature of a free-State I say it hath much of a free-State in the Constitution but not in the Administration Yet it s far different from those four kinds of popular Governments mentioned by Aristotle Pol. lib. 6. c. 4. The constitution whereof is little better then levelling The principal thing aimed at in such forms as the Author alledgeth out of the Philosopher cap. 2. Ejusdem libri was liberty supposing it could be had no where but in such Governments and this liberty was to do either what they pleased or to govern by course fearing lest any person or persons continued long in any eminent place of command would in time ingross the power Yet this supposition was false For liberty might be had without levelling and free-States might be and have been better constituted and regulated For no constitution is good where provision is not made that Wisdom and Justice rather then persons may govern and the multitude so kept under as that they may be subjects not rebels and cast off all power To return unto the matter proposed and conclude this point 1. The English liberty is their birth-right 2. It s not the power of Soveraigns 3. It s not unlimited but bounded within reasonable bounds 4. We do not learn it out of the Greek and Roman Histories nor from the Athenians or Romans but from our own Laws which are far different from theirs and far more agreeable to the written Laws of God which left the people of Israel under their Judges the freest people of the world and yet no Levellers 5. Our learning out of Greek and Latine Authors hath not been bought so dear or cost so much blood except out of the breech of School-hoyes And most of those who have controlled the just acts of their Soveraigns never read much less understood those Authors T. H. pages 111 112 113. The liberty of the subject is in such things as are neither determined by his first submission to the Soveraign power nor by the laws G. L. This is the substance of three pages and amounts to so much as may easily be comprised in a few words For when a subject is not bound either by the Laws of the Constitution or Administration he is free according to Mr. Hobbs his judgement Yet in proper sense in both these cases he is no subject but Dominus and far more then liber The Civilians do better determine the liberty of the subject to be potestatem agendi sub publicae defensionis praesidio though this be no perfect definition As before so now I say that liberty here is not opposed to obligation but servitude For â—o be subject to a wise Soveraign according to just Laws is so much liberty as any reasonable man can desire for in this respect he is rather subject to God then man and to serve him is doubtless perfect freedom As no Soveraign should be denyed so much power as to protect the least if innocent and to punish the greatest if guilty so no subject should be bound to do evil which is servitude and bondage indeed or restrained from doing that good which God commands him Civil government was never ordained by God to be destructive either of moral or divine vertues or of the noble condition of man as a rational creature Therefore regular submission unto supreme power will never stand with any obligation unto evil or contract for protection except in innocency Paul pleading before Festus saith If I be an offender or have committed any thing worthy of death I refuse not to die Acts 25.11 How this can stand with what this Author saith when he affirmeth that its lawful for a man guilty and condemned to save himself if he can I leave to others for to examine From the Apostles words its evident he desires no protection even of himself as worthy of death neither hath God given any power to man to save in such a case And though any person by the Law of nature may defend himself yet this must be done cum moderamine tutelae inculpatae In case a subject hath made himself capitally guilty he hath forfeited his life to his Soveraign as Gods Vicegerent whom he must not resist in the execution of Justice though he be not bound to kill himself neither doth the multitude or strength of any such capital offenders any waies give them right to resist their Soveraign in their own defence as the Author would have it For they cannot defend themselves as men but they must defend themselves in this case as guilty men which is not lawful How the offer of pardon should take away the plea of self-defence I understand not seeing they had no right before it was offered The offer of pardon indeed if the party offering may be safely trusted may take away all fear and so all colour of any plea by force to defend themselves from that death which pardon will take away or remove In the close of this discourse concerning liberty of the subject he grants it a part of this liberty That the subject may sue his Soveraign and before a Judge appointed by the said Soveraign If this be so then 1. The subject hath propriety of goods 2. That he and his Soveraign are two distinct parties and in this case the Soveraign represents him not as one person 3. That the Law in this respect is above the supreme Governor 4. Therefore the Soveraign is not absolute 5. That the subject may complain of some actions and injustice of the Soveraign contrary to the Authors fourth right of Soveraigns 6. That to him belongs not all Judicature in all Causes as in
the eighth right of majesty he did affirm Yet he distinguisheth of the Soveraigns demand as twofold either by vertue of a Law or by force if he demand or take away any thing by power or pretence thereof there lyeth in that case no action of Law because the subject is made Author of the Soveraigns acts and therefore the suit against him is against the Plantiff himself being his subject If this answer be good then the Soveraign may do what he can and will not what he ought he may rule according to his strength and power and not according to Justice he may borrow and promise to repay take away and engage to restore and yet do no such thing but violate his promise and engagement contrary to the very Law of Nature He hath a liberty to be unjust and wicked and that more then any of his subjects as he hath greater power I leave him to be a subject of such a Soveraign and wish all good men a better The true reason why a Soveraign may be sued is 1. Because in the institution of a Soveraign especially of administration the subjects may reserve the propriety of their goods which may be done without any diminution of a lawful supreme power and in this case when a Soveraign takes away or detains that which is his subjects and an action is brought against him the subject is not his subject nor he his Soveraign in that respect Both of them in this particular are but private persons and he that is subject to him as he is just in his Government questions him as he is unjust in his actions Again propriety belongs unto the Law of nature which is above civil power But he proceeds T. H. If a Monarch or Soveraign Assembly grant a liberty to all or any of his subjects which grant standing he is disabled to provide for their safety the grant is void unless he directly renounce or transfer his Soveraignty to another G. L. By this we easily understand to what purpose the Treaty in the Isle of Wight with the King was For though the Parliament had voted his concessions to be satisfactory in some respect that of Bishops and he was ready to close with them yet in the judgement of this man and all that party adhering to the King the Parliament was accounted no Parliament the King an absolute Monarch and the Concessions ipso facto void and for this reason because the King had disabled himself by granting the Militia to protect his subjects And the issue of this Treaty to be expected was this so far as the King had obtained liberty and opportunity he would declare his Concessions void and unreasonable and so possess himself of the Militia and proceed against the Treators as Rebels and Enemies for so they were accounted Yet this was not a meer grant of liberty but of power which in the Treaty is presupposed to be his though confined and a prisoner and vanquished in a civil war But if we will speak properly the grant of liberty may be such as it may amount to an exemption from a sufficient degree of subjection but it doth not transfer the Soveraign power to another And this must needs be granted that to pass away any of the greater rights is to dethrone In the conclusion of this Cap. we are informed when the obligation of the subject to the Soveraign doth cease and it is then when his power to protect doth cease And there is great reason for it For whatsoever his title may be and how unjustly soever it may be taken away and howsoever his subjects may stand well affected towards him yet seeing there can be no protection from wrong within nor from invasion of enemies without nor administration of Justice without which any people returns unto the confusion of Anarchy except there be actual possession of power therefore Obligation for the present must cease or at least be suspended There be many waies whereby a Soveraign may cease to be a Soveraign as by conquest death resignation cession c. and when the Soveraign ceaseth to be such the Obligation must needs determine as to such a particular Governor And here I might take occasion to treat of subalternate Governments and fiduciary Princes who are Soveraigns in respect of their subjects yet acknowledge a superiour from whom they hold their territory But seeing he is silent I will be so too CAP. VI. Of the Second Part and the two and twentieth of the Book Of Systems subject Political and Private I Pass by his divisions and subdivisions of Systems as being well known to such as are acquainted either with Politicks or Civil Law For the subject of Jurisprudentia civilis being communio or communitas hominum wherein the Lawyers out of their institutions observe persons things and actions both private and publick that they may the better find out the several rights determined by Law They distinguish personam in singularem conjunctam Persona conjuncta consists of several persons distinct Physically yet made one by consent and association Politically And these Systems and Societies may be considered as parts of the Community which is the immediate subject of a Common-wealth and a civil Government Some of these are natural as a Family some are voluntary and by institution In a Common-wealth once constituted all these are subject to the supreme power and their actions are so far warrantable as they derive their power from the Soveraign and are agreeable to the Laws Some of these are made by division co-ordination and subordination as Provinces Counties Hundreds Allotments Town-ships Parishes Some of them are Ecclesiastical some Civil Some are made by Charter and Patent and have their special priviledges and immunnities and have their Statutes and power to make Orders and By-Laws within themselves and some have jurisdiction within their liberties Some are more noble as Colledges and Universities and Schools and all such as are Nurseries of Law and Learning some less noble as Corporations with their several Companies and Officers The end of the institution of these is either for the better and more easie Government of the whole Community or for the better education of the subjects in learning or trades or for the maintenance or enriching or adorning of the State And it concerns the supreme Governors of a State to have a special care of these Societies to order regulate and reform them as they shall see occasion or need For the good of the Common-wealth doth much depend upon the regulation and wise ordering of them CAP. VII Of the Second Part. Of the Book 23. Of the publick Ministers of the Soveraign power MY intention in the examination of the Author is to manifest 1. That where he hath done ill none hath done worse And 2. where he hath done well many before him have done better This latter is my work in this part of his Book as also in other passages of his discourse The subject of this
Chapter is The Ministers of State which by some in Latine are called Officiales in English Officers and by the same generally is understood the same with these who are stiled and that very fitly Publick Ministers of the Soveraign Power For in all acts of civil Government the principal agent is the Soveraign the instrumental or ministerial are Officers who are therefore called by some instrumenta majestatis vicaria which words imply much and contain in some sort the definition of the Author For they imply 1. That the Soveraign is the principal agent 2. That they represent the Soveraign 3. That they are but his instruments and act by power derived from him The difference between them and the Soveraign is 1. That they are essentially and properly but subjects and accidentally Officers 2. That though they have power and the same is the Soveraigns yet as in him its original supreme universal in respect of the whole state in them it is derivative subordinate particular or but a part and particle of it 3. That whatsoever the Soveraign acts is valid immediately in it self but what they act is only good and valid as they are one person with him and make his will their rule and principle and do all things in his name The reason why there must be Officers in every State and that of necessity is given because no Soveraign whether one person or more can see all things with his own eyes hear all things with his own ears do all things with his own hands or be present and acting in every place where he ought to act This is proper to God who yet useth the Ministry both of men and Angels in the Government of the world but not out of any necessity but because it s his will and pleasure There be two parts of Politicks the 1. Constitution which disposeth the supreme power in a certain subject whether one or more and determines the rights both of the Soveraign and subject The 2. Administration which is the exercise of that power In which Administration the first act is legislation and this is the proper place to speak of Laws concerning the Administration as different from those of the Constitution the next is the making of Officers for the execution of these Laws This is the method and here is the proper handling of this subject These Officers are either extraordinary or ordinary Extraordinary are such as are trusted with power for a time limited in some extraordinary exigency of the State as the Dictators amongst the Romans Ordinary are such as are usual in all States and they are either such as by which the Soveraign acts and deals with forrein States or within his own Dominions The former are Embassadors Agents Messengers Heralds Intelligencers These Embassadors are constant and legier or temporary occasional They represent Majesty and act according to the Laws of Nations The Officers within the Soveraigns Dominions are either for war or peace For war either by Sea or Land hence Jus Nauticum Militare and these are for defence and act also according to the Laws of Nations For peace and they are either for counsel or judgement or execution or the revenue Hence Councellers Judges Sheriffs Treasurers and all their servants or subordinate Agents and Assistants Amongst these there is a subordination till we come to some general Officer in every several kind next unto the Soveraign How to reduce the Officers of this or any other State unto these heads is not my work and many have made this reduction in several Common-wealths The general rules of these Officers are many and may be read in several Authors As 1. Any man fitly qualified may be forced to do service for his Countrey 2. To avoid confusion and charge they are to be reduced to a certain number and order The number should be according to the necessity of the State 3. No Officer should be trusted too long with great and transcendent power 4. They should be fitly qualified and advanced for desert and no other reason 5. Some should be superintendents over others within a certain precinct and also generall visitors selected of purpose to enquire into the carriage of all the rest at certain set times The Roman Censors had some power in this kind but no Jurisdiction As the Visitors of China are said to have In this Chapter Mr. Hobbs seems to make Ministers of the Gospel such as the Apostle Eph. 4.11 calls Pastors and Teachers to be publick Ministers and Officers civil yet though they be subject to the civil Soveraign as well as other men yet as Ministers they derive their power from Christ by the Church and not from any civil Governors as shall be made good hereafter CAP. VIII Of the Second Part the Twenty fourth of the Book Of nutrition and procreation of a Common-wealth TWO things only in this Cap. I question the 1. Concerning the original of propriety The 2. Concerning a standing revenue of the Crown The 1. he deriveth from the Soveraign in manner as followeth T. H. Propriety in all kinds of Common-wealths belongs to the Soveraign power And again propriety is the act only of the Soveraign who distributes to every man his own by Law and this distribution is first of Land as of the Land of Promise by Eleazer and Joshua c. G. L. This is the summe and brief substance of many more words and cannot be true For 1. we find propriety of goods and lands in several families which are of no Common-wealth 2. The Constitution of any Common-wealth doth presuppose this propriety without which there can be no buying selling exchanging stealing restitution otherwise the eighth Commandment Thou shalt not steal could not be a Law of nature nor bind any man except in a Common-wealth and so before a Common-wealth be instituted in a Community or people there could be no sin in stealing 3. All that may be granted in this point is That the Soveraign may preserve and regulate propriety both by Laws and Judgements Yet the Author makes all men brutes nay wild and ravenous beasts and birds of prey until they have made themselves slaves unto some absolute Soveraign and such they must be either beasts by the Law of nature or slaves by the Laws of a civil State 4. As for his instance in the Land of Canaan divided by lots to be chosen before Eleazer the high Priest and Joshua the general its impertinent and false For 1. Israel before it was molded into a Common-wealth had propriety in their goods 2. The propriety of that Land was at the first and continued in God for they were but Gods Tenants in a special and peculiar manner so as no people in the world was therefore no man could alienate nor morgage beyond the year of Jubilee at which time God seemed to renue their Leases after the Jubilee-Sabbath 3. When they had in common conquered and taken possession of the Land it was theirs so far as
another and be parts one of another I do not understand 6. A Law of Nature is only then a civil Law when it s declared to be so by the civil Soveraign yet it s a Law before 7. For the most part learned men do understand by the Laws of Nature certain divine principles imprinted upon the heart of man by the Laws of Nations more immediate by the Laws civil more remote Conclusions of constitutive Laws civil T. H. Seeing all Laws have their authority and force from the will of the Soveraign a man may wonder whence proceed such opinions as are found in the Books of Lawyers of eminence in several Common-wealths directly or by consequence making the Legislative power depend on private men or subordinate Judges as for example That the Common-Law hath no Controuler but the Parliament Item That the Common-Law hath two arms Force and Justice the one whereof is in the King the other deposited in the hands of the Parliament G. L. The former Conclusion which is the fifth in order That the Laws of Princes and Countries subdued depend upon the Soveraign conquering is true And it is wisdom in the Conquerors to grant them the Laws and Customs of God and no waies prejudicial to their power For many are willing to change their Governors yet unwilling to change their Government But as concerning the two maximes of Law I might refer him to the Learned in that profession who no doubt can make them good against any thing he hath said They seem to him to be unreasonable partly because he is ignorant of the Constitution both of this and also of other States partly because they are inconsistent with his Utopian principles For he presupposeth 1. That the King of England is an absolute Monarch 2. That the Parliament as a Parliament is meerly a subject 3. That the King hath power at will and pleasure to call Parliaments and dissolve them yet these hath he not made good neither can he 1. That our Kings are not absolute Monarchs is well known the Laws and practice have made it manifest And whatsoever ignorant persons and parasites may say yet wise men both English and Forreign States-men who have dealt with England have been assured of the contrary especially when in certain leagues they have required the consent of the Parliament Again the Kings of England never made or repealed a Law nor levied a subsidie alone themselves without a Parliament And they are sworn corroborare leges quas vulgus elegerit For let Elegerit be what tense it will vulgus which is populus non rex eligit leges and the late King in his answer to the 19. Propositions did confess that the Lords and Commons had a share in the Legislative power And it were very much to be wondered at if that King who himself alone could never make or repeal a Law nor levy or impose a subsidie nor revoke the judgement of any Court nor alter a word or clause in any Law agreed upon in Parliament should be an absolute Monarch It s far more probable he was only trusted with the force for the execution of justice according to Law and Judgement according to the second maxime And if he was no absolute Soveraign then his second supposition that the Parliament as such is only an Assembly of private men and subjects and to be considered in no other capacity is false As likewise his third That the King can call and dissolve Parliaments at will and pleasure For by the Constitution the Laws and practise he was bound to call them once a year and oftner as the necessity and exigency of affairs either of peace or war should require And in such cases to dissolve them before the ardua Regni were dispatched was both dangerous and destructive and did argue either a bad constitution or a corruption of the same T. H. Law cannot be against reason neither is it the letter but the intention of the Law-giver that is the Law And this reason is not private of subordinate Judges but of the supreme Lawgiver G. L. All this is willingly granted if he understand by Reason not the meer conceit or will of the Soveraign but that reason which is a ray of divine wisdom shining in the mind of the Law-giver regulating his judgement and expressed in the words of the Law And the sense of a Law given by a learned Judge subordinate may be very true yet not authentick because he that makes the Law can interpret Law in that manner and none else I pass by his discourse concerning promulgation and interpretation of Law as also the qualification of Judges which belongs to that Chapter of Officers formerly mentioned He might have done well to have improved these excellent Treatises of other learned Authors who have informed us both more accurately and also more particularly of these things then he himself hath done But he conceits himself as far above them as they surpass ordinary men Neither is his distribution of Laws worth the examination as being very crude and indigested as also heterogeneous I proceed therefore to his two questions concerning what assurance may be had of and obedience ought to be given unto divine positive Laws The questions are T. H. 1. How can a man without supernatural revelation be assured of the revelation received by the declarer of those Laws 2. How can he be bound to obey them The answer to the first By sanctity miracles wisdom success without particular revelation its impossible for a man to have assurance of a revelation made to another Therefore no man can infallibly know by natural reason that another hath had a supernatural revelation of Gods will but only a belief G. L. This presupposeth 1. That there is a positive Law of God 2. This positive Law is declared and witnessed to be the Law of God 3. That this testimony concerning this Law is divine and infallible 4. That it is such because it s grounded on and agreeable to an immediate revelation from God of that Law to him that doth declare it as to Moses the Prophets or Apostles For God formerly spake unto the Fathers by the Prophets in the latter times to their children by his Son first and after by his Apostles The question here is not how we shall attain a demonstrative clear or intuitive knowledge of the matter of the Law nor of the manner of the revelation but how we may be assured that the declaration or testimony of him to whom the revelation was made is divine that we may believe it as divine and from God The means whereby the divinity of the testimony was made evident at the first were extraordinary as signs wonders and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost according to his own will Heb. 2.4 But after that upon these divine attestations the Gospel was generally received in all Nations and the prophesies of the Old Testament in this particular fulfilled these ceased yet one thing
alwaies did and ever will manifest the testimony and doctrine of the Gospel to be divine and that is the Holy-Ghost who by his powerful working upon the hearts of men seriously attending to this truth whereby a great change both inwardly in their hearts and outwardly in their lives is wrought doth mightily confirm it And those who find and feel in themselves the effects of sanctification and heavenly comfort can no waies doubt but are assured that God was in the Prophets and Apostles and did speak by them Besides when we consider 1. That the more we understand them the more excellency of wisdom we find in them 2. That these positives are agreeable and no waies contrary to pure morals 3. That they conduce effectually to holiness and eternal life 4. That they were approved received by the best men in the world and sealed with the blood of many Martyrs we must needs be fully satisfied that they are not false feigned fantastick conceits of deluded men and not only so but all these things may perswade any rational man to try upon practise whether they be divine or no. And this never any did but found the Apostles Doctrine to be of God If we had nothing but the universal and perpetual agreement and tradition of the Church of all places and times affirming the Scripture to be the Word of God it were sufficient to produce in a rational man a greater measure of belief then any Book or History in the world can possibly require or deserve For this universal testimony of the best in several parts of the world at such a distance as that they in their time neither heard of nor knew one another makes it more credible then any humane History can be But to return unto Mr. Hobbs I say its possible and not impossible to know the divinity of the testimony or declaration immediately but not of the revelation or matter revealed Yet that such a revelation and such a thing revealed there was is known in some measure by consequence And the divine Authority of this testimony may be infallibly known and that by natural reason yet by it as elevated and more perfected by outward representation and inward sanctification And the matter of the revelation to another together with the manner may be believed though not known For when we once know that God hath revealed it we believe the thing revealed to be true though by artificial and intrinsecal arguments we cannot prove it to be so For the testimony of God may be evident though the thing testified be hidden and above our reason The Conclusion is That we may have an infallible knowledge of the positive Laws of God so far as to know that they are from him and are his Laws and that without particular revelation that they were revealed to another T. H. If the divine positive Law be not against the Law of nature and he undertake to obey it he is bound by his own act to obey it but not bound to believe it For mans belief and interiour cogitations are not subject to the commands but only to the operations of God ordinary or extraordinary Faith of supernatural Law is not a fulfilling but only an assenting to the same it s not a duty but a gift c. G. L. His second question was how a man can be bound to obey supernatural positive Laws whereof he hath no particular revelation that they were revealed to others declaring them To this he answers 1. It must not be against the Law of nature which is the Law of God And its true that the Law of nature is the Law of God and this is a good rule For the positive Laws of God are not contrary to his pure moral Laws which have an intrinsecal rectitude in them 2. He further adds that if he undertake to obey a supernatural positive Law of God he is bound to obey it but not believe it This is very obscure and very absurd For 1. To undertake to obey it seems to be a promise to obey it and this is a voluntary Obligation whereby a man may bind himself to obey it as a divine Law or as no Law or if as a Law yet not as a Law of God and then he doth not obey as he ought to do 3. It is absurd To obey it as a positive Law of God and not believe it to be a Law of God For if he neither know nor believe it to be a Law of God he cannot obey it as a Law of God His obedience is no obedience unto God 4. Whereas it s said That faith is not subject to Gods command it s not a duty it s a gift this must needs be a gross errour For though the active power whereby a man is enabled to believe a divine positive truth be the gift of God yet the exercise of this power and the acts thereof are subject to the Law of God Other wise positive unbelief of a supernatural divine positive Law sufficiently declared and proposed could be no sin It s true that some affirm that the first and natural acts of the soul are not subject to any Law yet these do grant that all practical operations and such assent unto divine truths is be subject unto Law That faith is a duty is apparent because God commands it approves it rewards it and reproves and punisheth unbelief That we may the better understand the drift of this Author in this discourse he produceth the examples of Abraham and Moses declaring positive Laws of God upon revelation made of them which the posterity of Abraham were to obey upon their declaration and thence concludes T. H. That it is manifest and sufficiently appeareth that in a Common-wealth a subject who hath no certain and assured revelation particularly unto himself concerning the will of God is to obey for such the command of the Common-wealth G. L. But 1. It was formerly made manifest that neither Abraham nor Moses were Soveraigns much less Common-wealths 2. A Soveraign civil may declare something to be a Law of God and yet it may be no such thing and declare against a Law and yet it may be and many times it so falls out to be a Law of God and in neither of these cases is the subject bound to obey his Soveraign 3. If that which is declared for a positive Law divine be sufficiently attested especially by Miracles and Gifts of the Holy Ghost by undoubted history and universal tradition the matter be agreeable to the Law of nature tends to practise of piety being practised is conducing to an higher degree of holiness and justice and by experience constantly found to be accompanied with rare and excellent effects tending to mans inward and real happiness it is to be believed and obeyed as a divine Law though all the Soveraigns in the world declare against it If a subject do accept the Religion established by the civil Laws of his Countrey he is free from
means and motives used for to rectifie the heart CAP. XII Of the Second Part. The 28. of the Book Concerning punishments and rewards UPon obedience or disobedience follow punishments or rewards determined by Judgement which is an act of Jurisdiction and considers the Law as violated or observed And here comes in according to order that head of Jurisdiction in general which properly is handled in that part of Politicks we call Administration And he that undertakes to deliver a model of Politicks and yet saith nothing of Jurisdiction but proceeds from crimes to punishments per saltum as Mr. Hobbs doth is but a superficial Author But let us hear his definition of punishment T. H. A punishment is an evil inflicted by publick Authority on him that hath done or omitted that which is judged by the same Authority to be a transgression of the Law to the end that the will of men may be thereby better disposed to obedience This is a very imperfect definition and one reason is the Author presumes much of his own judgement and desires to be singular otherwise he had a better definition made to his hands For poena est vindicta noxae This punishment is defined in general as it includes the penalties inflicted by Parents Masters or any one who have power to command another it reacheth the punishments executed by God This definition may easily be made so as fully to express the nature of civil punishment intended by this Author But for the better understanding of the nature of punishment we must observe that it may be considered several waies 1. As determined by the Law which binds the party subject either to obedience or punishment 2. As deserved by the party offending who is bound to suffer it 3. As defined by the Judge upon judicial evidence 4. As inflicted by the Minister of execution 5. As suffered by the party condemned 6. As prevented by pardon out of meer mercy or upon satisfaction made and accepted The efficient cause of punishing in a Common-wealth is the Soveraign or higher powers bearing the Sword and as exercising Jurisdiction either by himself or his Minister For a Soveraign doth punish as a Judge The immediate and formal object of this act is noxa civilis some offence or crime judged upon evidence to be a violation of the Law The general nature of it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 retribution The thing retributed or rendred is something that brings hurt or dammage to the delinquent or party offending who as judged guilty is the proper subject of it It s called by some Malum triste proper malum turpe The proper act complete and consummate is the inflicting of this evil determined by just judgement so as that the party condemned doth actually suffer it All this for the general notion of it may be observed out of the words of the Apostle who saith That God will render to them who are contentious and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness indignation and wrath tribulation and angnish upon every soul of man that doth evil Rom. 2.8 9. For here we have the Judge the crime Judged to be so the retribution or rendering the thing or evil rendred so as to be suffered the cause why it s rendred In this respect the higher powers are said to bear the sword to take vengeance upon evil doers Rom. 13.4 The ends of punishment are many 1. Some of them are to correct and reform the party punished 2. Some for example that others may hear and fear 3. The end of all punishments in general is to vindicate the power of the Law-giver and the honour and force of the Law to manifest Justice and the hatred of evil and to procure the peace and tranquillity of the Community Before the Author proceed to draw conclusions from his definition he enquires how the Soveraign acquired the power of punishing And resolves T. H. That the-subject in the first constitution laid aside his power of self-preservation by hurting subduing killing others in his own defence and so did not give it but left it to the Soveraign G. L. This is ridiculous absurd and grounded upon his false principles For 1. The Soveraign is the Minister of God and is bound to do so that he keep within the compass of his Commission that which God would do and that is to punish evil And as all his power of making Laws Judgement Peace War c. are from God so is this amongst the rest By whom he is made a Soveraign from him he hath the sword to punish Men may give their consent that such a man or such a company of men shall raign but the power is from God not them 2. In the constitution of a supreme Governor no man can Covenant to be protected or defended in doing evil Neither can any or all higher powers in the world justly promise to protect any in evil neither hath any man any power unjustly to preserve himself For that of the Author that in the state of nature every man hath right to every thing is absolutely false and abominable When a man subjects himself unto a Soveraign ordained of God not only to protect the good but punish the evil he cannot except himself from his punitive power if he do ill because he subjects according to the just Laws of God and cannot lawfully do any other waies So that power to punish is given by God not left by man unto higher powers civil After his definition of punishment civil and determination of the means how power punitive is acquired he 1. Draws conclusions from his definition 2. Declares the several kinds of punishment 3. Distinguisheth of rewards 1. The conclusions are either good and pertinent or false or not deducible from the definition and I will not trouble the Reader with the examination of them 2. His distribution of punishments is tolerable And here we must observe 1. That punishment civil can only reach the body and this temporal life of man for the sword cannot reach the soul 2. That these punishments as well as spiritual are either of loss or pain poena damni aut sensus privative or positive The one takes away some good the other inflicts some positive evil 3. That some of them take away life either civil as banishment or natural as death and some take away such things as make life comfortable as goods such are sines and confiscations or liberty as imprisonment bondage or our honour as all ignominious penalties Those which infer some positive evil contrary to nature are all kind of tortures whatsoever which cause pain in the body of man and all these positive punishments tend to the destruction of life either in part or in whole 4. These penalties are so to be inflicted and in such a measure and proportion as that no man may gain by doing evil 5. That though an innocent person as such cannot be justly punished yet as he is made one person with
the guily he may justly suffer Some are one person with the guilty by nature as children with parents some by consent as sureties with the principal guilty of non-payment or by Laws civil as the subjects with the Soveraign 6. The just execution of judgement is a means to avert Gods wrath to protect the just to preserve the State and procure Gods mercy Rewards are contrary to punishments and are due to such as are loyal and obedient subjects doing well These either are ordinary and general as protection of life liberty estate or extraordinary and more special and such as enrich or advance or give priviledges immunities and exemptions And these latter should never be disposed of but according to desert and by this means they would encourage the subject and breed gallant men Thus far his constitution of the Leviathan the great monstrous animal hath been examined and viewed and is found to consist of an absolute power and absolute slavery The head is an absolute Soveraign the body and members absolute slaves CAP. XIII Of the Second Part. And the twenty ninth of the Book Of those things which weaken and tend to the dissolution of a Common-wealth ALL bodies Politick are truly mortal as the Author saith though not so mortal as the individual persons whereof they are constituted be For by reason of succession of these singular and several persons they are of longer continuance and therefore said to be immortal the proper meaning whereof is that they are not so mortal Many States are constituted by degrees not in a moment or any short time and in the like manner they decay by little and little until they utterly vanish in a total dissolution And though both constitution and dissolution seem sometimes to be fortuitous yet they are not so for its God who in his mercy plants and builds and in his just judgement plucks up and pulls down This is the place assigned by Authors to the head of Politicks which delivers the causes of the alteration corruption and subversion of States Alterations of the forms of Government are sometimes for the better and so they are a blessing sometimes for the worse and so they are the same with corruption Corruption is from man subversion from God as the supreme and universal Judge Corruption goes before subversion follows And this corruption is from the sins and crimes of the Governors or governed or both The crimes of Governors are either Personal or Political Personal are many times the same with the offences of the people sins of them as men Political are such as make them guilty as they are Governors as ignorance imprudence negligence in justice Political and these not only in assuming and acquiring power but in the administration of the same The sins of the people as subjects are impatiency when they will not endure the severity of just Governors good Laws and impartial Judgement a desire of innovation and alteration of Government without just and necessary causes open rebellion secret treachery and conspiracy sedition and such like The sins of both which are personal are impiety against God injustice and unmercifulness towards man the abuse of peace and plenty to bravery drunkenness gluttony lewdness and such like Vices And when in these they become impudent incorrigible and universally delinquent their ruine is fatal and unavoidable the harvest is ripe and the sickle of Gods vengeance will cut them off The Apostle in his Epistle to the Romans cap. 13. gives a perfect model of the best and most lasting States 1. The higher powers must so ascend the Throne as that it may be truly said they were ordained of God and advanced not only and meerly by his permission but Commission and Command 2. They must have a sword and a sufficient coactive power 3. They must use the same according to just judgement and wholsom Laws for the protection of the good and the punishment of the bad 4. The people must be subject not only out of fear but conscience 5. They must obey their good and wholsom Laws 6. They must give them such allowance as shall be sufficient to maintain and make good their just power 7. They must love one another 8. They must not live in rioting and drunkenness chambering and wantonness nor in strife and envying In a word they must be sober in themselves just towards man devout towards God But when Prince Priest and people refuse to follow these Laws they draw Gods judgements from heaven upon the Common-wealth Idle filthy and abominable Sodom must be destroyed Gold-thirsty and blood-thirsty Babylon cannot stand Idolatrous and Apostate Israel and Judah must be wasted with sword famine pestilence their Countrey made desolate and the remnant carried captives and dispersed in remote parts and in the midst of their enemies But let us examine the causes of the weakening and dissolution of States determined by the Author T. H. The 1 is when a man to obtain a Kingdom is content sometimes with a less power then to the peace and defence of the Common-wealth is necessarily required G. L. This may prove to be a cause yet very rarely Princes and Monarchs for of them he speaks offend usually on the other hand If they can they will assume and challenge far more power then either God will or man can give them for they desire to be absolute Lords Few of them are of brave Theopompus his mind who willingly made his power less that it might be more lasting To be Dukes of Venice can in no wise satisfie their vast ambitious desires The Lacedemiun Ephori are terrible to them The Justitia Arragoniae cannot be endured Legislative and judicial Parliaments do too much restrain and limit their power 〈◊〉 with them its treason to affirm that there be any lawful means to reduce them into order when they apparently transgress the Laws of nature which are the Laws of God The people indeed must be kept in awe and order and this cannot be without power But what is here understood by power It s not potestas but potentia strength and force which may be great in a Leviathan yet without wisdom and justice can never long keep the people in subjection His examples of the Roman and Athenian free-States are not fully applyed neither do the applyed come home unto the point Rome was strong enough to subdue a great part of the world before she became imperial and Athens in that Law concerning Salamis had power enough but wanted wisdom and therefore were reformed by the wise folly of Solon That which is here spoken of the power of Kings is not to derogate the least from that power which is due unto them by the constitution of the State wherein they raign Some have more some have less Yet none should have less then is sufficient for the full discharge of their place And it is to be wished every one of them would keep the bounds determined by God and the Constitution T H.
bound to obey God more then man and as his subjection unto man is but conditional and subordinate to his subjection to God so his obedience to man is limited and only to be performed in such things as his supreme and absolute Lord doth allow him And though man may suffer for his disobedience to humane Laws yet he had better suffer a temporal then an eternal penalty and offend man rather then God Neither doth this doctrine any waies prejudice the civil power nor encourage any man to disobedience and violation of civil Laws if they be just and good as they ought to be and the subject hath not only liberty but a command to examine the Laws of his Soveraign and judge within himself and for himself whether they be not contrary to the Laws of his God T. H. The third Doctrine That faith and sanctity are not to be attained by Study and Reason but by supernatural inspiration and infusion G. L. That divine faith wherby we believe on Jesus Christ and obtain eternal life in him and that sanctity of life whereby we please God and are accepted of him are no doubt both merited by Christ and inspired and wrought in us supernaturally by the power of the Holy-Ghost And there can be no doubt of this to such as believe the Scripture to be the Word of God written wherein we read That except a man be born again of water and the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.5 And no man can come unto me except the Father draw him cap. 6.44 And to believe that Jesus was the Son of the living God was not from flesh and blood but by revelation of his heavenly Father Christ himself teacheth us Mat. 16.17 This revelation was an inspiration or infusion except we will quarrel with words and it was not natural for then it might have been by and from flesh and blood but it was supernatural and from God revealing not only outwardly but inwardly too It is also further taught us in Scripture That no man can say that Jesus Christ is the Lord but by the Spirit 1 Cor. 12.3 Yet this faith and sanctity are so wrought in us as that ordinarily God makes use of the Scriptures taught explained applyed unto mans heart of hearing study and meditation which are acts of reason and such acts as man may naturally perform and also so neglect them as to give God just cause to deny the inspiration of his Spirit for to make the word taught heard meditated effectual upon his heart This Doctrine hath been believed and professed in the most peaceable Common-wealths of the world and did strengthen not weaken much less dissolve the same If he understand by the professors of this Doctrine the phanatick Enthusiasts of these times who pretend so much that Spirit which God never gave them and upon this pretence boast themselves to be spiritual men judging all and to be judged of none as they use to abuse the Scripture then its true that these are enemies to all Government and their Doctrine tends to the dissolution of all order Ecclesiastical and Civil and is to be rooted out of all Common-wealths T. H. 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 G. L. There is no doubt but this is destructive of Government and contrary to the very nature and essence of a Common-wealth the essential parts whereof are imperans subditus the Soveraign and the subject take this difference away you confound all and turn the Common-wealth into a Community yet though Soveraigns are above their own Laws how otherwise could they dispense with them and repeal them wise men have given advice to Princes for to observe their own Laws and that for example unto others and good Princes have followed this advice Soveraigns are to govern by Laws not to be subject unto them or as Subjects obey them or be punished by them But what this man means by Soveraign in the hypothesis is hard to know For he presupposeth all Soveraigns absolute and all Kings of England such Soveraigns and so in general it may be granted that all Soveraigns are above the Laws civil yet the application of this rule to particular Princes of limited power may be false and no waies tolerable The question is not so much concerning the superiority of the Soveraign over the Laws but whether a Soveraign by Law for Administration who is not sole Legislator is not in divers respects inferiour to the Law or whether an an absolute Soveraign may not cease to be such and ex obligatione criminis ex superiore fieri inferior T. H. A fifth Doctrine which tendeth to the dissolution of a Common-wealth is That every man hath an absolute propriety in his goods such as excludeth the right of the Soveraign Every man hath indeed a propriety that excludes the right of the subject which is derived from the Soveraign without whose protection every man should have equal right to the same G. L. 1. If the subject have propriety as the Author grants it must needs be absolute and must needs exclude not only the right of the fellow-subject but of the Soveraign too For propriety in proper sense is an independent right of total alienation without any license of a Superiour or any other 2. This propriety is not derived from the Soveraign except he be despotical and such indeed the Author affirmeth all Soveraigns to be and in that respect the subjects can neither have propriety nor liberty therefore he contradicts himself when he saith in many places that the Soveraign is absolute and here that the subject hath propriety 3. It s to be granted that even in a free-State the subjects proprity cannot free from the publick charges for as a Member of the whole body he is bound to contribute to the maintenance of the State without the preservation whereof he cannot so well preserve his own private right 4. Propriety is by the Law of Nature and Nations at least agreeable unto both And when men agree to constitute a Common-wealth they retain their proper right which they had unto their goods before the Constitution which doth not destroy but preserve propriety if well ordered For men may advance a Soveraign without any alienation of their estates No man hath any propriety from God but so as to be bound to give unto the poor relieve the distressed and maintain the Soveraign in his just Government yet this doth not take away but prove propriety because every one gives even unto the Common-wealth that which is his own not another mans nor his Soveraigns who may justly in necessary cases for the preservation of the State impose a just rate upon the subject But if the Reader seriously consider the Authors discourse in other parts of his Book he may easily know whereat he aims For 1. He makes all Soveraigns absolute 2. The Kings
be their due and lest they should lose any of them he renews his Catalogue of them again These must be taught the people that they may know themselves to be absolute slaves And Princes must take heed of tranferring any of their Soveraign Rights unto another But this was needless for they have a desire of power before they do obtain it and after they are once possessed of it they not only keep that which is due but also usurp far more then either God or man hath given them Kings who are but trusted with a limited power endeavour to make themselves absolute Lords and Despotical Soveraigns must be petty Dieties The best Princes had always a greater care to exercise their power well then to enlarge it And by their Wisdom and Justice have governed more happily then any of these absolute Soveraigns who desire rather to be great then good and themselves more honourable then the people happy The Errours of this Author vented in this part as that Soveraign power Civil is absolute A civil Law against Rebellion is no Obligation A good Law is not a just Law because no Law can be unjust All his Rules of Government may be proved out of Scripture and other such like I will not here examine because some of them are ridiculous some of them have been formerly answered and his proof of these in his next part shall be discussed CAP. XV. Of the 2. part the 31. of the Book Of the Kingdom of God by nature THis Chapter is the conclusion of the second part the Leviathan and makes way for the third following The principal subject hereof is the Laws of nature as distinct to laws supernatural For he truly and wisely makes God the King and Law-giver both in the Kingdom of God by nature and above nature That God is the universal King by nature he seems to prove out of the Scripture T. H. God is King let the earth rejoyce saith the Psalmist Psal 96.1 And again God is King though the nations be angry and he that sitteth upon the Cherubins though the earth be moved Psal 98.1 Whether men will or not they must be subject always to the Divine Power G. L. In the Allegation of these two places he seems to follow the vulgar Latine and the Septuagint both for the number of the Psalms and the Translation For with us they are the words of the first verses of the 97. and 99. Psalms and are turned in another manner The translations though seemingly different may agree in the substance And it s agreed on all hands that the Psalmist speaks of the Kingdom of God yet seeing there is a kingdom of God as Creator and a kingdom of God as Redeemer it may be a question whether his kingdom in general be here meant or one of the former particular kingdoms Both ancient and Modern Divines for the most part understand both the Psalms of the kingdom of Christ and which is more the Apostle Heb. 1.6 so expounds the former Psalm which agrees with Psal 2. which speaks to the same purpose and undoubtedly intends the Kingdom of Christ The Kingdom and Government of God is most properly so called in respect of Angels and men as onely capable of Laws Punishments and Rewards no rational man will deny yet he by his wisdom doth direct and order all creatures T. H. God declareth his Laws three ways By natural reason Revelation and Prophecy From the difference of the natural and Prophetick Word of God there may be attributed to God a two-fold Kingdom Natural and Prophetick c. G. L. In the rest of this Chapter we may observe three things 1. The manner how God declares his Laws 2. The distinction of his Kingdom 3. The ground of his Dominion 1. God doth manifest himself both to Angels and men two wayes by his Works and his Word By his works in the Creation and Providence By his word immediately by Revelation mediately by Prophesie In the latter he maketh use of man to speak to man the same thing he hath spoken to man by Revelation and the word of prophesie to man is the word of Revelation from God and the matter of both is the same The word of Creation and Providence is received by natural reason the word of Revelation seems to be apprehended by reason supernaturally elevated and illuminated The Kingdom of God is natural or supernatural according to the natural or supernatural Laws The first Kingdom by the rules and dictates of natural reason directs man unto a temporal peace and prosperity on Earth The second by the Laws of Revelation orders him to a supernatural and eternal peace and felicity to be enjoyed fully in Heaven For the former end all civil Policies were instituted For the second the polity spiritual of the Church The declaration of the Laws of Gods Kingdom by nature were universally always declared even to all nations the Laws of his supernatural Kingdom were revealed universally at the first in the times of Adam and after in the dayes of Noah But after a general Apostacy Israel was trusted with the Oracles of life untill the exhibition of the Messias and after his Resurrection the Apostles received a Commission to teach all Nations and make these Laws known more generally So that this Author doth bewray his ignorance in divinity and pretending to the knowledge of the Scripture he little understands them and much abuseth those heavenly Writings For the Kingdom of God by Prophesie was in all times and confined in a more special manner for a time unto the people of Israel for a special reason And at the first election of them after their deliverance from the Egyptial bondage he immediately instituted not onely their spiritual but their civil Government In which respect their civil government might be called in a peculiar manner the Kingdom and Common-wealth of God and so the government of no Nation in the world could be accounted T. H. The right of Gods soveraignty is not derived from Creation but from his irresistible Power G. L. This is his great ignorance to think that Gods Soveraignty should be derived from the executive power of force and strength of his Godhead For Dominion in general is twofold Possessionis ant regiminis of possession or government That of possession we call propriety in which respect God is absolute Lord of all his creatures because he createth and preserveth them so that their very being is more his then theirs But his soveraign power over man ariseth not onely from propriety in general but from Gods propriety in him as a rational intellectual creature ordinable to an higher end then the inanimate and irrational creature is capable of For God created and preserved him a rational creature and both as a creature and as rational he is wholly his As he is rational he is capable of Laws Rewards Punishments and hath a power to become Gods subject by voluntary submission and donation of himself and also
to obey his Lord and Maker This no irrational being hath or can have So that Gods Dominion over man ariseth from Gods propriety in man as a rational being and from the voluntary submission of man as a rational creature unto his God who made him such Gods propriety in man is derived from creation and preservation and both these were not onely from Gods power as Mr. Hobs imagineth but also from his Understanding and Will For God by his wisdom made the world as well as by his power and worketh all things according to the Counsel of his Will Dominion of government is not onely from power nor by power alone for understanding will and power must all concur to Government Therefore how absurd is that assertion of his which followeth If there had been any man of irresistible power there had been no reason why by that power he should not have ruled If this were true a Leviathan a Dragon an Elephant hath more power then man and why should not brutes being stronger rule over men who are weaker By this rule the strongest man in a Kingdom should be King and he that hath the strength of Goliah or Sampson should rule over others though they have strength without wisdom and integrity T. H. The Kingdom over men and the right of afflicting them at his pleasure belongeth naturally to God Almighty not as Creatour and gracious but as omnipotent G. L. Obedience is due to God not meerly as gratitude to a benefactor but as a duty unto him as a Law-giver For as a Creatour he may have a right to command because by Creation he hath an absolute propriety in his being which is such as he is capable of a Law And Creation is not to be considered as any kind of benefit but such a benefit as his rational being was wholly derived from it and also wholly and perpetually depends upon his preservation and his eternal happiness upon his legislation and judgement And though he may afflict at pleasure as omnipotent because as such he can do it yet he never afflicted any but as a legislatour and Judge according to his just Laws Because God is omnipotent he can afflict but it doth not hence follow that he will afflict But he instanceth in Job and the man born blind both afflicted by God as omnipotent yet Job was upright indeed but not altogether innocent and though God did manifest unto him his glorious Majesty and Almighty power in his great works yet this was not done to shew him the cause why God did afflict Job but to humble him And being humbled he did not plead his integrity but repented of his infirmity in dust and ashes For though he was no hypocrite yet he was a sinner Job 42.6 And though the blind man John 9. was born blind as we might justly be yet he was conceived and born in sin as we are But neither he nor his parents were guilty of any such notorious crime as God doth usually recompence with exemplary punishment even in this life T. H. Honour consisteth in the inward thought and opinion of the power and goodness of another and therefore to honour God is to think as highly of his power and goodness as is possible And of that opinion the external signs in words and actions of men are called worship G. L. This is the first Law of Gods Kingdom by nature in respect of God that he is to be worshipped Worship is sometimes an act of the soul terminated upon his Divine excellency and dignity it s called Reverence and sometimes Adoration Sometimes it s an act terminated upon his supreme and universal Power And so it is submission to him as Supreme Lord and Law-giver Sometime for obedience and in this respect even the performance of our duty to our neighbours as done in obedience to him as our supreme Lord is an act of worship And all acts of the soul terminated upon the Deity immediately are called worship The worship of Reverence and Adoration is given unto God as most glorious and excellent in himself yet so manifested and apprehended The worship of submission and obedience is given and ascribed to him as Supreme Lord and the object of worship is some excellency apprehended in the party worshipped And because the excellency of the Deity is Infinite and Eternal therefore the highest degree of worship is due unto him even to the annihilation of our selves the resigning of our very being wholly unto him and the emptying of our selves into the Ocean of his most blessed Being God deserves and is worthy of all honour glory and worship as excellent in himself They may justly be required of the creature as depending solely and wholly upon him as Lord Creator Preserver And the creature is bound to worship him by vertue of his Law and Covenant By performance of this dutie we are capable of Eternal bliss in and from him and by his promise we come to have a right unto Eternal life The Excellency of God is his most perfect and blessed Essence which cannot be known by man as it is in it self yet it s manifested to us by several distinct attributes whereof some may be known by the light of Reason in some measure but more perfectly by the Revelation of the Scriptures These Attributes are many and distinct and so given to God by himself because by one act of Reason we cannot conceive of or understand his Essence which is but one in it self but represented to us as different and many and so apprehended And by our faith we believe the Divine perfections to be far greater then our Reason can apprehend them to be They are in himself one infinite being manifested by his works and more fully by his Word And our worship must ascend above our Reason and must be performed according to our faith which is a divine and supernatural light For the distinct knowledge of this worship with the several acts thereof and the several names we must not follow the Schoolmen but search into the Scripture diligently observe the use of the words as they are there applied to signifie the same How far Mr. Hobs is from the true understanding of worship in general and of the worship of God in particular may easily appear from this that he makes worship to be nothing else but the outward signification by words and actions of internal honour which with him is nothing else but the inward thought and opinion of the power and goodness of another But neither is worship nor honour any such thing as he hath defined them And his discourse of worship with the distinctions will be found very poor upon examination except we allow him a soveraign power over words to impose what signification upon them he pleaseth and the same different from that wherein they are used in Classical Authors Thus he hath finished his Politicks set forth under the name of Leviathan in the Frontispiece And though many have in
did add nothing to Gods power which before was absolute and as high as could be yet it did encrease their Obligation That which he afterwards affirms That he finds the Kingdom of God to signifie in most places of Scripture a Kingdom properly so named constituted by the Votes of the people of Israel in a peculiar manner is very false For 1. That Kingdom of Israel was not constituted by the Votes of the people 2. Suppose it had been so constituted and the word Kingdom of God used in many places of Scripture to signifie that government yet in the most places its never found so taken neither can any man find it most frequently taken in that sense For this is remarkable that it hardly ever so signifies in the New Testament where we have the most frequent mention of the Kingdome of God and the Kingdom of Heaven signifying the spiritual not any temporal Kingdome of God Redeemer by Christ T. H. From the Creation besides his natural reign over all he had peculiar subjects whom he commanded by a voyoc c. This Kingdom was continued in Noahs family after this God made a Covenant with Abraham and for memorial ordained the Sacrament of Circumcision And this was called the Old Covenant or Testament c. This Covenant was afterwards renewed by Moses c. G. L. The Kingdom spiritual is two-fold the first by the Power and Law of Creation requiring perfect obedience without promise of any pardon or Redeemer to expiate sin if man made holy should transgress but this government lasted not long because Adam did violate it and so the second Kingdom and government of God Redeemer by promise succeeded This continued from Adam to Noah and was renewed to Abraham with the addition of the solemn Rite of Circumcision and the promise of the Land of Canaan It was continued from Moses to the exhibition of the Messias yet with an especial appropriation of it to the people of Israel All this is clear out of Scripture and received by the general consent of all the Orthodox Christians And here by the way observe 1. That he makes no difference between the Kingdom of strict justice according to the Law of Creation and of that of Mercy in Christ according to the Law of Redemption 2. That with him the Covenant and promise to Abraham was the Old Covenant whereas the Apostle Rom. 4. and Galat. 3. affirms the contrary and makes the promise 430 years before the Law of Moses to be altogether different from the Law 3. That the Old Covenant was that between God and Israel at Mount Sinai and the New was the Gospel as may appear Heb. 8. from vers 6. unto the end 4. This new Covenant of the Gospel was promised 430 years before the Law and the Law could not make the promise of none effect For it continued in force in the time of the Law which was annexed unto it for certain ends till the Son of God should be incarnate 5. This Kingdom is distinct from Gods special government over Israel and Judah which was subordinate unto it till the Word should be made flesh and assume humane nature from the House of David Therefore Mr. Hobbs his discourse of Gods Kingdom over the Jews is confused false and bewrays either his great ignorance or negligence or wickedness But he begins to act the Critick and sits as Judge to pass sentence upon the Translations of those words of Scripture Exod. 19.5 6. Thou shalt be a peculiar treasure above all people and a Kingdom of Priests For so the Hebrew expresseth the priviledge of this people But he curiously distinguisheth between a peculiar treasure above all people and a peculiar people yet these in sense are the same and also between a sacerdotal Kingdom and a Kingdom of Priests or Royal Priesthood yet these do not differ And whereas the words are a promise of God engaging himself upon condition they will obey him he makes them a promise of the peoples giving their consent that God shall be the Lord and Soveraign But to whom was this promise made onely unto the Priest or to the Prince No such matter but to the whole Nation and every several person that shall keep the Covenant and obey God And this promise doth include the Covenant made with Abraham concerning Christ by faith in whom to come this promise was fulfilled to the Saints of old and by faith in him already come not onely to the believing Jews but Gentiles it was made good And so that place of 1 Pet. 2.9 is to be understood Which Text is not to be taken of Kings and civil Magistrates but all Christians truly such indeed For Christ by one offering hath perfected or consecrated the sanctified for ever Heb. 10.14 And washing us in his blood hath made us Kings and Priests to God his Father Rev. 1.5 6. from that one place of Exod. 19.5 6. misinterpreted by two others one of Paul to Titus 2.14 the other of 1 Pet. 2.9 and all mis-applyed He concludes that the Kingdom of God is a civil government over the Israelites wherein God was King and the high Priest after Moses his death was his sole Viceroy or Lieutenant After all this done in this manner he endeavours to make his opinion good from two places Historical three Prophetical out of the old Testament and two others out of the New Testament The two first are properly to be understood of the special government of God over Israel The three Prophetical places are meant of the spiritual Kingdom of Christ and so are the two last which are most palpably abused For the first of them relates the Angels words unto the blessed Virgin signifying that her son Jesus Christ should sit on the Throne of David and should reign over the house of Jacob for ever and of his Kingdome there should be no end Luke 1.32 33. Which is meant directly of his Spiritual Heavenly and Eternal Kingdom whereof the Kingdom of David was a Type For Christ never reigned as a temporal King over Israel according to the flesh The second place is Matth. 6.10 Where our Saviour amongst other things directs his Disciples to pray Thy Kingdom come By which Kingdom is meant the Reign of Christ Incarnate and exalted at the Right hand of God which was then to come but now hath continued 1600 years and upward and yet all Christians pray for the continuance encrease and especially the consummation of the same when death the last enemy shall be destroyed and God shall be all in all and reign most perfectly without any enemy without any opposition Yet such is his intolerable boldness that from these places thus abused he confidently concludes that the Kingdom of God is a civil government managed by the Christian Civil Soveraigns of the world That Holy is the same with Publick per accidens sometimes is true But every thing that is holy is not publick nor every thing that is publick holy Therefore his