being fierce against Daniel urged the immutability of the Decree that it was a Law confirmed by him according to the Laws of the Medes and Persians which may not be altered and indeed the argument is of great force For if Laws made by any Supreme may be violated before they are repealed what security can any Subject have of any thing he enjoys And surely in keeping and preserving the Laws they have made they do imitate their great Master the King of Kings and Supreme of Supremes from whom they have all their Authority and by whom they reign who although by his infinite power he can do what he pleaseth yet out of his infinite goodness he cannot deny himself or alter the word which is gone out of his mouth falli non potest mentiri non potest so that all his Words and Covenants and Promises are Yea and Amen Such should Supremes be such was Darius that just King no doubt but he could have sent a party of Souldiers and have taken Daniel out of their power but having made the Law which bound him to the execution he would perform it although it were never so contrary and averse to his disposition From all which you may discern that this great Potentate had his power limited by a Law which he could not justly violate Now look upon him and see him in the following part of his story of a most absolute and unlimited power where it was not restrained by Law In the latter end of that Cap. you may observe that when the King had perceived that God had delivered Daniel from the Lyons and he had taken him out of the Den. At the 24 verse the King commanded and they brought those men who had accused Daniel and cast them and their Wives and Children into the Lyons Den that is the Presidents and the Princes which was the greatest act of power exercised upon the greatest persons which were in that greatest Kingdom and all this meerly arbitrary SECT IV. The result of the former example No Government de facto purely Monarchical and therefore not susceptible of all the properties of Monarchical Government required by Mr. Hobbs Darius bound to the execution of those Laws which himself had made MY Collection here is That there is no Supreme upon earth which hath no commixion of any the other principles in all those particular rights which Mr. Hobbs requires as properties of Supremacy for the Legislative is one and the controul of the Execution is another Here you see at the making of this Decree there was Aristocracy mixed with Monarchy by the Princes for they petitioned the King to make this Law but the King gave life to it with his Fiat That this was so appears because if Darius alone had done and they had had no interest in this Legislation he who had made it might have recalled it of himself when he discovered the mischief which it produced but it is said that he strove and laboured to have saved him but those Princes who it seems had some influence in making the Law resisted and would not give way to it Then mark the second particle which is next of moment in the Law it self that is the execution he could not be spared from that And although in many polities the Supreme may and hath power to dispence with the execution of severe Justice yet it seems this great King had his hand tyed in respect of that and could not justly do it when upon their Petition he had established that Law Let no man censure this conclusion until he hath read the whole for it is not proper for me to prevent my method in any following discourse to satisfie every doubt which may interpose in the mean time but to preserve every particular until I come to its proper place SECT V. The general reasons of the precedent conclusions That Government best which is suited to the disposition of the people Some people fit only for subjection BUt to conceive a general reason for what I speak consider with me that the people must be governed as best suits with their condition for the multitude without doubt would be too hard for any Supreme if they knew how advantagiously to dispose of themselves And it is an easie thing with ambiguous language to sow discontents amongst the multitude against any present Government and therefore all Politicians besides Mr. Hobbs do shew that some Nations are fit to be ruled with a severe hand some with a more remiss one some fit for Monarchy some for Democracy The Fastern Nations best agree with those Monarchies under which they live which are the most absolute in the world but other Countries would not endure that Yoak It is a most ancient observation in this difference of Countries that some are so dull I dare not name them for fear of offending though others have done it as they are only fit to obey not to govern SECT VI. The former conclusion further asserted The Ephori amongst the Lacedaemonians first introduced by Theopompus BUt for this conclusion let it suffice what Aristotle writes of Theopompus and out of him other later Writers that he being King of the Lacedemonians first set up the Ephori there his Wife upbraided him with it that he should leave his Kingdom with less power to his Successors then he had received it from his Ancestors he answered that he should leave it more lasting Perhaps he was deceived in it but yet it meant this truth that the people being sweetned with the imagination that they have some interest in the Government they will put their necks more willingly under the Yoak The story is told in the fifth of his Politicks Cap. 11. which shew that it may be and may be profitable to receive this commixion SECT VII No Government absolutely pure Mr. Hobbs his Politicks calculated for Utopia BUt then go further and examine the flourishing Commonwealths of the whole world and you shall find them so mixed nay that mixture so equally poised that it will be hard to find the predominant from which it may receive its name as was the cause of the Lacedemonians disputed amongst divers Authors whether Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical and none so absolutely pure as that we may say this Element is without commixion that Planet hath alone influence and this he seems himself to grant in his 98. page concerning the practises in the world although he writes now an Vtopia a pattern which he would have all to follow He goes on page 95. CHAP. XIV SECT I. Mr. Hobbs his conclusions deduced from Principles founded in the Air. Absolute liberty not actually to be found in any people Several petite Common-wealths raised out of the Ruines of the Roman Empire None of these without mixture nor durable His exposition of Representative again redargued as an ill foundation of Government Religion and Propriety The formerly mentioned Commonwealths preserved by Laws IT is manifest saith he that men who
nor practicable and here we find it otherwise for God chose that King Saul and indeed it was the Law it should be so Deut. 1â— 15 Nay to come closer as I shall shew hereafter it is impossible that the people who had no power given them from God should give it to a King none sure but the All-powerful God can give men power one over another And as this story confutes his abominable principles which destroy the foundation of Government so it doth that horrid and treasonable conclusion of his which plucks down all Government and hath been the Author of almost all Treasons that ever were that is that in defence of a mans life or himself from such hardship as may render his life irksome to him a man may take arms or kill any man or do any thing which may rescue him from it I have spoke to this before how unchristian a speech it is but now consider how destructive of peace it is in a setled Commonwealth There are no Traytors but pretend their Liberties are invaded they have no safety in their condition The Tyrant for so they will term any against whom they rebel takes away their fields their children illegally and the like he doth without Law The next they tell us is their life they will provide therefore against that and kill him No saith this Hisâ—ory when your King abuseth you with such oppression there is no such consequence to be drawn from the whole context that men should whet their Swords and be avenged There is no power above that of the Kings much less is there any such in his own Subjects But men in such a case must fly to the King of Kings who according to his infinite Wisdom Justice and Mercy will consider and help them when he thinks fit There is no appeal from a King but to his King and then when your own sins call for his judgments as it was here he will not hear your cryes which strongly intimates we must not fight but cry in that day when such things are done unto us prayers and tears are the only weapons allowed Christians in that case Righteous men must not think to go to heaven with pleasure and delight by pride and strugling against their Superiours but with patience suffering quietly by Faith believing Gods mercies and promises by hope that in his good time he will deliver them when he thinks fit gently submitting our selves under the mighty hand of God who out of his infinite wisdom suffers us justly to be so punished that in his good time he may exalt us SECT VIII The former conclusions illustrated from the fact of Ahab The condition of Subjects according to Master Hobbs his Doctrine the same with Slaves taken in War The people transfer no power to the King besides that which God had given him Samuels words not positive but menacing God himself concerned in the Election of Samuels Government Exorbitant power or absolute dominion not deduceable from this Text. Mr. Hobbs his conclusions fitted to the Rapine of the late Rebels in England whose actions he seems to approve YEt consider once more if this had been the right of Kings what a foolish as well as a wicked King had Ahab been who when by right he might have taken Naboths Vineyard would mourn and afflict himself because Naboth would not let him have it And indeed you may observe there that Naboth conceived no such right for else he would not have denied to yield that upon a good valuable consideration which was due by Law Well this Text being thus examined and some inferences made upon it let us now consider his collections out of it This saith he is absolute power and summed up in the last words you shall be his servants which is the last clause of the seventeenth verse Let a man consider here what Mr. Hobbs hath writ of servants in the former page where he sets down that men vanquished in war are servants and what their servitude is and he shall find all Subjects to be in a miserable condition such as will little differ from being in war for what can war do it can but subject mens estates their wives children and their lives to a Conquerors will and that by this Gentleman they are in always even in peace yea by that very reason that they are imbodied into a Commonwealth But he proceeds further Again when the people heard what power their King was to have yet they consented thereto and say thus We will be as all other Nations and our King shall judge our causes and go before us to conduct our wars I looked for these words but find them not either in ours or other Translations but indeed the sense is in the nineteenth and twentieth verses And so I let it pass His collection is Here is confirmed the right that Soveraigns have both to the Militia and to all Judicature in which is contained as absâ—lute power as one man can possibly transfer to another But hark you Mr. Hobbs what is the meaning of that phrase transfer can it be thought that the peoples assent transfer'd any Authority which God did not give Certainly that is a greater Exaltation then ever man dreamt of until now But I am confident that the people took this as a menace of Samuel to deter them from having a King agreeing to the language used in the ninth verse by God to Samuel Protest solemnly to them or against them as it is in the margent of our Translations so they thought it a menace or threat and that you may conceive from the nineteenth verse which begins Nevertheless that is for all that menace or nequaquam as the vulgar Latin by no means will we be terrified but will have a King like other Nations they would be in this fashion but where can they find that fashion used in the world they had lived in Aegypt and Pharoah oppressed them mightily mistrusting them to be a dangerous people and a people that lived apart from the Aegyptians and had no communication with them But I do not read that they took the Land of Goshen from them which had formerly been given them by the King of Aegypt and those horrid oppressions were most wonderfully revenged by God upon Pharoah and his Aegyptians when the Israelites cryed to him for help because they were undeserved But saith Samuel You in this case shall cry and not be saved because you provoke these mischiefs being under a most excellent Government the immediate protection of God himself in which regard he saith in the seventh verse to Samuel They have not rejected thee but they have rejected me that I should not reign over them And although there were some miscarriages by Samuels Government that his Sons did not behave themselves well under him yet you may find in the twelfth Cap. third ver when Samuel resigned up his Government to Saul he could cal them to witness whether he had taken any mans
Oxe or Ass from him or defrauded or oppressed any man and at the fourth verse they acquit him So that for men thus to reject the Government of God by such a pious and excellent person as was Samuel for some discontents and rebellious humors which were in their fancies and exchange him for they knew not whom was such an unpardonable fault that God threatned by Samuel that he would not hear their cryes when they clamoured out for these evils which not their folly only but impiety had brought upon them So that methinks there can be no inference deduced here to shew the justness or right of this exorbitant power which he pretends to in this word absolute He hath the power of Judicature but that power is to determine what is right and to whom the Vineyard belongs but not to take it to himself He hath the power of the Militia to fight with the Enemy nay he may by it force and rightly ought to use that power to force men to render to every man their own but he cannot rightly take away any mans estate from him otherwise then the Law directs and he who saith he can do it to others if he felt such unjustness done to himself would quickly learn that Lesson that it is excellent Justice that Artifex necis arte periret sua then he would abhor his own Doctrine This was well fitted for the sequestrations and seisures which were made of mens estates when he wrote this Book for them SECT IX Solomon's Prayer 1 Kings 3.9 explained Master Hobbs his Logick desired in his deductions from this Text. Judges must govern or determine according to Law BUt Mr Hobbs hath Scripture out of Solomon's Prayer 1 Kings 3.9 Give to thy Servant understanding to judge thy people and to discern betwixt good and evil saith he therefore it belongeth to the Soveraign to be Judge and to prescribe the rules of discerning good and evil which Rules are Laws and therefore in him is the Legislative Power I could question his place of Scripture if I were given to wrangle for in terminis he cannot shew it there but there is the sense I let it therefore alone but consider his Logick He saith Because he is to be Judge and to prescribe the Rules of discerning betwixt good and evil which Rules are Laws For my part I think this consequence is so far from a necessary deduction out of the premises as I conceive the contrary is absolutely true because he is Judge he must take those rules which are prescribed him but not make his rule Consider with me I beseech you Reader that every Judge must be a Judge either in a constituted Commonwealth betwixt men who live in that Polity or else where there is no Commonwealth and where men live only according to the dictates of Nature In the first every Judge hath the National Laws of that Country to be his guide and he must judge according to them and not make Laws of his own head to judge the cause is committed to him For the second he hath the Law of Nature to guide him to that which shall appear most equal according to that rule He who draws a line by a rule doth not make the rule the Judge is such his Decrees are regulated by the Laws according to which he decrees but doth not make those Laws So that although I think it true that a Soveraign is the Supreme Judge and that he hath likewise the Legislative power yet not because he is Judge for these two are distinct faculties appertaining to the same person as will appear more fully hereafter SECT X. The impertinencies of the remaining part of this Paragraph censured Matth. 21.2 3. not truly cited by Mr. Hobbs His inferences upon this Text retorted upon him The true intention of these words mistaken by Mr. Hobbs and his argument thence invalid THe rest in that Paragraph is such trash as never was read not fit to foul paper with 't is so impertinent In the latter end of it he comes close to his business thus And that the Kings word is sufficient to take any thing from any Subject when there is need and that the King is Judge of that need for he himself as King of the Jews commanded his Disciples to take the Ass and the Asses Colt to carry him into Jerusalem Read the Text Mat. 21.2 3. The words as he writes them are Go into the Village over against you and you shall find a She-Ass tyed and her Colt with her untye them and bring them to me And if any man ask you what you mean by it say the Lord hath need of them and straightway they will let them go Thus he writes that Text most false in many places But I will consider the matter in hand and stick to his Inferences They will not ask whether his necessity be a sufficient title nor whether he be Judge of that necessity but acquiesce in the will of the Lord. Thus he And I could wish he would acquiesce in the will of the Lord for then he would never have vented so many abominable falshoods as he hath But to my business I first retort this ad hominem be it true or false This argument is not proper from his mouth who page 262. denies that our Saviour had any Kingdom in this world whilst he was in it therefore he did not now send for this Ass by a Kingly right I mean to speak to that in its proper place but now he who denies his Kingdom cannot here justly urge this for a president to Kings I but he will say he spoke that of our Saviours Manhood I reply if he spoke this of him as God it is no president for Kings for undoubtedly God hath reserved cases to himself by which he can and doth dispose of all things in this world how he pleaseth as will be shewed hereafter and not only of things in Kingdoms but of Kingdoms themselves and therefore this instance is no president But then let us consider the fact Our Saviour sent for an Ass and her Colt they were goods belonging to another man and the up-shot of all was when the right owner questioned why they loosed them and they told him it was for the use of the Lord which was the Apostles language concerning Christ he being a person famous for many Miracles and much Piety as that Story will shew the right owner let them go and let them use them and it is most reasonably thought that our Saviour having made use of them in that great Solemnity he was then going about restored them afterwards when it was finished But mark the owner gave way to his use of them he did not take Naboths Vineyard from him without his consent This is a weak way of arguing from an act by the owners consent to prove it lawful against his will if the right owner gives way to another to use his goods there is no fault in it and
God in his holy Word to reveal to us Rules by which we may know what is his will for us to do in doing which we please him and that he likes us as also what is against his will in doing which we shall anger and offend him and he will punish us although God be not only a general but the first cause which works with and in us yet it is not possible for man to think that God doth in that concurrence determine mans actions to such things which he himself hath declared evil and against his will and which he will punish and therefore it was too bold an Assertion to say That man doth no more or less then he is necessitated by Gods will which is to make no man a sinner for although as he spake God disposeth all things and that disposure must needs be to infinitely good and wise ends even the evils and things against his Rules of goodness yet his disposure orders such men according to their evil actions to suffer not makes them do evil that they may suffer But perhaps he explains this For though men may do many things which God does not command nor is therefore Author of them Nay I will tell him more men may do and many men do many things not only which God hath not commanded but which God hath forbidden and hath commanded they shall not do and surely then he is less Author of them But if a man do an act of advise or counsel of Gods without a Command yet that Gods Counsel is Author of Now these actions which are against Gods Command without doubt he is not Author of if he were he could not justly punish them But I would fain make out his sense which is this he doth not do it by Authority given by God but against it Well then Gods Authority is against evil but his power worketh this evil So he seems to affirm in his following words Yet they can have no passion nor appetite to any thing of which appetite Gods will is not the cause True indeed God is the first general cause but not the second and particular The Sun is an universal cause it shines upon the Earth Trees Plants and is the cause of their fertility but diversly according to the diversity of Constitutions it concurs with so doth God as he is the first and general cause meeting with several conditions operate severally to the production of those several effects which are produced by them with things necessary before he produceth necessary effects But as the Suns concourse doth not determine this thing to this and that to that effect so doth not the general concourse of God determine this or that appetite to this or that object in this or that manner but when it meets with things so disposed it concurs in the production of that effect to which it was so disposed so that God concurring with free Agents makes them no more necessary then his concurring with necessary Agents makes them free It is the same infinite Power of God which constituted both and his concurrence destroys neither in its ordinate working I speak not of his extraordinary operation whereby he can and doth controul all the frame of Nature when and how he pleaseth nor doth Mr. Hobbs Nay I may say that God himself being absolutely free bounded with no limits having nothing above or about him which can stop or hinder his Almighty hand from working it is much more reasonable to think that his concourse should make even necessary Agents free and not to be bounded by their natures which he had given them rather then that this most free Agent should against himself make those which he had constituted in a free nature to be necessary because they are by that more like himself which every Agent endeavours Nay in his extraordinary works he doth often for the present shake off those bonds which his former Donation had confined them to so that by his extraordinary concourse he makes them cease from their former operations which by their natures they were necessitated to do as the fire not to burn the water not to run down its channel and the like which are apparent to every man So then though Gods will and concurrence is a cause of those actions yet not being a terminating cause but concurring with that nature which he had given them that concurrence doth not necessitate that operation which he had given to man viz. freedom to do or not to do But he proves the contrary in his following words which are these SECT XII The consequence of this Paragraph examined His meaning conjectured and refuted Every deviation contradicts not the Power and Omnipotency of God Voluntas facere fieri distinguished in God Men not justly punished with Damnation if necessitated to sin Mr. Hobbs censured for obtruding those Doctrines in Divinity amongst his Political Discourses The actions of the King and Subject alike necessitated by Mr. Hobbs his Chain of Causes ANd did not his will assure the necessity of mans will and consequently of all that on mans will dependeth the liberty of men would be a contradiction and impediment to the Omnipotency and liberty of God I do not observe how this consequence can be deduced out of the premises for if God endowed man with liberty and free power in his nature why should it follow if God do not necessitate his actions that mans will would cross and impede the power and liberty of God For the will of God is that man should act freely the free actions therefore are according to his will and the necessitation would be contrary to his will But I think he means that if mans free power could sin against the will of God then man should be able to contradict and stop his Omnipotency and Liberty To understand this therefore consider with me that Gods Dominion over this World is like that of a King in a Kingdom he gives Laws and Rules to the Subjects which if they observe they shall live happily under him but if not he will punish and afflict yea perhaps destroy the offending parties It is an opposition to the Kings power that when men break his Laws and he shall go about to punish them they shall then rebel against him and oppose the power of the County or of the Kingdom or that power which he musters up to do Justice upon them then indeed his power is contradicted and impeded God whilst men live here with these natures hath given Rules and governs them by such Laws as he hath appointed them for their good if they observe those Laws happy are they but he seldom puts in his Omnipotency to make men do the one or the other never to make men break his Laws he ordinarily doth not vary the nature of man or any thing Men may and may not keep his Commandments I do not now dispute of the nature of Grace or any thing of that kind they that do
not shall be punished as the other blessed and then comes in his Omnipotency if man could resist or impede that that were contradicting his power but these sins only oppose his concourse which inclines but not necessitates a mans nature so that there is Gods voluntas facere fieri his will which we should do which it is impossible for God to oppose and there is his voluntas facere to do himself which it is not possible for man to oppose The first appears in this life the second in the other nor is it any contradiction to the Divine Power which hath so established it and without which it were impossible for his Power to joyn with his Justice in punishing Offenders at the last day for how can a man justly be punished for what was not in his power to do otherwise yea much less can he punish him in Justice who makes him commit that fault which he punisheth which God must do if he with his co-operation in the act determines mans power to that evil which he punisheth and for which condemneth him to Hell Certainly this is the most abominable impudent Doctrine for sinning that ever was read in any Author that ever writ of this Subject and the most derogative from that infinite Essential Goodness that should cause or make men do evil for no more then fire can cool or act against its nature no more can God who is essentially good goodness it self act that which is evil It is in vain for a man to say it is not evil God doing it for it is an evil which God hates and punisheth and therefore must be evil in his esteem I do not now speak of that Language used by some of Gods afflictions working with some men which comes not in this discourse to be disputed of but that God doth work these sins which he punisheth this is abhorrent to the thought of a Religious man And now I must censure Mr. Hobbs not only for ill and false Doctrine but for having such a delight in it as in this place unnecessarily to obtrude it where there was no reason for nor use of it for let any man consider what this hath to do with liberty of the Subject which is the Head he undertook to treat of the liberty of the Subject is neither more or less for his linking of his actions to God Almighty nay if his discourse be true Subjects have as great liberty as Kings for all their actions are alike necessitated by this Chain Here Reader I thought to have ended with his Politicks having as I think digged up his Foundation and then the Building must fall but meeting so many wicked interpretations of Scripture and so many abominable conclusions in Divinity intermixed with his Political discourses I am forced to proceed with some of them lest the Reader should be unhappily seduced but not prosecute them word by word as I have done but skipping from one hill to another leaving the lesser work and Mole-hills to be censured by any man who hath more leisure and spare time and to that purpose remove with me to the next page 109. about the middle where he begins thus CHAP. XX. SECT I. Mr. Hobbs his impious Proposition in this Paragraph discovered and censured Injustice and iniquity the same The Subject not Author of the actions of his Soveraign The Soveraign granting the former Proposition cannot kill an Innocent justly No man hath power to take away his own life justly Neither Subjects nor Kings have right to any thing but from God who gives not power to either to shed Innocent Blood The Law of Nature deserted by Mr. Hobbs to the murther of an Innocent His disapprobation of Scripture censured NEvertheless we are not to understand that by such liberty the Soveraign Power of Life and Death is either abolished or limited I conceive by Soveraign Power he means the power of the Soveraign and that Authority not limited by any Law which being violated he should do unjustly for this sense the sequel of this discourse will apparently justifie and then I say it is a wicked Proposition as will appear by the examination of his reasons which he enters upon in the following words For it hath been already shewn that nothing the Soveraign Representative can do to a Subject on what pretence soever can properly be called injustice or injury Yes he hath shewn it with a nice and learned distinction betwixt Injustice and Iniquity concerning which I may justly say they are hardly two words but not two things as I have shew'd But what doth he mean by a Soveraign Representative here I think he hath delivered that all Soveraigns are Representatives of the people What he can mean by this addition of Representative I know not but he explains himself in the words following Because saith he every Subject is Author of every act the Soveraign doth so that he never wanteth right to any thing otherwise then as he himself is a Subject of God and bound thereby to observe the Laws of Nature The first part I have spoken to heretofore and shewed that every Subject is not Author of the Soveraigns acts where he saith he hath shown it But now I shall go further and prove that if they were Authors of his acts yet by their Authority he cannot kill an Innocent justly which I do thus The people cannot authorize him to act any thing which they themselves have not just power to do but the people conjunctim or divisim have no just power to take away an innocent mans life therefore they cannot authorize him The major is grounded upon that invincible Axiom No man gives what he hath not therefore if they have not that power they cannot give it The minor will be proved thus Before a Commonwealth be instituted no man hath just power to take away anothers life as is most evident I but they may answer every man hath power over his own which every man may yield to the Soveraign I rejoyn No man hath just power to take away his own life he may give his goods but not his life God is the God of life and hath given no private man Authority to cut off his own life and therefore undoubtedly he cannot give power to another which he hath not himself And if there were no other argument against his popular Constitution of a Supreme this were enough for confutation of it for there must be a power of life and death in a Common-wealth upon the emergency of great iniquities it cannot subsist else And so I pass to the second part of that conclusion which is Otherwise then as he himself is the Subject of God and bound thereby to observe the Laws of Nature There is much folly if not wickedness in these few words First I say neither Kings nor any man hath right to any thing but as they are Gods Subjects The earth is the Lords and all that is in it and to whom he
of this Psalm as it is recorded with 2 Sam. 12. where we may observe that after he had committed these hainous sins of adultery and murther God sent Nathan the Prophet to him and he told David his own story under a Parable of a Rich man who took a poor mans lamb from him to entertain his friend with it This was a picture of Davids crime was not this injustice Consider then in the 9. verse where he acquaints the King with Gods sentence against him he doth not lay to his charge only that he had offended God but that he had killed Vriah the Hittite with the sword and had taken his wife to be his wife and had slain him with the sword of the Children of Ammon so that the sins of David were against men for though all sin is against God even the trespass against men is therefore a sin because against Gods law yet it is a sin against men and therefore prohibited by Gods law because unjust to men I speak of all such sins which are suâ naturâ in their own nature sins of which kind murther is then let us look to the 14. verse of this Psalm Deliver me from blood-guiltiness O God Blood-guiltiness what is that Nothing but the guilt of that sin which he had committed by that murtherous act of killing Vriah and therefore as a murtherer is guilty of the crime untill he is absolved of his Judge and his only Judge God Almighty had acquitted him he untill then was guilty of blood of murthering Vriah Well then undoubtedly that was an unjust act let Mr. Hobbs say what he will or can But I will do him right he goes not alone in this opinion but hath St. Ambrose a person of great honour both for judgment and integrity along with him and because I will urge this argument to the full I will say he was no Court parasite one who would flatter Kings into sin as was evident in that contest he had with the Emperour Theodosius in which was apparent both an incomparable Emperour and a pious and zealous Prelate This St. Ambrose utters some things in his book called Apologia David like Mr. Hobbs where in his tenth Chap. at the beginning he expounds these words tibi soli peccavi Rex utique erat nullis ipse legibus tenebatur I have sinned only to thee for he was a King he was held or confined by no laws because saith he Kings are free from the bonds of laws neither by any laws are they called to punishment being safe by the power of Empire This a man would think abundantly full but yet he never used Mr. Hobbs his Phrase to say he did not unjustly But his first speech must be understood that he was not with held by any humane laws for Mr. Hobbs confesseth that he is responsable for the breach of divine laws by the law of nature Secondly that speech of his that Kings are freed from the bonds of their faults that must be understood of such bonds as imprisonments or such punishments which by humane laws are injoyned offenders and that is clearly expounded by his last sentence that they are by no laws called to punishment being safe in the power of Empire that is safe from the questioning of their subjects so that his whole sence is this That David as a King was not responsable for his subjects to any man nor lyable to any punishment for them I could speak more to this and shew how that S. Ambrose produced another exposition presently after but certainly neither he nor any man but Mr. Hobbs will say it was not injustice it is suâ naturâ unjust to punish with the greatest punishment death an innocent person Nor doth his being a King make it less injustice but rather aggravate it because his chief office under God and for which he is constituted by God is to distribute justice equally and reward the vertuous and punish the evil as St. Paul excellently and clearly speaks Rom. 13.4 He is the minister of God to thee for Good that is to thee who dost that which is good as he speaks in the 3. verse but if thou dost evil be afraid for he beareth not the sword in vain for he is the minister of God a Revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil So likewise St. Peter 1. Epist 2.14 makes it their business to punish evil doers and the praise of them who do well Now if these be the contents of the commission from God to these his Deputies they must needs be guilty of injustice who punish citra condignum where there was no desert of it and they who are Kings so much the more by how much it is their particular duty to take care of the contrary I have now cleared the sence of S. Ambrose as I guess but lest any scruple might remain from his authority with any man who might mistake his sence I will therefore weigh down the Scales with the weights of others his near contemporaries of no less honour in Christendom than himself And the first I shall present you with is St. Basil the great so he is called in his scholia upon this verse of this Psalm Tibi soli peccavi cùm multis magnis donis tuis sum positus Since I enjoy many and great gifts of thine but have returned contrary things he doth not say here that he had not sinned against Uriah he had indeed offended against him and against his wife but the greatest prevarication was committed against God himself who had chosen him and constituted him King and therefore he rightly added and done this evil in thy sight thus far St. Basil The next which I shall produce shall be St. Chrysostom upon this Psalm and this verse and he agrees very much with St. Basil To thee only have I sinned Many saith he and great benefits have I received from thee but I have returned them with contrary things for these things which by thy law are interdicted I have not doubted to commit neither doth he say that I have not hurt Uriah for he had both hurt him and his wife but the greatest iniquity was against God Thus far St. chrysostum Next consider St. Hierom Tibi solùm peccavi to thee only have I sinned for to thee every man sins when he sins because thou art only without sin as the Apostle speaks Rom. 3.4 God is true but every man a lyar or else David saith I have sinned and thou only art without sin as saith the Prophet Isaiah 53. Who did no sin nor was guile found in his mouth St. Augustin likewise harps upon the same string To thee only have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight what is this saith that heavenly man Had not he adulterated anothers wife and slain her husband Did not all men know what David had done What is that he saith then to thee only have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight He answers
of it supreme and inferiour the supreme is soveraign the inferiour are subjects but by a common vvealth here he only understands the soveraign But let us proceed vvith him out of the former confuted premisses he dravvs this conclusion I conclude therefore that in all things not contrary to the Moral Law that is to say to the Law of Nature all subjects are bound to obey that for divine Law which is declared to be so by the Laws of the Common-wealth Certainly the Moral Lavv or the Lavv of Nature doth not bid us be baptized or receive the holy Communion nay it doth not command us to make a profession of our faith in Jesus Christ The Law of Nature did not command Daniel Shedrack Meshack and Abednego to refuse the voluptuous meat which Nebuchadnezar allowed them and fed upon pulse and water but the fear that they should break the Law of God by obeying the King I mean the positive Law which God had not writ in their Natures but in Tables so that this conclusion of his was most Heathenish CHAP. XXII SECT XVIII Mr. Hobbs his further reasons to prove the former assertions examined and censured His diminution of the authority of the divine positive Law and constant vilifying of scripture censured The Law of Nature restrained by the divine positive Law Obedience in Religious dutyes not founded in the command of the soveraign but of God The perswasion of the Turks that the Alcoran contains the Law of God not the command of the Grand Signiour causes their conformity to it The difference betwen the commands and acts of Christian Princes and their subjects from those of other Religions All other Societies as that of Theeves illegitimate combinations Mr. Hobbs his doctrine abhorrent to Christianity BUT he labours further to prove it Which also saith he is evident to any mans reason for whatsoever is not against the Law of Nature may be made Law in the Name of them that have the Soveraign power and there is no reason men should be the less obliged by it when it is propounded in the Name of God I answer that whatsoever is not against the Law of Nature may be made Law by God i. e. his positive Law but many Laws are limited not only by Gods Laws of Nature but his positive Laws likewise which have as great force as the other to whomsoever they are revealed Now I am in the 150 page let the Reader consider again how he takes occasion to lessen the authority of Scripture I am perswaded he can produce no Christian writer from our Saviours time downward that ever delivered so unworthy a conceipt of the positive Law of God it is as if he should say we should obey a Constables command against the Kings command by Statute for the difference is much less betwixt the King and a Constable than betwixt the greatest King in the World and God The common Law which I conceive to be an unwritten tradition is like the Law of Nature the Statute Law like the positive Laws It is lawful not considering a statute for a man to act any thing not against the common Law but if a positive i e. a statute Law intervene it is no longer lawful by any private power to act that which otherwise had been lawful Thus until a positive Law of God interpose whatsoever is not against the Law of Nature is lawful but when that positive Law is manifest it is necessary that that likewise be obeyed and no humane Law of mans making can have right to dispense with it He proceeds besides there is no place in the world where men are permitted to pretend other commandements of God than are declared for such by the Common-wealth Christian States punish those that revolt from Christian Religion and all other States those that set up any religion by them forbidden For in whatsoever is not regulated by the Common-wealth 't is equity which is the Law of Nature and therefore an eternal Law of God that every man equally enjoy his Liberty Here is an Argument drawn à facto ad jus Because this is done therefore it is rightly done and an equal weight put upon the acts of Heathens and worshippers of the Sun Moon c. with that of Christians who only worship the true God As if because Kings justly punish those who violate the Laws of those Kingdomes which they are intrusted with therefore Thieves justly may destroy such as break the Laws of their Combination when indeed the first are just but the other most unjust The case seems to be the same here for all those are combinations of Thieves who rob God of his due honour required by him the Christians only act by the Law of God So that here we may discern a great difference in the right of the two actings of the Christian and the Heathen but then consider what is the ground of them both we shall find it different from what Mr. Hobbs delivers He conceiveth the reason to be this why delinquents are punished because they swerve from the Law of the supreme but it is clearly otherwise The Christian doth not therefore receive the holy Communion or repent of his sin or do such like heavenly duties because the supreme Magistrate requires them but because he finds those duties exacted by God in his positive Laws and if the Magistrate shall controul it he knows God must be obeyed before man when he requires contrary to God And the same reason persvvades the Turk concerning his Alcoran vvhich he vainly imagineth to be the divine Lavv and if the Grand Signior himself do contradict that Lavv they vvill not obey him upon that reason And surely the same Argument prevails vvith all other Nations vvho have their Religion by tradition it is not the Lavv of man but the imagined Lavv of God vvhich they subject themselves unto in divine performances And therefore though soveraigns punish such transgressions vvhich are against those Lavvs vvhich they have established for divine yet it is therefore because they are esteemed divine Therefore they made such Lavvs not that they could think that they ought to be esteemed divine because they established them I vvill add but one observation more vvhich is this That although he saith that all Nations practise this that is that they allovv only such divine Lavvs vvhich they have established to be such yet I believe no Nation in the World no Christian I am assured would have allowed this doctrine to be published but only such as were in that distracted condition as our poor Nation was when he published it For since every Christian Kingdome professeth a conformity to divine Law it cannot be imagined that they durst obtrude such an impossible thing to be credited as that they could make divine Laws but only confirm and exact an obedience to them Nay I can think the same of all even Heathen Nations So that it is a conclusion abhorring to Christianity yea humane Nature
peaceably not only plough and sow peaceably but reap the fruits of that pains they take and call it there own It cannot be denyed that that justly can be denyed them and if it be they are in such a state as they were without the fruits of their vertuous labours It is true in the Eastern Monarchies I read they have not inheritances as they have here but pro termino vitae and then all return to that sea out of which they came but it is otherwise in our European Countryes throught and the Laws of every Nation are justly to be observed but still according to that right which each person hath and this propriety is so naturally dear unto every man as there can be no wiser Laws made for the publick than such as private men shall be bettered by them for then every man will more industriously endeavour the publick good when his private benefit results out of it I but saith he such as excludeth the right of the Soveraign Indeed I think in that he said more rightly than he meant for certainly the Soveraign hath a right of a Soveraign over all his kingdom or dominion nay the propriety of a Soveraign that is his legal propriety over his Subjects is over their estates to determine their Controversies to have dominion over their Persons legally to punish according to his just prerogative But the title of propriety in his estate is belonging to the subject in all such things as are not included in the supremes legal prerogative So that when he has granted Laws which do limit the extent of his power and indulge the vertuous industry of his subjects he cannot justly infringe them and call that his right which he hath condescended not to use And upon this reason with us the Title of the King in many occasions is decided by the Judges in point of Propriety And therefore he did ill in publishing this book in Engliâ—h so that it principally concerns us and at that time when the liberties and proprieties of the Subject were so abominably invaded by the usurped powers as if he would provoke them to out-do themselves and oppress more and more lawfully than was pretended He proceeds CHAP. XXIII SECT IX The soveraign protects the subject in the enjoyment of that right and Propriety which the Law gives him The rights of soveraignty not of propriety necessary for the performance of the royal Office and protection of subjects Publick necessity justifies the invasion of propriety The partition of the soveraignty among the Optimates not destructive of it according to Mr. Hobbs his own tenents The responsa prudentûm of high esteem among all Nations EVery man has indeed a propriety that excludes the right of every other Subject This is granted upon all sides and saith he he has it only from the soveraign power without the protection whereof now I am in Page 170. every other man should have equal right to the same This is not truly spoke for the protection of the soveraign doth not make or give right to any thing but enables him to use the same the law gives the right the soveraign protects us in the enjoying that which the Law hath given But I wonder at his meaning in what follows which is But if the right of the Soveraign also be excluded he cannot perform the Office they have put him into That must be understood of the right of the Soveraignty but not of propriety if he be not allowed the prerogatives belonging to soveraignty he cannot protect them but if he be denyed the right of propriety he cannot well destroy them but surely may protect them with his justice and with his power He expounds himself which is to defend them both from forraign Enemies and from the injuries of one another and consequently there is no longer a Common wealth A strange inference unless he have right to their Estates he cannot defend them c. Surely many Soveraigns have defended and do defend their subjects and yet have not propriety to their Estates He who hath a propriety in an estate may use it how he will to his own advantage or content But this Supremes cannot do with their subjects justly there may be a case of extremity where Salus Reipublicae must be suprema lex put the case an Enemy invades the Kingdome the land of some particular subject lyes fit to make a Fort of the King by force takes it for the publick benefit not out of propriety that it belongs to himself but that it belongs to the Common-wealth to whose publick benefit all private interests and proprieties must submit But I may term the right of such accidents to be an universality rather than a propriety the universal right of the Common-wealth not the particular right of one or another That which follows to this purpose receives the same answer In offices of judicature and the like I pass to a sixth Doctrine which he saith is plainly and directly against the essence of a Common-wealth and 't is this that the soveraign power may be divided What he means by division I cannot readily apprehend if he means that it may not be divided into sundry persons then he hath overthrown himself when he constitutes other Government besides Monarchy as Aristocracy and Democracy which are in divers persons but united if he means which he seems to do by his following discourse two several Kings in the same kingdome I think it cannot subsist because of distractions as he intimates but the fountain of the errour I think is not well derived from the Lawyers who saith he endeavour to make the Laws depend upon their own learning and not upon the legislative power Which way this should conduce to the dependance of the Law upon their learning I see not he himself hath discoursed that the responsa prudentum were alwayes in high esteem among the Romans as the opinion of the Judges are amongst us and all men have a great reverence of them in all Nations But these responsa declare what is Law and they will cease to be prudentes when they abuse the Law He begins another Paragraph CHAP. XXIII SECT X. The Paragraph asserted Not the form of Government but the execution of good Laws makes a Nation happy The history of the Grecians and Romans vindicated against Mr. Hobbs Mr. Hobbs his Precepts in his Leviathan much more seductive and encouraging to rebellion than the forementioned Histories The abuse of good things ought not to take away the use of them AND as false doctrine so oftentimes the example of different government in a Neighbouring Nation disposeth men to the alteration of the form already setled In this truly I am of his mind for when men see a neighbour prosper in that kind of life he leads he is apt to pry into the wayes by which he so thrives and then taking the same course hopes to find it as beneficial to himself as it hath proved to the
divisim either as severed or conjoyned either as distinct or united but neither of these if severed then either every man had this Power or a few or one alone the first branch of this Division will abide the chief Dispute with him because he hath said before That every man hath right to every thing to all things to all riches persons wives lives what you will before they are covenanted into a body this hath been confuted heretofore yet this very occasion will be able to shew the absurdity of it further SECT IV. The Multitude cannot make a Leviathan because he had all their rights before FOr which let us lay a Foundation suppose this Kingdom were unsetled and yet now endeavouring to be setled and all the People being free and and without Covenant have right to all the things in the world these are met together to chuse a Leviathan as he terms him for setling their beings most securely In this Election what did they give him you will say the Authority over them all that is nothing he had that before by the Law of Nature I but he will say he hath upon this Election their Rights Their Rights are no more than what he had before he had by nature right to slay take make use of any thing conducing to his contentment though they were a hundred Millions they can give him no more than what he hath even by Nature I but he will reply he had Right before but now he hath Power I answer the Question here is not about Power but Right Power may be in Rebels Usurpers but not Right that is only in the lawful Soveraign but suppose we should examine his Power by these preceeding directions I doubt we shall find it most weak and unconstant SECT V. Their Power is most uncertain FOR if from the People they will vary with their unsetled resolutions for they who made the first being once taught that the Right of making Kings is in them will easily be perswaded that the unmaking is in their hands likewise and reassume that Power again Take that most abundant instance which that unhappy time we lately lived in affords us when Mr. Hobbs was first undertaken by me when this Doctrine of his was infused into the Kingdom they altered and changed the Government four or five times in a moment A very short space of time and none of those Leviathans lacked the assents of the People who at the least pretended with the highest protestations that men could make that they would live and dye with them in the maintenance of their Rights and yet in one six weeks they made likewise such another protestation to the next Usurpers Here you may discern how weak a Foundation this popular Covenant yields to his Leviathan nor need he boast more of the strength than the Right of his Authority for certainly any buzze put into the Peoples head of misgovernment which no Government can be free from in the execution will put Seditious Spirits into them and men who love to fish in troubled Waters may with ease raise these Rumors so that it seems to me to appear that such a tottering and unconstant foundation as the Peoples universal Covenant should not be the support of such a mighty structure as is a Leviathan which should be perpetual What I have said of the whole may more abundantly be affirmed of any part because they will be as unconstant as the whole or more SECT VI. The People cannot give Power conjunctim AND for what was interposed of the People Conjunctim is impossible according to his Principles for there can be no Conjunction before this Covenant they are according to his Doctrine at War one with another until that And it is a strange thing to imagine that so many several heads contending one with another about Superiority and the ingrossing the World to their particular Interests should concenter with one mind to the exaltation of the same Person or Persons to whom they would submit themselves and their conditions by a total desertion of them both Nay indeed a man cannot do it for it being Jus naturale a natural Right as he himself hath expressed before Chap. 14. pag. 65 and 66 to which I have spoke already something he cannot lay down his Natural Right until he lay down his Nature and therefore indeed he cannot by this Doctrine give away his Right to be King to any other but if he can devest himself of his Nature yet he in express termes saith That a man cannot give over his Right to resist by force wounds and imprisonments with which he cannot live contentedly and may not the same be said of a Kingdom perhaps that man cannot live contentedly without being King surely then it is not probable to think that men will so put off their Jura naturalia neither indeed can they do it by his Polity SECT VII The manner of the Resignation makes it impossible BUT then consider the Resignation it self it is far more unreasonable to think that reasonable men should do it Consider the particulars To own all Leviathans actions as if every particular of the People were Author of it To submit their Judgments to his Judgment their Wills to his Will I thought it had been obedience enough for Subjects to submit their persons to his Government but to own all his actions which may be wicked was not to be exacted from any Subject yea if we will allow his Doctrine delivered before it is worse for then we must be Authors of his actions he but our person imployed in them as he speaks pag. 82 and therefore not his own I but saith he in order to their peace I cannot assent to that for many Supreams have done horrid things in order to the publique Peace as Murders Sacriledges oppressions to which although my person may submit yet neither shall my Judgment approve nor my will consent for although when he doth wickedly I will not do so too and Rebel yet neither will I by consent to them justifie his Acts by conspiring in his sin his Vertues shall not save me and I am confident his vices cannot damn me which yet they would if I assented to them I go on with him This is saith he more than consent or Concord it is a real Vnion of them all in one and the same person made by Covenant of every man with every man in such manner as if every man should say to every man I authorize and give up my Right of Governing my self to this man or assembly of men on that Condition that thou give up thy Right to him and Authorise all his Actions in like manner If this be the only way to live in Peace I chuse War which is the hatefullest thing in the World but Sin But this last Phrase of Authorizing all his Actions whom I cannot rule nor controul nay perhaps not come at to Petition is such a forsaking of Humanity and contempt of the
act wickedly which no honest man can consent unto or else justly be destroyed by his fellow Subjects which he understands by that word the rest destruction is the greatest mischief can come to a man and is never inflicted but for some mighty crime which I do not find this man charged with but only a dissenting or protesting against the general Vote a thing often done in Parliaments and yet no such Sentence passeth upon the Dissenter nor were it just to do it men are not bound to be all of one mind Mr. Hobbs would make his Inquisition for Politiques more severe then any Inquisition for Religion But he hath reason for what he writes for saith he If he voluntarily entred into the Congregation of them that were assembled he sufficiently thereby declared his will and therefore tacitly covenanted to stand to what the major part should ordain I thought by what went before he must have declared his assent but now it seems it is enough if he be amongst them but what if he be not amongst them as I have shewed it is impossible all should what condition is that man in He proceeds with his proofs And therefore if he refuse to stand thereto or make protestation against any their Decrees he does contrary to his Covenant and therefore unjustly Suppose all this Shall a man be destroyed for every breach of Covenant or every unjustice Certainly Mr. Hobbs if he were a Law-maker would out-do Draco or the bloudiest that ever acted in that kind This is a foolish consequence that because he did unjustly he should justly be destroyed He goes on And whether he be of the Congregation or not and whether his consent be asked or not he must either submit to their Decrees or he left to the condition of war he was in before wherein he might without injustice be destroyed by any man whatsoever The madness of this condition of war before this Covenant I have spoke to heretofore but that he may justly be destroyed by any with whom he will not joyn in the Covenant is wicked We have in England I believe abundance of strangers of Forreign Nations which neither have nor will enter into such a Covenant may they be justly killed Nay amongst those millions which are the Kings Subjects there was never man entred this or the like Covenant may we justly kill one another Nay I think few would make such a Covenant may all these be knocked on the head thus This hath such a force of injustice that men with humanity about them cannot consent unto I leave this therefore and come to his 4th Inference CHAP. VIII SECT I. Mr. Hobbs his fourth Inference censured and refuted from his own conclusions He that impowers another to do justly though he make him Pleni-potentiary is not guilty of his unjust actions his first reason refuted FOurthly Because every Subject is by this Institution Author of all the actions and judgments of the Soveraign instituted it follows that whatsoever he doth it can be no injury to any of his Subjects nor ought he by any of them be accused of injustice Accused What doth he mean by that to be convicted arraigned condemned This certainly he cannot because the power of Judgment supposeth Superiority which cannot be over the Soveraign in his own Kingdom But let us observe the consequence of this Argument out of these impossible premises that because by his fancy of the Institution every subject is Author of all his actions he can do no injury to any of them certainly this doth not follow by his own Doctrine for put the case that the Supreme doth authorize a Judge to hear and determine such causes doth the Supreme only do injustice in it when the Royal Authority gives power to the Judge who acts unjustly by that Authority which was given him by the Supreme or the Judge likewise who abuseth that Authority I believe no man will affirm it or if he do he must destroy Mr. Hobbs his conclusion which makes the Kings acting by the Authority of the peoples grant not to offend in himself for which is his reason before spoke to if the Author do solely perform not the Actor or the person who immediately operates which he delivered before the King not the Judge doth unjustly when by his Authority the Judge decrees wickedly But he proceeds with another reason for saith he He that doth any thing by Authority from another doth therein no injury to him by whose Authority he acts This is not true generally a Judge judgeth by the Authority of the Supreme but if he Judge unjustly yea judgeth a cause against the King perhaps unjustly he then doth the King an injury by his own Authority Again a General with Plenipotency to kill slay c. from the King he turns now his Army to the Kings destruction perhaps doth not he then do the King an injury by his own power SECT II. Mr. Hobbs his second reason invalid from the falsity of his supposition Consent or dissent gives not the stamp of Justice or Injustice He that gives power to do any act may complain of ill Execution of that power HE goes on But by this Institution of a Commonwealth every particular man is Author of what the Soveraign doth and consequently he that complaineth of injury from his Soveraign complaineth of that whereof he himself is Author and therefore ought not accuse any man but himself nor himself of injury because to do an injury to himself is impossible It is first observeabâ—e here which runs throughout the whole Politiques that it is built totally upon that foundation which neither is nor is probable to be in any but is impossible to be in a great Commonwealth and therefore must needs fall of it self But supposing that impossibility let us consider his inference every man is Author of what the Soveraign doth the reason of that is before expressed because he covenants to avow his actions Now if he do avow them it follows not that therefore they shall be just many a man owns that act which is unjust his owning of it makes it neither just nor unjust These are qualities inherent in the act not adherent to others Opinions or acceptance or disacceptance of them I but saith he Consequently he that complaineth of injury from his Soveraign complaineth of that whereof he himself is Author I return that he may do that and complain that he himself hath done amiss men do and it is vertuously done of him who doth it but much rather of that which he acts by anothers hand that which may be good in the Institution may be spoiled and hurt in the Execution and although they did institute him with such a power yet his mannagement of it may be ill and unjust and that they may complain of SECT III. A man may do an injury to himself Mr. Hobbs his distinction between Iniquity and Injustice or Injury disproved and censured UPon this ground will appear the
faultiness of what follows which is And therefore ought not to accuse any man but himself no nor himself of injury because to do injury to a mans self is impossible To the first piece I have shewed that though he were Author of Leviathans Power yet his evil usage of that power may be complained of To the second I think a man may injure himself when a rich man through niggardliness shall deny his belly or his back those expences which were necessary for the support of his health he deals unjustly with himself when another foolishly desperate shall adventure his life upon idle and frivolous occasions he deals unjustly with himself by hazarding so Noble a Creature upon so base and unworthy a prize These things and multitudes of more are unjust dealing towards a mans self But he hath a nice distinction at the bottom of this Paragraph It is true that they that have Soveraign Power may commit Iniquity but not injustice or injury in the proper signification I would he had expounded the proper signification At the first I was amazed at this distinction and did doubt there was some great and excellent Notion in it but duly considering the words I find they were airy and do signifie no more difference then if I had affirmed Mr. Hobbs or the Writer of Leviathan said this or that meerly nominal For what is iniquity but unequal dealings which in him who is bound to deal equally in distribution or commutation is injustice and indeed injustice is nothing else and injury what is that but not just or right and I am sure injustice is nothing else But where some Law directs this or that he doth otherwise This is the proper and genuine-sense of the words and unless he had shewed us some more proper use of them there is no reason why we should be forced from this common acceptation Here now I might justly break off from further discourse of this business having answered what he objects but because I would give some satisfaction to the Reader in this Conclusion I shall a little insist further and shew that Leviathans or Supremes may do unjustly SECT IV. A Soveraign may do injustice by himself and by his Ministers impowred and not punished by him IT will be a strong foundation for this discourse to produce the Actions of the King of Kings God himself which I may do in the eighteenth of Genesis ye may observe there that God was pleased to reveal to Abraham his intended destruction of Sodom Abraham after he had undertaken to plead for them in the twenty fourth verse puts the Question Peradventure there will be fifty righteous within the City wilt thou also destroy and not spare the City for the fifty righteous that are therein Then in the twenty fifth verse That be far from thee to do after this manner to slay the righteous with the wicked and that the righteous shall be as the wicked that be far from thee shall not the Judge of all the Earth do right In which you may observe that Abraham in a bold manner did dare to intimate that God himself should have done amiss not right but unjustly in punishing the righteous with the wicked and shall we be afraid to say that Leviathan can do unjustly when they shall slay the righteous as the wicked which many of them have done If we consider all the Species and several sorts of injustice we shall find that they may and have perpetrated them They have broke the equity of distributive Justice in preferring base and unworthy people and neglecting yea punishing vertuous men for Commutative Justice they have taken against Law and Equity other mens Estates they have neglected to pay their due debts and what can be more unjust then those they may therefore do unjustly nay what is more by how much their power is greater by so much they are enabled to do more injustice and I may add other mens injustice may prove theirs not only out of his vain principles because all Judges in his Dominion act by his Authority even in those Causes where they judge wickedly But because he is the Supreme and should take care for his inferiour Officers that they do their duties which if he knows they do not and yet neglect to correct them for amendment they will prove his wickedness We know the Judgment upon old Eli who was a vertuous and good man in himself and the Leviathan of that Nation then yet the Judgment of God was upon him for not using severe Justice to his Sons when he knew their faults as you may observe in 1 Sam. 2.27 So that it is apparent that they may do injustice more then others and indeed if he cannot be unjust neither can he be just for contraries are belonging to the same subject he who cannot be vicious cannot be vertuous and contrary acts in any man will by degrees eat out any vice or vertue nor can men call it vertue in any who cannot do ill But I think there is now enough said to this I will pass to his fifth Inference which is this CHAP. IX SECT I. Mr. Hobbs his fifth Inference The Proposition asserted The reason of this Inference weak and invalid FIfthly and consequently to that which was said last No man that hath Soveraign Power can justly be put to death or otherwise in any manner by his Subjects be punished This conclusion is most true because he is Supreme and to put to death or punish are acts only of Supremacy But his reason and the only means which he useth to obtain this excellent conclusion is so false that unless it should be confuted we may think so excellent a truth had a weak support his reason follows For seeing every Subject is Author of the actions of his Soveraign he punisheth another for the actions committed by himself I have oft spoke of this by this consequence a King cannot punish a wicked Judge a rebellious General and the like as I have often said before And if the Supreme should urge to these instances that this Judge or this General acted implicitly against the Authority granted by the Supreme the same answer may be returned to him from his Subjects when he doth that which is contrary to their good or peace so that although this conclusion is most necessary to the establishment of peace and happiness in any Kingdom yet when it is urged only by such fallacious Inferences it makes the Readers imagine that the greatest and most weighty things in Polity are dubious SECT II. He that hath right to the end hath not right to all the means to attain that end but only to such mediums as are just and legal HE infers presently upon the bottom of this conclusion And because the end of this Institution is the peace and defence of them all and whosoever has right to the end has right to the means it belongeth of right to him Whatsoever man or Assembly that hath the
Soveraign obliged to take care for the decision of Controversies and accomptable to God as for his own so also for his Officers neglect EIghthly saith he Is annexed to the Soveraign the Rights of Controversies which may arise concerning Law either Civil or Natural or concerning Fact for without the decision of Controversies there is no protection of one Subject from the injuries of another That is true which he speaks so that he understands by it not a natural immediate Agent but a moral political act by his Deputies and inferiour Officers as Judges and then it is not only a right which he may but a duty which he ought to do And I may go further then Mr. Hobbs here and say that he shall be responsible to the great King of Kings for not taking care that those his Officers do his duty of Justice in deciding causes Jethro Moses Father-in-law gave him good counsel not to take that burthen impossible for his shoulders to bear upon himself alone but divide it to others and keep weighty causes only to himself SECT II. Mr. Hobbs ninth Inference affirmed Soveraigns in ordinary emergencies to use ordinary means Salus Populi Suprema Lex NInthly c. saith he truly Reader I am tired with transcribing his words distinctly The drift of this ninth Inference is to say That the Soveraign hath right to the Militia of his Kingdom and so of all means to maintain his Army and he saith right without this all others are nothing The Subjects cannot be protected either from forreign or domestick injuries This is true but yet he hath right only to use right means for this I speak not of cases of necessity Salus Reipublicae est summae Lex but in the ordinary mannage of affairs he must reserve himself questionless to the ordinary ways SECT III. The choice of Councellors c. in the Soveraign Mr. Hobbs his reason of this Conclusion refuted FOr his tenth Inference which is his right of chusing Councellors Officers of his Army and the like I agree with him but not for his oft confuted reason because he hath right to the end he must have right to the means for he cannot have right to get his right ends by crooked means but because he is Supreme and is the Fountain of all Power in his Realm But yet there are in many Kingdomes great Offices belonging to Families as Generals Chamberlains and the like and those cannot justly be laid aside out of those places that they are born to and have by Inheritances without great and just cause of disinheriting be produced SECT IV. The eleventh Inference affirmed where there is no Law there is no transgression and consequently no punishment HIs eleventh is most true That to the Sâ—veraign is committed the power of punishing and rewarding according to Law or if there be no Law I fear to joyn with him here to punish where is no Law according as he shall judge meet to conduce to the deterring of men from doing disservice to the Commonwealth This I like not sin is the transgression of a Law where no Law no sin therefore no punishment His last Inference is after a long preamble That it belongs to the Soveraign Power to give Titles of Honour I agree with him in this clause but observe that his twelfth eleventh tenth ninth Inferences are all page 92. SECT V. Mr. Hobbs his Objection and Answer approved Kings more incommodated then Subjects from the burthen of their Crimes and their account to the King of Kings I Have thus briefly touched upon these particular Inferences which he calls the right of a Soveraign and having censured them any man may easily look through that which follows in that Cap. but in the latter end of that Cap. page 94. he seems to answer an Objection A man may here object that the condition of Subjects is very miserable as being obnoxious to the lusts or other irregular passions of him or them who have so unlimited a power in their hands and commonly they who live under a Monarch think it the fault of Monarchy c. not considering saith he that the estate of man can never be without some incommodity or other I think he speaks truth in almost all this whole Paragraph but as a Christian man who is assured there is a God a Heaven and Hell I may say that as all Subjects must whilst they are in this world have incommodities so Kings have many more their Crowns are made of Thorns and their Scepters too heavy almost for men to bear because they have a mighty accompt to make up to their King the King of Kings of the good or evil in their Government with which words I end this Cap. and come to his next which is Cap. 19. entituled thus Of the several kinds of Commonwealth by Institution and of Succession to the Soveraign Power CHAP. XIII SECT I. Mr. Hobbs his expression of Representative not proper and diminutive of Soveraignty Two Questions raised about the divisions of Commonwealths left to the judgment of others HE begins this Cap. with an Exposition of that ancient division of a Commonwealth into Monarchical Aristocratical and Democratical which he affirms to be the only forms by which any Commonwealth is governed and in the bottom of this 94 page he proves it thus For the Representative must needs be one man or more and if more then it is either the Assembly of all or but of a part When the Representative is one man then it is a Monarchy when an Assembly of all that will come together then it is a Democracy or popular Commonwealth when an Assembly of a part only then it is Aristocracy Other kinds of Commonwealths there can be none for either one or more or all must have the Soveraign Power which I have shewed to be indivisible I will not here contend against that word Representative which I have oft already spoke against and cannot be a fit word to express a Soveraign for it makes him to be but an Image or Creature of the people whose Supreme he is But for that division of a Common-wealth which he proposeth although it is so honoured by the universality of Writers in Politicks that it were not modesty in any particular man to deny it yet give me leave to put a Question I will not be peremptory in it Why since a Commonwealth is the whole Body Politick and consists in the whole Regiment from the King to the Cottager why there may not be thought of some division in respect of subordination as well as in respect of the Supreme But I will leave the answer to some younger head who may have leisure to examine it and raise another Question Since the division is made only out of the quantity or number which constitute a Supreme why may not some things be thought upon concerning the quality of it which may give a new and another illustration to that condition of a Supreme For although this
are in absolute liberty may if they please give Authority to one man to represent them every one as well c. The first observation which I make here is an unhappy practise which he useth in this place and often in this Book which is to suppose things hard to be found in practicks and by that fallacy to lay a foundation in the Air and then raise an imaginary structure upon it This supposal of his that men are in an absolute liberty is very rarely to be found for all men that are in the world as soon as they are born are Subjects unless we may conceive a man born King of that Country he is in I would fain find out such a possibility where such a number of men fit to make a Commonwealth may be at liberty and I have found out one where it hath been practised I mean that of the Roman Empire when it was broken and ruined many people for fear were driven away to shift for themselves or perhaps overseen or neglected by the Conquerors These men one or other being thus left to themselves their lawful Emperour and his Posterity to whom they should obey being destroyed or altogether unable to give them any support these men are left to shift for themselves A Government they must have or grow wild they conspire in that and then set up many Commonwealths in Italy and those adjacent parts But give me leave to tell Mr. Hobbs that he shall hardly find in any of them existing any pure element of Politie without commixion And I shall tell him more that these Commonwealths having no support but that weak foundation of the peoples Constitution were upon all occasions of tumults which were very often diverted from their first settlement and had new ways of Government establisht in their place I will tell him further that no Supreme in all these was ever called a Representative or a Leviathan And therefore Mr. Hobbs did much amiss to lay this as a foundation for all that light stuff which follows yea of his whole Book and of all Commonwealths which can only be founded upon such an extraordinary occasion neither then in such an absolute manner as he supposeth For never did any of these submit their Religion their Estates or Lives as he would injoyn but had them preserved by Laws SECT II. The Barbarous Murder of King Charles the First the direct issue of this Doctrine of Mr. Hobbs viz. That the Soveraign is but the Representative of the People THat which follows immediately about our Representative in the House of Commons I let pass until I come to the middle of that page and paragraph toward the latter end which he begins thus I know not how this so manifest a truth should of late be so little observed that in a Monarchy he that had the Soveraignty from a descent of 600 years was alone called Soveraign had the title of Majesty from every one of his Subjects and was unquestionably taken by them for their King I can add to him was acknowledged so by all the World was notwithstanding never considered as their Representative He saith he knows not how I will tell him because a King in no Language nor in any Country is taken for a Representative And further that all those injuries which are done to him for he means King Charles the First had their pretence from this horrid Doctrine of his that Kings had their power from the people And if he will that they made him their Representative and not liking his Representation they deposed him and would be represented by one more like themselves In the latter end of that paragraph he gives most dangerous counsel to him who had the present Government in his power to instruct him in the nature of that Office But God be praised the danger of that intendment is over and I let it pass In the following part of that Cap. he very excellently well discourseth of those three Elements of Government and most rationally gives the superiority to Monarchy Then he enters into a discourse of electing Kings and Temporary Powers as Dictators in Aristocracy and both Aristocracy and Democracy which I let pass as not so mischievous as other things And now I come to his 20. Cap. page 101. at the bottom which is thus entitled Of Dominion Paternal and Despotical CHAP. XV. SECT I. Mr. Hobbs his digression censured His first Proposition untrue His supposition of a General Assembly to consent to the Soveraignty of the Conqueror unpracticable A Commonwealth by accuisition is that where the Sâ—veraign Power is acquired by force as it is acquired by force when men singly or many together by plurality of voices for fear of death or bonds do authâ—rize all the actions of that man or Assembly that hath their lives and liberty in his power Now I am in the 102. page This is a strange digression from his Title What hath this acquisition to do with Dominions Paternal or Despotical but let it pass I will examine his definition It is not true that all acquisition of a Kingdom is by force sometimes it is got by craft and knavery we know how Absalom got the Kingdom There may be other instances but let that go acquisition by force is but one species of acquiring Kingdomes But then see what follows It is then acquired by force when men singly c. as before expressed I dare boldly say he can shew me no considerable Kingdom that either is or was so acquired I have confuted this in my former discourse concerning the Institution of a Common-wealth and those arguments will be of more force against this manner of acquiring Suppose an Enemy should conquer France or Spain do you think he could or would assemble all the Nation together to subscribe or any way express their intentions of this his most unjust request to own all his actions and make him their person it is beyond possibility to imagine any such thing Look upon David Alexander Pompey any of those Conquerors in the world did they ever act any such thing I am confident we read of none and yet they attained Kingdomes and got Dominions But let us proceed to the next Paragraph SECT II. Fear not the only motive to consent to obedience in the Institution of Commonwealths No obligation from fear when that fear is removed The fear of God the greatest security of obedience ANd this kind of Dominion or Soveraignty differeth from Soveraignty by Institution only in this that men who chuse their Soveraign do it for fear of one another and not of him whom they institute But in this case they subject themselves to him they are afraid of Mr. Hobbs doth attribute very much to fear however in the last case I think it not amiss A vanquisht Nation seldome subjects themselves to an Enemy but out of fear of the Conqueror But concerning the former the motive is as much the love of their own happy and quiet
him but if not he is Filius Populi unless the Woman produce the Father and the people must father it and provide for it But he will answer in the meer state of nature without Politick Sanctions there is no Marriage I reply there was never such a state but there were some forms by which men accepted their Wives into that union or if no Laws yet custom and constant usage grew into a Law and they were thus appropriated one to the other But suppose the Infant he speaks of were born without any such conjunction the Woman either lived in her Fathers house or was her self alone Mistress of a family If the first she and the Child were at the Fathers dispose if the second and the Father unknown he is hers only But he and I might have spared the troubling a Reader with this discourse in this question for the question was raised about man and wife in the same family who should govern the child not about such spurious Generations where the man and woman live in distinct families He urgeth further Again saith he seeing the Infant is first in the Mothers power so as she may either nourish or expose it if she nourish it it oweth its life to the Mother and is therefore obliged to obey her rather then any other and by consequence the dominion over it is hers Let us first examine this little Particle First that must be understood of the first instant of the childs birth because that gives him his first being in the world But then is not the same power in the Midwife who may either stifle the child or preserve it And then an equal share of duty from this reason will be owing to her as well as the Mother Then consider that phrase if she nourish it what is that give it suck But suppose she doth neither expose it nor give it suck by reason of some infirmity or weakness which she hath but put it out to Nurse shall the Nurse have any interest in the dominion over the child I but he may answer that this must be by the Mothers providence and then she is Author of that childs preservation No say I but the Father who must either direct or at the least willingly permit the Mother to do it for the Mother being under the Fathers dominion she cannot act any considerable matter either to her self or for her child without the Fathers leave SECT IX No Law impowring the woman to expose her child The Law of Nature favourable to Infants Power or ability cannot give the character of Justice to unjust actions The consequences of Mr. Hobbs his conclusions discovered and the contrary asserted The Mother gets no dominion over the Child by not exposing it NExt let us consider what power the Mother hath to expose her child Id potest quod jure potest she hath no power but by some Law which gives her that power I am confident he cannot find any National Law which gives the Woman authority to act any such thing or if he could what would it avail him because he disputes of such who are not imbodied into a Commonwealth much less can he pretend to the Law of Nature which dictates nothing more clearly then the Love of Parents to their children I but he will say she hath power that is she is able to do it If such a malicious disposition were discovered the Husband hath power to restrain it But suppose such a horrid wickedness may be in the Woman and a power yea an opportunity of acting it doth she gain dominion because she doth it not by that reason Wives may have dominion over their Husbands Children over their Parents Servants over their Masters Subjects over their Kings for all these have or may have power though no right to murder or slay the other which is very odious to the consideration of any man who thinks upon either Oeconomicks or Politicks nay there is none of those more abhorring to nature then the Mothers exposing her child I therefore conclude against that member of his distinction that although a Mother may be so impious as to expose her child yet because she hath no right to do it she gains no right of dominion by not doing it SECT X. Mr. Hobbs his deviation from the matter proposed Children exposed and nourished by others owe not filial duties to them that nourish them preservation not so great a benefit as being Romulus his respect to them that nourished him not filial duty but gratitude and kindness HE proceeds upon that supposal But if she expose it and another find and nourish it the dominion is in him that nourisheth it First good Reader consider with me what this is to his purpose The question raised was betwixt the Father and Mother of a Family who should have the dominion over their child now it is betwixt the Mother who brought a child into the world and a stranger who nourisheth it If the Wife have it as I have shewed the Husband hath it because he hath dominion over the Wife therefore of whatsoever likewise is subject to her dominion Now he produceth an instance where neither hath it Then saith he the dominion is in him that nourisheth it I shall answer it If there be such Monsters who for fear or for that Tyrant daughter of fear shame shall expose their child as sure there are without doubt they do as much as in them lies put off all their Parental interest and devest themselves of all filial duties belonging to them and it is as undoubted a truth that for that time which they are so nourished and relieved yea indeed all the daies of their life they owe and ought to pay great kindness and respect to such deliverers though not filial because the benefit is exceeding great which they have received from their Patrons but not so great as from their Fathers for the Parent gives him his very being the other but his preservation Now as the being of man or any thing is the fountain of all the good which can come to that man so must the gift of that exceed all other else his Physitian may be his Father his Cook or his Apothecary which conduce to his preservation But suppose he should be exposed not by his Parents but by any other means as Romulus although preserved and educated by Faustulus and Lupa and owed them a mighty kindness for that preservation yet this kindness when he came to be a man ceased to be filial duty towards them such as was due if proceeding from a Paternal dominion over him and rather became a great kindness and benignity towards them SECT XI Mr. Hobbs his reasons of the former assertions weighed and refuted Obedience where it crosses first due to the Parent The weaknese of Mr. Hobbs's inferences noted His conclusion censured Oecominical Laws must be submitted to National HE adds For it ought to obey him by whom it is preserved because preservation of
when it shall be observed that they who are conquered are gained to a liking of the customes and manners of their Conquerors and that mutually their good is beneficial one to the other then it is wisdom in a Conqueror to put them in a parity of condition but at the first subduing any Nation Regni novitas will enforce some severity though perhaps afterwards Tros Tyriusque mihi nullo discrimine agetur they are grown one and ought to be so governed I but saith he that were ignorance of government I say no but great wisdom to put a difference betwixt a forced obedience and that out of duty betwixt them who are of a known and others of a doubtful fidelity But he gives a reason for what he writes for saith he he is absolutely over both alike Let that be granted yet amongst his true and natural subjects he may justly and prudently dispence his favours and displeasures variously according to their differing merits and demerits or other prudential rules amongst which this is one not too far to trust a newly reconciled Enemy and much less an Enemy newly conquered SECT II. Servitude not equally absolute in a civil or setled Government as in despotical The right of servitude antiquated among Christians SEcondly that supposal may be denied that he is equally absolute over both he governs one despotically as servants or captives which are taken in the War and the other civilly and this is Aristotles distinction and received with applause by all latter Writers till we come to Mr. Hobbs the one are governed like slaves the other like subjects or else saith he there is no Soveraignty at all Away with such a hateful speech odious to all Nations No Soveraignty but arbitrary No subjection but slavish or servile Certainly no society of men can abide such language Look amongst Christian Kingdoms and we shall find servitude I think banished every where by the universal consent of all Nations who have received the Doctrine of Christianity Those we call servants indeed are free at least not such servants as he and I have discoursed of yet they are subjects to their Masters and they have dominion over them but not such as a Conqueror hath over a vanquished man nay Kings themselves nor can any other Supreme take away by right an innocent mans life and yet they are Soveraigns and have not absolute power over them SECT III. Mr. Hobbs his inconsequences further censured The absurdity and iniquity of his conclusion in this Paragraph which is yet shewed to be other where asserted by him I But saith he And every man may lawfully protect himself if he can with his own Sword which is the condition of war There was never man writ such disjoynted things How can this follow if a King cannot kill an honest man lawfully then he may protect himself lawfully with his own Sword as if it should be because a Supreme may do ill unlawfully therefore I may do ill lawfully But I am sure he hath said more then once That no mon can so divest himself of his own power and right to defend his own life and happy being in it as that he may not deliver himself if he can by killing or doing any thing to any man Against which Propositions I have already spoke heretofore and shewed how men may and have done it so that that wicked conclusion which for the absurdity of it he would have to discountenance the difference betwixt the Government of a conquered and an instituted Nation though not allowed by me is yet approved by him elsewhere which was a main fault in him SECT IV. This Paragraph reserved to its proper place Scripture honoured even by those who approve it not Master Hobbs his inconcludent deductions from the 20th of Exodus censured HE begins the next Paragraph By this it appears that a great family if it be not part of some Commonwealth is of its self as to the rights of Soveraignty a little Monarchy I will question nothing in this Paragraph at this time but let the Reader bear in mind that there is such a thing for which I shall call Mr. Hobbs to an account hereafter In the following Paragraph he labours to bring Scripture for what he hath taught It is an honour to Scripture that it is like Vertue commended even of those that will not follow it But it may be Mr. Hobbs objects it against us who do confide in it and not produceth it to satisfie himself that his Doctrine is consonant to Scripture I will examine this therefore for surely if the Scripture be for him I am also although to me it appears never so erroneous according to mine own reason He begins Let us now consider what the Scripture teacheth in the same point To Moses the Children of Israel say thus Exod. 20.19 Speak thou to us and we will hear thee but let not God speak to us least we die This is absolute obedience to Moses thus he A strange deduction out of this Text where is no one word of obedience much less of absolute obedience as to a Supreme But I will help what I can Deut. 5.27 there this self-same business being repeated it is added We will hear it and do it There obedience is mentioned implicitly To understand this therefore consider with me that the Children of Israel having the Law delivered to them by God in such a terrible manner in Mount Sinai with Thunder Lightning Trumpets and the like they were terrified and afraid to have such an immediate converse with God they thought it mortal it being never before seen in the world and therefore they entreated Moses to go betwixt God and them and receive Gods Will from him and deliver it them and they would obey Here is nothing of obedience to Moses but to God only they trusted that Moses would relate Gods Laws to them truly which indeed they had great reason to do If the rest be like this I shall have little trouble with it SECT V. The first of Sam. the 8.11 12. explained The difference between the right of the King and the right of a King Kings of several Kingdoms may have several rights in the same Country Divers Kings may have different rights as the same Kings may also at several times The genuine signification of these words cited by Mr. Hobbs FOr the right of Kings saith God himself by the mouth of Samuel 1 Sam. 8.11 12. This shall be the right of the King you will have to raign over you I stop here because I have some things to examine in this particle before I go further First then consider that it is not said this shall be the right of a King that would have made it Jus Regale and being indeffinite would have constituted it to belong to every King but it shall be the right of your King Many things may be the rights of one Countries King which are not of another yea many things may belong to
giveth it they have right to such pieces and none else He is King of Kings with a much greater Prerogative then they can have over their Subjects They can have no power therefore or right to act any thing which is not a power delegated from him and certainly he can never shew me any power given to Kings by God to shed innocent blood Secondly it is a strange phrase used by him and bound thereby to observe the Laws of Nature First because the Law of Nature in particulars is to preserve not to take away life in general and concerning Commonwealths to reward Virtue and punish Vice when this wicked book would have it the Law of Nature to kill an Innocent yea a virtuous person Secondly consider that being bound because he is Gods Subject to the Law of Nature and only that he should not be bound to Gods positive Laws in Scripture a distinction which he himself makes use of and therefore may more powerfully be retorted to him but he loves not Scripture and this odious expression of his is most abominable SECT II. Mr. Hobbs his Proposition in this Paragraph examined and censured His dubious expressions discovered from his former Assertions and refuted Scripture seldom cited by Mr. Hobbs but to give a colour and Authority to Impiety Jephta's rash Vow examined The execution of that Vow impious Jephta's Sacrifice no President for others HE goes on And therefore it may and doth often happen in Commonwealths that a Subject mâ—y be put to death by the Command of the Soveraign Power and yet neither â—o the other wrong There is one shift in this Proposition by which it may be justified as thus That a Soveraign may punish a Delinquent who formally did him no wrong or an inconsiderable one that is to the Prince himself but for an injury to another of his Fellow Subjects as for robbing or burning his Neighbours house But as it seems by that argumentative word therefore which must relate to the precedent matter he may do it when the murthered Party hath done no wrong to any body and then it is wickedly false he gives instances two or three We will examine them next As saith he when Jeptha caused his daughter to be sacrificed in which and the like cases he that so dyeth had liberty to do the action for which he is nevertheless put to death without injury I could wish he would let Scripture alone for he loving it not with a due reverence seldom names it but to countenance some wickedness as here This story is recorded Judges the 11. And Mr. Hobbs I am perswaded did know how it is with sharpness disputed by Divines whether he sacrificed her or made a Votary of her I will embroile my self in no unnecessary controversies but will grant all he requires in that dispute that he did sacrifice her what follows then that he did it justly certainly no the actions of bad Kings yea the bad actions of good Princes cannot be justifiable precedents for following ages The world and the particular men in it are compounded of good and evil there is not any man so bad as hath no good but that he may be worse nor any man so good but he may be better he hath some ill actions falling from him That is it which I speak of this very gallant person Jephta he might have such an ill action out of a foolish mistaken Zeal that that rash vow of his was to be kept it was a foolish and a rash vow for for my part I cannot guesse what he could imagine what he could conceive should come out of his doors which should be fit for a sacrifice to God Domestick creatures as dogs servants or children are all of them hated by God for sacrifices Calves Rams Cows Goats c. which are the proper things for sacrifices are not domestick inhabitants but to shed innocent blood in offering his daughter for a sacrifice was without doubt most impious and this is reckoned by David in Psalm 106. verse 38. amongst the abominations of the Israelites that they shed blood in their offering up their Sons and Daughters to Divels I but it may be objected that he had vowed it to God A vow made to do evil is ipso facto void God never confirmed it he ought not to keep it but to repent for making it this was to shed innocent blood which was a sacrifice fit for none but the Divel from whom the instigation to it proceeded so that if Jephta did kill her for a sacrifice he did wickedly There is a certain humour in many men who will be peremptory in some point of religion that they may seem godly who value not much the reality of it they will keep a rash or which amounts to the same a not well advised oath although to sin when they will neglect obedience to do righteously this was evident in King Saul you may find 1 Sam. 14.24 Saul curseth any man who should eat any food until eventide here was a most rash curse and the 27. verse Johnathan who knew nothing of this curse of his Fathers eats a little honey in the 44. verse Saul swears again that he shall surely dye what a horrid injustice had this been in Saul to slay that gallant person a man of so much honour and worth for the satisfaction of his rash oath You shall find in the next Chap. that Samuel gave Saul a commandment from God to do execution upon Amalek and then he can in the 9. verse spare Agag and the best of their cattle see the same humour in both that which God had prohibited murther even upon his own son he would have committed although against Gods law because it was agreeing with that religion which he had instituted for God to wit his oath but then upon the same reason he spared Agag when God commanded his destruction because it suited better with his phancie that they should make a glorious sacrifice to God of what they had taken and therefore in the 22. v. Sam. gives him this heavy reproof Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord behold to obey is better than sacrifice When God hath given laws for mens actions it is a disobedience to invent witty ways of our own which cross them to spare what God would have us destroy and destroy that which God would have us save This was the humour of Sauls religion I dare not censure Jephta he was a person of as spotless integrity as any I find amongst the Judges unless Samuel but if he did kill his daughter I may justly say it was a most unjust act and a satisfaction of his fancy in religion which imagined what he had sworn in re illicita must be performed although against Gods law which forbids killing which in sacrifice required no such thing but not a religious act nor can this be a precedent for others nor a justification of
others in doing the like although a better man than he be joyned with him which is David and so I come to his second instance CHAP. XX. SECT III. The murther of Uriah discussed Mr Hobbs his distinction censured Killing of an innocent contrary not only to the equitable part but the very letter of the law of nature The law not the executioner kills a Criminal No power given by Uriah to David to kill him being an innocent Mr. Hobbs his errors multiplied from his fictitious institution of Soveraignes by popular election Uriah not impowered to dispose of his own life HIs words are In which and the like cases he that so dyeth had liberty to do the action for which he is nevertheless without injury put to death I have shewed the contrary it is an injury to put any man to death for that which he had liberty that is was not bound by law not to do and such a law which enjoyned such a penalty for the breach of it Again he And the same holdeth also in a Soveraign Prince that putteth to death an innocent Subject What a Tautologie is this I thought he had discoursed of a Soveraign Prince all this while if not it is more abominable I but he hath reason for what he hath delivered for sath he Though the action be against the law of nature as being contrary to equitie as was the killing of Uriah by David yet it was not an injury to Uriah but to God A very fine and delicate distinction of which I have spoke before But now concerning this language as it is used here though the action saith he be against the law of nature as being contrary to equitie First Reader consider if he take equity as many times it is for a mitigation or a gentle exposition which moderates the extream rigor of the law this surely may be deduced out of the law of nature then saith he it is against the law of nature because against the kind and charitable exposition of the law of nature only but without question killing an innocent is most directly contrary to the very letter of the law of nature and the full sence of it for although he makes nothing of the positive law of God in this discourse yet the ten commandments being by all understood to be an illustration or explication of that law writ in our hearts as he himself seems to allow hereafter therefore that law being clear Thou shalt not kill and this killing an innocent being the most detestable of all other it is most clearly not only against the equity but the letter that is that sence which the law intends for the law of nature directs and commands that vertue and vertuous men should be rewarded and incouraged and vice punished Thou shalt not kill for the satisfaction of thy passion whom the law doth not direct but if the law command killing lest the Common-wealth be hurt by so wicked a person lest vice may be nourished then the law kills not thou who art an executioner of the law And therefore to kill an innocent is a monstrous crime whom no law kills he gives an instance again as was the killing of Uriah by David yet it was not an injury to Uriah but to God yes the greatest injury could be done to him No saith he not to Uriah because the right to do what he pleased was given him by Uriah himself Shew that concession or gift from Vriah and it will go a great way to my satisfaction nay certainly there was never such a concession from Uriah or any Subject that the King shall kill him being an innocent It is not good for the Common-wealth that any have such a power because by such a wicked act the Commonwealth loseth a worthy member as was Vriah but that abominable false foundation of the only way of instituting a Common-wealth by the popular election that impossible error leads him into many more but suppose Vriah yielded such a power yea if it had been done by such a consent as he expressed yet they had no power over their own lives and therefore could not impower him over them especially when embodied into a Common-wealth for his country hath a share in every Subjects life and good subjects well-being by which it is amended and bettered so that he must needs do an injury to others by such an act for it is wrong and again all justice that man should suffer by weldoing This may suffice for the first piece of that sentence now we will examine the second CHAP. XX. SECT IV. Davids sin in murthering Uriah a sin against God because an injury to man St. Ambrose explained David his soveraignty freed from the punishment of sin but not from the guilt of it Rom. 13.4 the first epistle of St. Peter 2.14 explained The former assertions proved against Mr. Hobbs by the authority of St. Basil St. Chrysostome St. Hierom and St. Augustin The authors sence of these words tibi soli peccavi Mr. Hobbs his variation from the authority and reading of England The former conclusions recapitulated and asserted against Mr. Hobbs from the meaning of this text A And yet to God because David was Gods Subject and prohibited all iniquity by the law of nature Well now let us consider why this was iniquity for no other reason certainly but because it was injustice done to another man The law of nature prescribes all and nothing but in justice if it be towards God it is called religion which payes to God the duty which we owe him and is set down in the four first commandements of the Decalogue but all the justice which is due to man is set down in the six latter I must then tell him that that act of Murther in David was not a sin against God but only out of regard that it was an injury to man for therefore the law of nature written in mens hearts and the positive law of God was against it because it was unjust for man to do it so that the reason why it was an offence against God being only because it was an injury to man it must follow that it cannot be an injury to God but it must likewise be an injury to man I but saith he it was against God because King David was Gods subject Yet give me leave although King David was Gods subject yet it doth not follow that in murthering his fellow subjects he did no injury to them no more than the Kings subjects officers or Judges under him may be said in condemning innocent blood to injure only the King and not the person whom he so murthered it is most evident therefore that that sin was against both God and man But he brings scripture for what he writes which distinction David himself when he repented the fact evidently confirmed saying To thee only have I sinned Which text you may read Psalm 51.4 and to understand the sence of it let us reflect upon the story
any thing in the world And therefore faith and the means of getting faith which is most ordinately by hearing and no doubt but reading likewise which are the means by which men may be acquainted with the will of God so likewise hearing comes by those accidents as he speaks rightly which guide us into the presence of them that speak to us What can be deduced out of this but that a man using such means as hearing and such accidents as bring him into that presence God blesseth them and pours into them those graces which enable them with faith and sanctification I but saith he which accidents are all contrived by God Almighty and yet are not supernatural but only for the great number of them that concurr to every effect unobservable All this is nothing to the purpose that is to prove that faith and sanctity are not infused for whether God contrives those means or man which beget faith or whether those means which bring us to hearing be natural or supernatural yet God blesseth them our eyes are natural which see it our ears are natural which hear those things which bring us to faith and sanctity yea our understanding is natural which apprehends them but God blesseth both the one and the other as his holy will hath appointed with supernatural graces He goes on Faith and Sanctity are indeed not very frequent Let that be granted but yet they are not Miracles And that is true likewise for Miracles as they are supernatural so they are things beyond the ordinate and set way of Gods working which these holy operations of his are not but most congruous to his set and prescribed way of acting them upon such productions according to his Covenants He proceeds but are brought to pass by education discipline correction and other natural wayes by which God worketh them in his elect at such time as he thinketh fit It is true and yet these are wayes of Gods prescribing and which he blesseth therefore he adds And these three Opinions pernicious to Peace and Government have in this part of the World proceeded chiefly from the Tongues and Pens of unlearned divines who joyning the words of holy Scripture together otherwise than is agreeable to reason do what they can to make men think that sanctity and natural reason cannot stand together Give me leave Reader to retort this discourse to his Person who not long since in the 26 Chap. page 149. maketh faith not a duty but a gift of God and saith it is barely an operation of God's as likewise internal sanctity And there put me to the trouble of proving mans concurrence in these acts and I may assuredly affirm that he is there exceeding guilty of what he chargeth ignorant Divines with here viz. incongruous putting places of Scripture together and as much as in him lies to make men believe that sanctity and natural reason cannot stand together for if faith be only a gift and no act in the receiver or use of it insomuch as no command can be given concerning that or sanctity as he speaks there certainly natural reason hath nothing to do with it and as there I was forced to prove the concurrence of man in these Heavenly duties so here to justifie his former doctrine I must prove the co-operation of God which he seems to deny Let the Reader put that with this and he shall find the affirmative part true and the negative false in both CHAP. XXIII SECT VII Soveraigns obliged by the positive Laws of God The Laws of Nations The Law Natural The Royal Laws or Laws of government obligatory to the soveraign The soveraign free from penal Laws A Fourth opinion repugnant to the Nature of a Common-wealth is this That he that hath the soveraign power is subject to the Civil Laws Truly I conceive by this Gentleman that he imagines Soveraigns to be strange things which must be subject to none but the Law of Nature for so he expounds it presently not to the positive Law of God which having by him no assurance that it is such but from the supreme he can no further be obliged by it than he pleaseth And so that Devilish speech of that wicked woman to her imperial Son would be made good Quod libet licet But this term Subject troubles me to find out what he means thereby if he mean not to be guided by it or else he offends without all doubt he ought to be ruled by the positive Law of God and not only by the Natural Law he ought to be ruled that is guided by his own Civil Laws which he hath made or given life unto For how can he expect an observance from others who will not keep his Laws himself But if he means by Subject subject to penalty that cannot be I am confident in a well contrived Common-wealth because all penalty for breach intimates an inferiority and as he rightly speaks aftewards He who punisheth either bodily or with shame or with whatsoever is in that act superior to him who is punished But his dispute is out of his own principles which have been twenty times confuted that is He that is subject to the Law is subject to the Common-wealth that is to the Soveraign representative that is to himself This is a weak argument because he is not the representative of the Common-wealth but the head and rules it One word more there may be Laws in a Common-wealth for Kings and for Subjects he must be guided by these which are the Royal Laws the Laws of governing although not by these which are inferiour and Laws for Subjects he must be allowed those prerogatives which are not fit for Subjects to have But yet he ought to observe the rules of governing This I conceive is enough for what he hath delivered in that Paragraph He begins another thus CHAP. XXIII SECT VIII Propriety derived from the soveraign of soveraigns The quiet enjoyment of Estates The reason according to Mr. Hobbs of the imbodying of men The propriety of the Subjects The foundation of the publick interest It excludes not the prerogative of the soveraign The title of the King of England in many cases decided by the Judges Mr. Hobbs his indulgence to the late usurped power observed A Fifth doctrine which tendeth to the dissolution of a Common-wealth is that every private man has an absolute propriety in his goods such as excludeth the right of the soveraign I do not know what he means by this term absolute Certainly both private and publick men have their rights depending upon the Soveraign of Soveraigns and all they have is at his dispose But otherwayes certainly it tends to the dissolution of a Common-wealth to deny an absolute propriety in private men and to affirm that in no Common-wealth a Subject can have such propriety for it being the reason according to his own Philosophy why they imbodied themselves into a Common-wealth that so they might enjoy the fruits of their labours
to a supposititious disease The learning of the Grecians and Romanes again vindicated Mr. Hobbs his opinion of the necessity of forbidding the use of the Greek and Roman Authors no where to be found but in Julian the Apostate IN summe I cannot imagine how any thing can be more prejudicial to a Monarchy than the allowing of such Books to be publickly read without presently applying such corrctives of discreet Masters as are fit to take away their venome Here he sets down a monstrous disease and applyes an impossible salve that is that our Grammar Schools where these books are taught should be supplyed throughout this large kingdome with men of Mr. Hobbs his sufficiency for I think none else would serve his turn none else having discovered this fault in these books and yet in all the World who are delighted with learning these books are taught in the initiation of scholars both Christian and others Only I remember Julian the Apostate made a Law by which he thought to have gotten as much ground upon Christianity as by any that he ever made which was that no Christian should read any humanity-books nor have them read to them Mr. Hobbs should have been his Chaplain What follows in that Paragraph is nothing but a comparing this disease in a common-wealth with the biting of a mad Dog in an humane body which I willingly enough assent unto and so let it pass and move to the next Pargraph which begins thus CHAP. XXIII SECT XIII This Paragraph of Mr. Hobbs when the powers are made contra-distinct and opposite to one another affirmed from the Primitive practices The decrees of the antient Councils not passed into Laws till they were confirmed by the Emperour The Authors reason of this truth superadded AS there have been Doctors that hold there be three Souls in a man so there be also that think there be more Souls that is more soveraigns than one in a Common-wealth and set up a supremacy against the soveraignty Canons against Laws and a Ghostly Authority against the Civil Certainly this word against makes this faulty and therefore we shall find that in the primitive times decrees of Councils themselves grew not into laws but by the confirmation of Emperours But the consideration of this Paragraph I leave to the Doctors in the Church of Rome whom it principally concerns but not us whose Ecclesiastick Laws are confirmed by the Civil and therefore need not this dispute And yet I can add one clause to confirm his conclusion stronger I think than any he produced which is that dominion is over persons not parts he who hath dominion over the Soul hath dominion over the body which is governed by the Soul and he who hath dominion over the body hath likewise dominion over the Soul without which it cannot act any obedience or disobedience And so I let this alone for the present and come to the next disease which is page 172. CHAP. XXIII SECT XIV Mr. Hobbs his reflection upon the Government of England observed and censured his parallel from the diversity of Souls not enforcing The comparison of leavyes of money not rightly applyed to the nutritive faculty The power of conduct not well resembled to the Motive faculty in the soul IN the midst of that page this disease begins thus Sometimes also in the meer Civil Government there be more than one Soul as when the power of leavying money which is the Nutritive faculty has depended upon a general assembly the power of conduct and command which is the motive faculty on one man and the power of making laws which is the rational faculty on the accidental consent not only of those two but also of a third There he turns his spleen against our Government in England without nameing it but clearly intimating that state and condition which is fundamental to the constitution of our Kingdome I cannot imagine why unless he had a mind to provoke the then present Usurper to be most tyrannical in his Government For certainly this Government as established in Magna Charta at the first was setled with so grave and weighty consideration and such a serious manner of confirmation as never any but the Law of God delivered on Mount Sinai with thunder and such astonishments and in it self so prudent that nothing can reasonably more conduce to the perpetuity of a kingdome But let us see what he saith there is saith he more than one Soul I think it would trouble his Philosophy to answer these Arguments which are brought by those Philosophers who assert there are more in every man as also to prove the contrary But I let that alone there is no enforcing that from this establishment for all these several operations which he speaks of do arise from the same Soul so that the lowest even the giving of money to our King is by his Authority and that power is ensouled as I may speak by him But as he is the Soul by which his subjects are enabled to leavy such mony for his necessity and the necessities of the kingdome so they are the body which must act by this power he enables them for without his assent they cannot leavy that money from any but their own particular purses this he compares to the Nutritive faculty and indeed not amiss for as that faculty is dispersed throughout the whole man and each part of him which doth receive nourishment so these are dispersed throughout the whole kingdome and indeed they in particular and the whole kingdome in general receives nutriment in being protected in prosperity and safety which the Monarch is enabled to do by these supplies But yet he is mistaken in the application when he calls this an act of the nutritive faculty viz. to leavy money that is afterwards an act of the King who makes use of that assistance to that purpose this in the first act of bare leavying mony looks like an act of exhausting or consumption rather than nutrition But as wise nature disposed those contributions which the singular parts sometimes afford the fainting stomach by a return to their advantage afterwards so doth the wisdome of a King make those payrings from the other parts produce their greater happiness and plenty but still observe this is not as if there were many but one Soul All is acted by the supreme power which enables the other to perform what he doth From hence he passeth to the King The power of conduct and command is which is the motive faculty on one man Why he should call this the motive faculty I do not perceive since that is Philosophically seated in the sensitive or animal part but the power of conduct or command must certainly be in the supreme and rational part for where that is it commands and governs the sensitive so that they move or acquiesce according to its conduct But I would he had set down what he means by this faculty and how far he meant it there would then
have been something to be understood There is no doubt but the King hath the power of conducting even in those things he named before and in those which follow none of which can be aâ—â—ed without him and therefore ought to have a higher faculty allowed him than that of Motion CHAP. XXIII SECT XV. Mr. Hobbs his reflection upon the House of Lords and Commons in Parliament His supposed danger for want of the consent of one or either of these refuted All humane constitutions subject to error Government rightly so stiled though without power to take away the lives or estates of Subjects The several Estates in Parliament termed factious by Mr. Hobbs No government absolutely and practically pure according to the definition of Politicians but denominated from the predominant part The soveraign not the representative of the Common-wealth no more than the head is of a man His instance of the Vnity in the holy Trinity impertinent Vnity in subordination ANd the power of making Laws which is the rational faculty on the accidentall consent not only of those two but also of a third By the third he means the house of Lords and here be understands that these three maâ—e the rational part which without doubt was necessarily required to the act of conduct as before but he attributes nothing in particular to the Lords let them vindicate themselves and the House of Commons themselves I shall only meddle with the inconveniences which arise out of this policie which he begins immediately to fall upon this endangereth the Common-wealth sometimes for want of consent to good Laws This danger I never found but many times the stop of evil Laws which have been projected by private men or perhaps might pass one house faults which have been observed by one which were not taken notice of by the other A multitude of Councellors gives safety to laws a weaker understanding many times sees that which a greater overlooked that which appears lovely to some may be known to be faulty by others But certainly these two houses being compounded of men of all conditions who must needs be acquainted with all the unhappinesses in the Government cannot but be thought most fit to have the examing and passing Laws for the Government He goes on but often for want of such nourishment as is most necessary to life and motion I doubt this can hardly be made out where the necessity of such contributions shall be made appear but at such times when his rebellious principles have been infused for without doubt where such necessities are the necessities of the Kingdome and the King lacks the supplies proper to such motions as war defensive and offensive the very state and condition of every man is endangered and his doctrine of self-preservation will compel men to it although they cast one eye upon the publick But such things he will say have been done it is true that the niggardliness of the People to such expences have brought the kingdome to destruction I can call it no less the same may be said of some Kings whose too much frugality has made them lack both men and hearts to serve their occasions There is nothing humane that is not subject to error and a possibility of being mistaken But certainly this as little as any because this assembly as he calls them are men selected for their estates and prudence and because they are prudent it is likely they are able and because of their estates it is reasonable to think that they should be willing to give their best assistance to the publick good He goes on for although few perceive that such government is not government but division of the Common-wealth into three factions and call it mixt Monarchie Indeed I think that never man did conceive that this Government is not Government Mr. Hobbs doth govern his servants yet his government is limited with many more bounds than this is and yet that is a government he cannot take their cloaths from them or their Estates much less their lives or limbs yet he is their Governour And though he saith only a few did perceive yet I think until he wrote this none did ever perceive three factions factions do oppose one another they are not joyned neither do they co-operate in the same effect as these do in all things which are done by them And in this business it seems not to be a co-operation of equal shares in the work but like an universal cause working with particular causes The Sun with the same light shines upon a Rose a Violet and a Primrose Yet with these particular specifical causes produceth those various effects with those several subordinate powers to his but they were not instituted for factions nor are such but subordinate to him and to concurr with him in the legal settlement of that is good for the publick it was therefore very ill phrased of him to call the factions a mixt Monarchie For my part I am of the Opinion which I have expressed before that there is no Government in the World so pure that it hath no mixture in it either Monarchy Aristocracy or Democracy but the denomination in all these is from the predominant part yet saith he the truth is that it is not one Independent Common-wealth but three Independent factions Again factions this needs not unless he can infuse factions which I hope he shall never be able to do either with this book or any other and saith he not one representative Person but three The vanity of this language I have heretofore spoken to In a Monarchie the Monarch cannot be called the representative Person of the Common-wealth no more than the head can be termed the representative of man he is the head of this body politick and governs it but not represents it He is so fond of that conceipt as indeed it is the foundation of his whole politie that the error mixeth it self in almost every page But let us go on with him In the kingdome of God there may be three Persons Independent without breach of unity in God that reigneth Yes by him there may be twenty a hundred or a thousand and indeed are so many for as he makes a Person to be a man who represents another as Moses did God of which I have treated at large in my former part against him certainly there was a thousand such which represented him in his Kingdome in this World and therefore this instance is nothing to the purpose especially concerning the representation here treated of Yes saith he this is without breach of unity in God who reigneth There can be no doubt of it for though God be represented by a thousand several men his unity is the same And I may say of a King though he be represented in divers Provinces by divers Vice-royes yet he is the same King and the only King But where men reign that are subject to diversity of opinions saith he it cannot be so What
opposeth what I have delivered in my 34 Cap. against his sixteenth which I find much alter'd in his Latine Edition and if the Reader will trouble himself so much as to peruse that Treatise of mine he will find that Mr. Hobs hath added nothing here that was not in the former nor answered any thing of my discourse which I doubt not to affirm doth much more clearly explain the nature of a person then any thing he hath put down for it and I will pass the rest of this Cap. as not opposing my former censures of him so likewise his second Cap. of Heresie which was only writ to excuse himself from Heresie which I never charg'd him with as I remember and do here so far acquit him that I think he never can be judged for one amongst us nor ever will be for by him a man may deny any Truths if Leviathan exact it yea he must be of Leviathans Religion and then he can never be judged an Heretick because Leviathan must be supream judge but withal I think he doth deliver Heretical Doctrine and that that very conclusion is one according to the Laws established in our Nation And I will pass to his third Cap. which is Intitled of certain objections against Leviathan and is entered upon Page 359. CAP. I. His Exordium Censur'd HE begins this third Cap. which concerns the objections against Leviathan with the story of these last unhappy times where he raiseth the cause of the War only from the difference between the Episcopal men and Presbyterian I will not undertake to rake up that Kennel although perhaps I might be able to speak something pertinent but this I dare affirm that although the Rebellious party had an animosity against the Episcopal as they had against all Authority until they had made themselves sole Governors yet their cheif aime was to pluck down the Regals and in order to that it was necessary first to take down Episcopy which was a support of it and indeed you shall find that almost all Treasons do pretend Religion that under the cloak of holyness they may cover such horrid impieties as must be acted by such parties It is in vain toe give instances which are much too frequent but then as he well observes P. 359. towards the bottom when the Episcopacy was plucked down Nulla amplius potestas nemansit inter Anglos There was no power left among the English of discerning Heresy but all Sects appeared in writing and publishing what divinity every one would I believe him and the mischeife of the indulgence is yet sensible amongst us well upon that opportunity saith he Page 360. the Author liveing at Paris used that Liberty in writeing But oh how much more honourable had it been for him to have writ against it and to have foreseen those unhappy events which might have been easily discerned without the help of his Mathematicks but I go on jura quidem Regalia saith he the rights of Kings he hath egregiously defended both in temporal and and spiritual matters here I must pause and in a little put down somethings more Largly delivered in the preceeding Treatise he hath supervindicated the Kingly authority in spirituall things for he hath made him above God himself so that if God himself command one thing in his word and the King command another we must obey the King he hath done as much in temporal things for although God by his infinite power confirms the Laws of men concerning meum tuum in appropriation of their temporal estates yet he gives Ahab leave rightly to take Naboths vineyard Nay I speak it freely as he hath exalted it in some things too high so in some conditions he hath made it nothing in regard that he hath made every man King of the whole world by nature which natur cannot be put off whilst he is a man and therefore whatsoever any man either by fraud or force can get from him is but a just acquiring that which was his natural right consider then whether this be egregiè vindicare jura Regalia egregiously to vindicate the Regal rights but saith A for all this is spoke by the Objector whilst he endeavoured to prove this out of Scripture he lapsed into unheard Opinions which by most Divines are accused of Heresie and Atheisme certainly the Objector spoke truely and B puts him to the proof what are those opinions saith he and so now I will apply my self to such things as reflect upon my former Treatise omitting such other unhandsome expressions which if I live I am likely in a fuller way to treat of CAP. II. In which is censured his Definition of Religion THat which immediately follows his making God a Body which is abominable but I will not speak of it here but page 361. towards the bottome he enters upon a third Objection which I have censur'd in my former Treatise Cap. 13. Sect. 4. which is thus framed by A the Objector Timor inquit invisibilium potentiarum the fear of invisible powers whether those powers be feigned by the man who fears or conceived from Fables publickly permitted is Religion but from them which are not publickly permitted Superstition quando vero when the powers which are feared are true it is true Religion Thus far the Objection and first I commend his Latine Edition better then the English for in his Latine Edition he changed this word Fables which is used amongst us for a vain or foolish relation and put in Hystories which hath a more graceful acceptance so that the sense is that Religion is drawn from Histories publickly permitted which is a milder expression although the best will be bad enough as you shall see presently That fear and reverential fear of these invisible powers is an Act of Religion I think no wise man will deny but that Religion should be shallowed up with fear and should be nothing else as he seems to require is too much for therefore in that 6 Cap. where these words are as that Cap. consists of nothing but definitions and these definitions pointed at in the Margent he puts in the Margent against this Religion so that this was his definition of Religion of which it is but one single Act there being many more of a higher nature proceeding out of it for Religion being as I defined it and as it is generally used that part of Justice by which we give God that Honour and Worship is due to him certainly faith in what he speaks trust and hope in what he promiseth Love of those excellencies which we discern in him are much more requisite and due to God then any fear but a Reverential fear which flowes out of those other fear opposeth trust and faith and love and consider again he divides Religion only according to the divers application of this fear to the object so that one way it is Religion another Superstition if conceived of Histories permitted Religion if otherwise Superstition when the
18. sect 7. 92. Prayers and Tears the Christians remedy cap. 16. sect 7. 72. Preaching the Kings power about it cap. 10. sect 2. 32. Preservation what it is cap. 16. sect 11. 77. Generation more excellent then it cap. 16. sect 11. 78. Prince v. King supreme Soveraign may erre cap. 4. sect 2. 10. Printing The Kings power about it cap. 10. sect 2. 32. Promises in unlawful things oblige not cap 15. sect 3. 4. 60. 61. Whether upon fear oblige cap. 15. sect 4. 61 Prophecy different from faith cap. 23. sect 6. 29. Propriety what it is cap. 11. sect 3. 43. How introduced cap. 11. sect 2. 40. Not necessary to Peace cap. 11. sect 3. 42. It may be boâ—h in Peace and â—ar ibid. Not depending upon the Soveraign Power cap. 11. sect 3. 4 43 Men in war have not a propriety to their Enemies Country before it be Conquer'd cap 10. sect 2. 32. Whence the propriety of the Soveraign cap 11. sect 4. 43. Whether this conduce to publick peace cap. 23. sect 8. 9. 17. 214. Protection of the Soveraign doth not give propriety cap. 23. sect 9. 216. R Reason sometimes disobeyed cap. 19. sect 6. 115. Rebellion no small injustice cap 5 sect 2 13. Rebells allways pretend oppression cap. 16. sect 7. 72. Religion Princes power in matters of Religion cap. 10. sect 1 30. The assurance of Christian Religion cap. 22. sect 1. 2. 3. 151. 88. from the manner of Deliverance cap. 22. sect 2. 152. The Doctrines delivered cap. 22. sect 3. 154. The different Style cap. 22. sect 4. 155. The Punishment and Rewards proposed ibid. The sanctity of the persons who delivered it cap. 22. sect 5. 6. 156. The sufferings of the Saints cap. 22. sect 7. 159. Revelations The assurance of them cap. 22. sect 1. 148. What things not to be known but by revelation cap 22. sect 1. 2. 3. 148. 88. Right Not derived from the consent of the people cap. 4. sect 3. 11. He who hath right to the End how to the means cap. 9. sect 2. 29. Romulus preserved by Faustulus cap. 16. sect 10. 76. S Sacrifice obedience better then it cap. 20. sect 2. 129. Samuel rejected cap. 18. sect 5 c 8. Sanctity inspired and acquired cap 23. sect 6. 209. Sanhedrim ceased cap. 18. sect 12. 101. Saul chosen cap. 18. sect c. 88 Spareth Agag cap. 20. sect 2. 230. Scribes and Pharisees not the supreme magistrates cap 18. sect 2. 85. Scripture its Authority not depending upon the Soveraign cap. 22. sect 17. 18. 181. 185. See What the word signifies cap. 19. sect 10. 119. Servants when one is a Servant cap. 17. sect 2. 82. their condition that differing in peace from what they suffer in War according to Mr Hobs cap. 18. sect 8. 93. Servitude banished from â—mongst Christians cap 18 s 2 82. Sin None necessitated to it cap. 19. sect 1. 2. 107 108. Small numbers joyned together may live peaceably cap. 1. p. 1. Sodom Its destructiâ—n cap. 8. sect 4. 26. Soveraign v. King supreme He is not the person of the People cap. 2 sect 2. cap. 5 sect 1. 2. p. 3. 12. 13. He may doe unjustly cap. 8. sect 4. 26. His power about deciding Controversies cap. 12. sect 1. 44. Hath right to the Malitia cap. 12. sect 2. 45. To chose Counsellors and Officers ibid. Yet not always Officers ibid. Hath power to Punish and Reward and confer Honours cap. 12. sect 4. 46. Not the representative of the people cap. 13. sect 1 cap. 14. sect 1. 2. cap. 23. sect 15. 16. 47. 56. 57 227. 230. Obliged by their own Promises cap 13. sect 3. 50. Why they are Chosen cap. 15. sect 2. 59 His Rights in an instituted and acquired dominion not the same c. 15. s 5. c. 16. s 12. c. 17. s 1. 62. 79. 81. No such soveraignty by institution as Mr. Hobs phancies cap. 18. sect 1 8. 4. Whether the Soveraignty be equally absolute in an instituted and acquired Dominion cap 17. sect 2.82 Not lawful to resist them when they command against ones own interest cap. 20. sect 7. 1 3. Their commands may be opposed when contrary to the Christian faith cap. 22. sect 17. 181. He cannot make Law whatsoever is against the Law of Nature cap. 22. sect 18. 185. How he is subject to Laws Divine c. 23. s 7. 212. How Subject to the Civil Laws ibid. The partition of soveraignty not destructive to it cap. 23. sect 9. 216 Only one Soveraign in England cap. 23. sect 16. 230 Speech is free cap 19 sect 4. 111. Spirits more cap. 19. sect 109. Subjects not Authors of their Governors Actions c. 2 s 17. c. 4 s 1. c. 15. s 1. c. 20. s 2. 3. 8. 58. 126. The cannot be free from the Allegiance and why cap. 5. sect 4. 15. Not submit themselves without any contract on the Governours part cap. 5. sect 4. cap. 11. sect 15. 39. Not bound to own all the Actions of a Supreme cap. 7. sect 1. cap. 8. sect 1. 21. 23. All men born Subjects cap. 14. sect 1. 56. Difference between the Subjects of an instituted and conquered Nation cap. 18 sect 84. Supremes All do not consent to give power unto them cap 4. sect 1. cap. 16. sect 5. 8. 69. Not Covenant with all in Government cap. 5. sect 4. 5. Not take their Government upon Covenant cap 6 s 1. 17. The Subject not bound to own all his Actions cap. 7 sect 1. cap. 8. sect 1. 21. 23. Not lawful to resist him in ones own defence cap. 20. sect 6 cap. 21. 142. 146. Sword hath no power but from the Covenant cap. 6. s 3. 20. That it can give power is dangerous to Princes ibid. Thoughts are free cap. 19. sect 2. 108. Not lyable to humane Laws cap. 23. sect 5.25 Truth whether it is to be regulated by Peace cap. 10. sect 4. 5. 6. 33. 34. In matters of doctrine it is only to be considered c. 10. s 4. 34. Peaceable Doctrines only true ibid Peace and the fruit of it cap. 10. sect 5. 34. No universal Truths are now cap â—0 sect 7. 35. Tumults Remisness of Government an occasion of them cap. 19. sect 9. 37. Tyranny Whether it and Monarchy be the same form of Government cap. 13. sect 2. 48. Tyrants of two sorts cap. 23. sect 11. 220. V Unbelief 'T is a breach of Gods Law c. 22. s 16. 230. Men justly Condemned for it ibid. It s Punishmen cap. 22. sect 13. 172. Understanding taken two ways c. 19. sect 5. 112. Voluntas facere fieri cap. 19. sect 12. 123. Vows rash sinful not obliging cap. 20. sect 2. 128. Uriah Murdered cap. 20. sect 3. 4. 131. 133. W War whâ—t it is properly cap. 16. sect 4. 67. Whence arise Civil VVars c. 18. s 3. 14. 15. 103. 105. 106. Water how it is said to be free c. â—9 s 7. 1â—6 Ways how they are free cap. 19. sect 2. 108. Wife subject to the