Father which made the world no one word which signifieth one person to be more proper then another Secondly in God the Son who hath Redeemed me and all mankind it is true this Redemption being a glorious effect of the Death and Sufferance of Christ which must needs be acted in his humanity which was united to his Divinity to the second Person 〈◊〉 the Trinity hath a most proper termination in the Son so that I do yield it must be implyed that it was acted in the Son but it is not expressed and therefore although it was materially the same yet formally it was not and he said more then was in the Catechism and for the last it is not said in the Catechism that God in the Person of the Holy Ghost did Sanctify his Church but in God the Holy Ghost who sanctifieth me and all the Elect People of God which although God the Holy Ghost in the Catechism be the same with the third Person yet he is not called so there and we may mark that although these three Persons are put down in the Catechisme as fountains of those great Blessings comminicated to man yet no where is any called proper person of God more then the other nor is any of those blessings appropriated to any person exclusively shutting out the other so that although it is said God the Father who made me it is not said without the Son of which abundance of Scripture affirms he made the World and Mr. Hobs dealt unhandsomly with our Catechism when he forced such a sense upon it SECT III. Another Answer Censur'd BUt perhaps he hath a better Exposition afterwards for when the Objector immediately after urged that Mr. Hobs used that Language in divers places he answered That all of them might receive that Exposition but he a little further explains himself thus Vel si dixisset or saith he if he had said God in his proper person had constituted himself a Church by the Ministry of Moses in the person of his Son had redeemed the same in the person of the holy Ghost had sanctified the same he had not erred Thus far he but it seems to me strange that both these should be without Errors for they are extreamly different in the first God in his proper person to Create the World and the second in his proper person by the Administration of Moses to constitute a Church but that phrase of in his proper person is unheard of amongst any who are not with it called Hereticks for if God the Father did any of those great works in his proper person then the Son did not operate in them which is against the whole sense of Scripture Joh. 1. 3. All things were made by him and without him was nothing made that was made Of which I have treated at large in my former Piece with much more which is to be seen in every Writer upon this Subject or else the same must be the very person of the Father which is horrid Divinity or else not a proper but an improper person of the Deity which is alike hateful Then consider his next proposition that God in the person of the Son did redeem the same what is that he calls the same surely that was the Church of the Israelites only for Moses constituted no other Church then Christ Redemed them only when before in the former opposition according to our Church Catechisme he Redeems Mankind which is much larger then the Church which Moses constituted and then last of all when he saith that God in the person of the Holy Ghost did sanctifie the same it is too narrow for his former proposition which was that in the Person of the Holy Ghost God did Sanctifie the Church which is much larger then the Synagogue which was constituted by Moses and when he said he had not Erred if he had phrased it after that manner I say it is evident he had erred and erred grievously in expressing himself either of these ways CAP. V. Joh. 1. 1. Explained I Pass now to Page 364. where at the top is objected that in his 43. Cap. he should say Joh. 1. 1. that the word there and so likewise in the 14. verse doth signifie a promise and that promise is the same with the thing promised that is Jesus Christ as it is Psalm 105. 19. and the 40. 13. and other places I will not dispute this further I have writ at large concerning this place and do answer to him both in this objection and to his Justification of it in his answer that avails him nothing towards his disgrace of the Divine Nature of this word if it should be allowed such a sense for that he was the person is evident out of his gloss and let that person be eternally with God and be God as the Text speaks that he should make all things and the like he must needs be that person which we conceive he â—s and referring the Reader to what I have formerly writ where the genuine sense of that word is exprest I pass to the next objection which immediately follows and crosses one conclusion of mine in this Treatise though I know not punctually where my papers being now with the Printer CAP. VI. Whether it be Lawful for a Faithful man to deny Christ Examined THe Conclusion by the Objector set down is drawn from an answer to a Question What If a faithful man should be commanded by his Prince to deny Christ what should he do he saith it is lawful to obey his Superiors by the Example of Naaman the Assyrian who was by the Prophet bid go in Peace which words saith the Objector seem to me not a permission but a form of Valediction Mr. Hobs justifies the conclusion and begins his answer fortasse perhaps it is so if he had answered any thing else either approving or disproving his Petition but in this place it can be understood of nothing but a Permission I will stop here for this present and examine it first what the offence was that he seems to parallel with the denying of Christ the Story is Recorded in the second Book of Kings Cap. 5. where in the 17. vers you may observe that Naaman professing thy Servant will from henceforth neither offer burnt Offerings or Sacrifice to other Gods but unto the Lord. By burnt Offerings and Sacrifice we must understand all Religious worship which was due to God for so it was to him but then in the 18. verse he begins to make a scruple that his attendance upon his Master at his Idolatrical worship may seem to be a Divine worship because it might seem to have an affinity with it and in this doubt he prays a pardon thus In this thing the Lord pardon thy Servant that when my Master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship thâ—re and he leaâ—eth on my hand and I â—ow my self in the house of Rimmon the Lord pardon 〈…〉 this thing Mark you this it was a
one day judge us men according to our works then he trembles at the apprehension of it and that causeth him to seek out which way he may please him and stop the fury of his wrath from falling upon him and act accordingly Thus wisdom is begun but afterwards this same man out of these beginnings proceeds to search out Gods will and believe it to trust and rely upon his promises to be enamoured with God and delighted with his excellencies with following Acts far exceed in the worship of God and his Honour that first of fear only so that although the fear of God may introduce and begin Religion yet unless a man go further it is not Religion nor that it is can that Text prove but he hath another Text which I wonder what he can do with it to this purpose which is SECT IV. How that Text the Fool hath said in his Heart there is no God can be applied to his purpose THat the Fool hath said in his heart there is no God certainly if he said so in his heart he could not fear God but that because he thinks there is no God he could not fear him therefore should Religion consist in fear he that thinks there is no such thing cannot oppose be angry with or hate God doth Religion therefore consist in these and yet there is less consequence in it if a man will consider his proposition to be proved hence it is not that fear is the Religion paid to God but to invisible powers many a man who did not think there was a supream God governing all did think that there were invisible powers to which they paid their Religious Duties as most of them to Sâ—medei and Heroes and good Genâ—i and the like so that men may have Religion who say in their hearts there is no God that is such as he is generally conceived to be an infinitely able and wise Creator and Governor yea some that thought there was a God who had infinitam virtutem by which he governed the world yet would not allow him infinitam potentiam to make it out of nothing of which nature I conceive Aristotle to be so that although he and others may think there is no such God as we conceive yet they might have Religion to such as they conceived to have some peices of these Divine excellencies so that that seems to me an objection but weakly answered by him CAP. IV. ANd I pass to a fourth Objection made at the bottom of the same page which is out of the sixteenth Cap. of the same Leviathan when having treated of persons and what things may be personated he at the last affirms etiam Dei veri the true God may be personated as he was first by Moses who governed not his people but Gods saying thus saith the Lord I have discoursed at large upon this expression of his in the 30. Cap. of my first Notes upon his Leviathaâ— Sect. 11. and those which follow it would have become him to have given at the least some observations upon what I said but he hath not and I must refer an Impartial Reader to that but I must observe that this clause is left out in his Latine Edition and instead thereof put that the true Gods person is and hath been born for in his proper person he created the world this is put instead of Moses his bearing his Person Good Reader see how he hath amended the matter did God in Creating the World bear the Person of God It is a Phrase unheard of in any Divinity Writer he that bears the person of any man or thing must be another from that thing which he bears but in this he destroys his bearing the person of God when he affirms he did it in his own in propriâ personâ in his own proper person so that his alteration is to the worse but I return from whence I came to Moses again in which I referr'd the Reader to my former discourse so far that he affirms the Son to be as it seems the Second Person in the Trinity after Moses and that of the Holy Ghost all which I have spoke of at large and now let us review his answer to this Objection it may be the Candor of his Exposition will take away the scandal of his Assertion and that begins in the last line of that Page and so follows on in the next and is this SECT II. His Question of our Catechisme Examined VIdetur Author hoc loco the Author seems in this place to explain the doctrine of Trinity although he do not name the Trinity I stop here he hath outgone himself in his English Leviathan for I did not so far dive into his thoughts when I spoke of Moses representing God but one how that could be understood but now it seems abominable that Moses should be placed as a person in the Trinity well let us see his answer further in this place that saith he he Authour did labour to explain the Trinity was piaâ— voâ—untas but erronea explicatio it was a pious desire but in erroneous explication surely it is a pious desire â—n any man to endeavour to explain any Divine truth out certainly it cannot be imagined that a man of his parts and learning could be so overseen in so high â— Point of Divinity as to think that such a person ought to pass for the father but that he would steal â— discredit of that great and most universally received truth by interposing such a cloud before it for saith he Moses because he after some manner seems to bear the person of God as do all Christian Kings he seems to make him one person of the Trinity valde negligenter this was exceeding negligently done and pittiful repentance for such a crime to blaspheme God and call man God for so must each person in the Trinity be no it looks not like repentance but a vain excuse which near upon amounts to a justification but he proceeds If saith he he had said that God in his proper person had made the world in the person of his Son had redeemâ—d mankind in the person of the holy Ghoâ—t had sanctified his Church he had said no more then is in the Catechisme put out by the Church certainly he is much out in this â—aâ—ing for the Catechisme of the Church of England has no such saying as God in propriâ personâ God in his proper person did make the world this expression propriâ personâ is not there nor I think in any confession of any Christian Church to be used for the Father all three are proper Persons no one more then other neither doth the Catechism use that very phrase Person in that whole answer for it is thus I believe in God the Father who hath made me and all the world not that he made it in propriâ personâ for it was the work of the whole Trinity and the God who is the whole Trinity is the Almighty
his dissenting may break his Covenant but why it should make them break their Covenant is not vissible to me SECT II. His expression of giving the Sovereignty to him that bears their person further censured HIS following discourse is not more reasonable than this And they have also every man given the Soveraignty to him that heareth their person And therefore if they despâ—se him they take from him that which is his own and so again it is Injustice That phrase Given him the Soveraignty who bears their person is not rational for according to his own Doctrine it is the same thing to be Soveraigh and bear their person if he had spoke logically according to his doctrine his phrase should be who is their person for so he makes the Soveraign to be the person of the Common-wealth not to bear it which is another thing But then mark you what a slight thing he makes Rebellion only a little Injustice for so that word Injustice may extend it self to any the least Injustice He takes that from him that was his a poor piece of business every little Theft doth so SECT III. The irrationality of Mr. Hobbs his arguing further discovered Covenants may be made immediately with God HE adds another reason very weakly Besides saith he If he that attempteth to depose his Soveraign be killed or punished by him for such attempts he is author of his own punishment as being by the Institution Author of all his Soveraign shall do And because it is Injustice for a man to do any thing for which he may be punished by his own Authority he is also upon that title unjust Certainly Reader you may wonder at the strange unreasonableness of this Arguing This proves by his supposed Institution no faultiness in this Treason for suppose a Soveraign shall punish a Subject for speaking truth he doth it according to his institution by the Authority given by that Subject and that Subject is Author according to his Doctrine of killing himself for Truth as well as for Treason because he is Author of all his Actions and there is as much injustice in the one as in the other especially considering another Inference which he makes and will be discoursed on hereafter That a Supream can do no Injustice But he adds not another argument but an answer to another Objection I will speak to that his words â—re And whereas some men have pretended for their disobedience to their Soveraign a new Covenant not made with men but God this is also unjust for there is no Covenant with God but by mediation of some body that representeth God's Person which none doth but God's Lieutenant who hath the Soveraignty under God But this pretence of Covenant with God is so evident a lye even in the pretenders own Consciences that it is not only an act of an unjust but also of a vile and unmanly disposition Thus He. This I yield unto so far that it is sinful and wicked to engage in any Covenant with God against his Soveraign but his means of obtaining it I deny He scarce ever speaks or names God but with an Error in particular here what a false affirmation is this to say That there is no Covenant with God but by mediation of some body who representeth Gods person which none doth but Gods Lievtenant who hath the Soveraignty under God Certainly a man may make Covenant with God betwixt God and his own Soul in private in his Chamber before men in Company divers are recorded in Scripture and pious men often use it and practice it accordingly and when these Covenants are holy and devout God blesseth them and those persons are obliged to those duties But it is true in the case in which he instanceth all such Covenants are wicked in the making and most abominable in the performance for it is a Covenant with God in himself to destroy him in his deputy a Covenant with God in Heaven to oppose him on Earth the iniquity lyeth not in this That the Soveraign is the peoples Person for then the height of the sin lyes in this that the people are affronted but in this other way God iu his way it is but an injury to such as themselves but in this it is to our politique Father to whom under God we owe all our obedience and is the first command of the Second Table with promise in this World Of this Nature are those contracts betwixt man and woman concerning Marriage those promising Oathes which men make one with another which oblige the contractors in a strong tye for breach of which they shall answer at the last day And now I go on with him this which follows and much of that which immediately preceded is pag. 89 SECT IV. Mr. Hobbs his Second Inference examined and censured The Soveraign obliged to protect the People from Injuries and Invasions His reasons to attest this Inferrence refuted HIS Second Inference is because the right of bearing the person of them all is given to him they make their Soveraign by Covenant only of one to another and not of him to any of them There can happen no breach of Covenant on the part of the Soveraign and consequently none of his Subjects by any pretence of forfeiture is freed from his Subjection His conclusion iâ—again true in the material part but his inference is faulty for his conclusion I am perswaded that none of his Subjects can be freed from their Allegiance to him by any act of his unless dereliction of his Government and that may abide a Dispute too But to raise this conclusion out of that Ground because he made no Covenant with them is exceeding weak First There is the same reason by his Doctrine betwixt him and the Subject for the Subjects in the very Paragraph which was but now transcribed make their Covenant one to another and not to the Soveraign so that there must be the same reason out of the Nature of the Covenant that the Subject should not forfeit his Right to him as he to the Subject for the Covenant being only made one to another the breach of that Covenant is only one with another but I am bold to affirm it an impossible case as he imagines it that there must be mutual approbations betwixt both and all For certainly it cannot be imagined that such a generality of men as must convene to do such an Act should submit to such a total dereliction of themselves without some promise or Covenant on his part that he will protect them from injuries at home and Invasions from abroad but he being exalted above all other Earthly Powers is subject only to the King of Kings which is God who will Judge him but the Subjects are examinable responsible and condemnable by him But he labours to infringe this reason in his following discourse thus That he who is made Soveraign makes no Covenant with his Subjects before hand is manifest because either he must make
it with the whole Multitude as one party to the Covenant or he must make a several Covenant with every man with the whole as one party it is impossible because as yet they are not one person I will not put down his reason against his second branch because I shall not need to dispute against that having shewed the possibility of the first But I will begin with his division and deny that it is necessary that the Covenant should be made with the whole as one party or with every particular severally for there is a Medium participationis which is more reasonable than either for without doubt the Fathers of Families were Natural Governours from the beginning of the World and they had by the Law of Nature Absolute Government over their Families these when they find themselves not able in little distinct bodies to defend themselves may treat amongst themselves how by an Union they may make themselves strong against forreign and domestique dangers and to that end erect a Supream over themselves and this certainly hath a greater shew of Reason then any of his thoughts that every person who hath no Judgment nor Authority should be introduced to make a Covenant for so high concernments Therefore that division was not good which did not comprehend the totum divisum Then for his Argument that he could not Covenant with the whole as one person because as yet they were not a person I answer first that they neither are nor in truth will ever be one person but because by his unimaginable conceipt they are after their Covenant represented so by him I will answer to himself That first this Company meet together then they consult upon that great work of choosing a Soveraign the business is concluded upon by both parties Soveraign and People first they engage for their Patrs then he may Covenant for his and this is no otherwise then is apparent in all contracts one must speak first and after another so in marriage first one speaks and then the other and in all bargains which yet are conditional until the second word confirms the contract Nor is it possible as I have said to think that men would so deliver themselves to anothers will from whom they have no promise or the least verbal engagement to govern them justly and prudently What he speaks against this Covenant with the several persons I let go thinking it impossible CHAP. VI. SECT I. The difference between the Soveraign's making a Covenant and taking his Authority upon a Covenant A Soveraign may Covenant to Govern justly and yet not forfeit his Soveraignty if he breaks that Covenant AND I pass to another Argument by which he would prove That a Soveraign can make no Covenant which begins towards the bottom of his 89. pag. thus besides if any one or more of them pretend a breach of the Covenant made by the Soveraign at his Institution and others or one other of his Subjects or himself alone pretend there was no such breach there is in this case no Judge to decide the Controversie First I blame him here for putting no difference betwixt Covenanting in raking his Authority and taking it upon Covenant The first may be and without question must be in any Institution of Government the second cannot be discreetly done by any for it would leave a mighty gap to lâ—t in Treasons Observe it in all contracts Titius lets Land to Semprâ—nius he hath diverse Covenants for to observe which he may implead Semprâ—nius for and yet never a one to forfeit his Estate come more closly The Subject in this Institution of his Contracts is to perform all obedience yet although he offend in many things there be few such as exempt him from the just protection of the King from further injuries then that Legally exacts how much more must it needs be that the King should lose the total obedience of the Subject though he should break his Covenant and unless such a Clause were put into his Covenant there was no pretence of reason for it and it were as much against Reason to put such a Clause into his Covenant I have delivered my opinion of this before The King of Heaven will Judge him severely for his breach of Covenant to whom he must be left That which follows is true If there should be such a Covenant and no Judge to determine it would return to the Sword again and every man recovereth the right of Protecting himself by his own shrength contrary to the design of the Institution This is true but I do not approve what follows It is therefore in vain to grant Soveraignty by precedent Covenant to grant a Covenant in the Institution of Soveraignty is most right to wit that he will Govern his People Legally and Justly or the like without doing of which no person is fit to be Soveraign but to Covenant to lose his Soveraignty if he do otherwise which he seems to understand generally by this word Covenant is absolutely naught and unfit because it must needs produce Confusions and Distractions in the Government for the People upon any hardship they suffer though never so just will repine against their Superiours and blame them and upon any surmise of faultiness in them would be ready upon such pretence to desire and endeavour a Change of Government be it Monarchical or Aristocratical SECT II The Impiety of Mr. Hobbs his assertion that Covenants have no force but from the Vindicative Power of the Sword Discovered THen what follows is wicked in my Judgment The opinion that any Monarch receiveth his Power by Covenant that is upon Condition proceedeth from want of understanding this easie truth That Covenants being but words and breath have no force to oblige contain or protect any man but what it hath from the Publick Sword that is from the united hands of that man or assembly of men that hath the Soveraignty and whose actions are avowed by them all and performed by the strength of them all in him united This speech hath some semblance of truth with iâ— if he had confuted the World into Atheisme who think there is no God noe reward or punishment hereafter and perhaps it might find some entertainment amongst men given over to base sensuality sordid worldly people who have no sense of honour or vertue because such men value no contract which consists not with their unhappy Condition but with men which believe there is a God who governs heaven and earth and will judge all one day which sure the generality of men do with men that have felt any sting of Conscience and have felt the happiness of nil conscire tibi this breath of theirs hath such power with God that in things of such high nature as this is what they covenant on earth is confirmed in heaven and is so esteemed by them and because it is so esteemed millions of men do and have thought it better for them to forsake all worldly
what S. Paul writes in the fifth to the Ephâ—sians v. 22. Wives submit your selves to your own Husbands as unto the Lord. But methinks Mr. Hobbs should answer to this that this is only a positive Law yet I can reply to that that it is universal or what is equivalent indefinite and comprehends all wives But then go further and read the Apostles Argument in the following verse For the Husband is the Head of the Wife even as Christ is the Head of the Church Thus the Apostle argues from the Law of Nature First that by the Law of Nature the rest of the body submits to the Head so must Wives do to their own Husbands Then this is exemplified from Christianity in the manner of his Headship such a Head as Christ is over his Church which I hope no Christian will say but that it must submit to and be governed by him And I hope both Nature Gods Law and Christian duty may be sufficient to determine this controversie without war And I may add that since all Nations have consented to it sure we ought not now to demur upon the case because Mr. Hobbs interposeth his Authority with little or no reason SECT V. This Paragraph coutrary to Mr. Hobbs his principles and the supposed institution of a Commonwealth but yet most true not from Mr. Hobbs his reason but the Law of God Fathers of Families have the disposition of their Families The invalidity of Mr. Hobbs his reasons His example of the Amazons inconcludent HE proceeds In Commonwealths this controversie is decided by the Civil Law and for the most part but nâ—t always the sentence is in favour of the Father because for the mâ—st part Commonwealths have been erected by the Fathers not by the Mothers of Families Now I am come to page 03. but I would fain know how the Fathers rather then the Mothers should come to be Erectors of Commonwealths Certainly if Commonwealths were instituted as he feigns by the general suffrage of all who had interest in the Government then women as well as men Mothers as well as Fathers had the management of that business for they have their interest in the publick constitution as well as men But he hath let fall an excellent truth which is clear against the whole Body of his Politicks which is that the Fathers of Families not the Rabble were the Erectors of Commonwealths For if they did as I am confident with him here they did then his former discourse which is built upon the institution of a Commonwealth by the universal consent of all who have interest in it must fail for not the Fathers and Mothers only but even the meanest child or servant may challenge their shares in it And certainly the Fathers of Families could not be the Erectors of Commonwealths but only out of this regard that they were the chief in their Families and by that reason had right to dispose of himself and them And here let the Reader consider that Mr. Hobbs never remembers that great Authority given by God to Moses which regulated him and his Posterity many Generations nor the confirmation that Law laid from our Saviour in the New Testament which are obligatory to us in all Ages He only clouds the truth with this pittiful poor reason or rather shew of reason only that men were the Law-makers and they were partial to their own Sex No Master Hobbs God was the Law-maker who is no accepter of persons or Sexes but in an infinitely wise manner disposeth all things in the best and surest method that may be according to his most just Laws But because he said but not always that is that the Fathers of Families were not always the Erectors of Commonwealths intimating that some Commonwealths were erected by the Mothers of Families I should thank him or any man else who can shew me any such in the world It may be he will fly to that beggerly instance which he gives presently of the Amazons but let it suffice for them if there were any such that they were Widdows or single Women not united in Marriage and so not subject to Husbands and therefore were free to dispose of themselves as they pleased and might have made what just Laws they thought fit for their condition but if they were joyned in marriage to Husbands they must then submâ—t to that yoak and be governed in their domestick affairs according to his discipline The dispute is here betwixt Husband and Wife not betwixt man and woman Wives must submit to their own Husbands not every woman to every man SECT VI. Mr. Hobbs his contradiction again censured Antipodial Government introduced His conclusions not consistent one with another Contracts with Mr. Hobbs but words and advantaged by power may lawfully be broken Lawful Contracts sealed in Heaven HE goes on But the Question lieth now in the state of meer Nature where there are supposed no Laws of Matrimony no Laws for the education of children but the Law of Nature and the natural inclination of the Sexes one to another and to their children This is inconsistent with what he hath formerly taught and I have confuted viz. That naturally men are at war every man with evâ—â—y man Well then in this state before they are covenanted into a Commonwealth all things all rights are tryed by force and it may happen that the man who conquers this day may fall sick and grow weak and then the Woman may be Victor and so the case may be altered or both may grow old or sick and their children master them both and so bring in an Antipodial Government And then let any man think whether the wise constitution of Nature can agree with such abominable follies and how weak according to his Doctrine this conclusion is In this condition of meer nature saith he either the Parents between themselves dispose of the dominion over the child by contract or do not dispose thereof at all If they do dispose thereof the right passeth according to the contract This distinction cannot be denied either they must or they must not contract If they dispose saith he the right passeth according to the contract But let him remember the state and condition he speaks of is in mans nature before any imbodying themselves into a Commonwealth Then let him look back to what he hath writ Cap. 17. page 85. Covenants without the Sword are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all And again in the same page Therefâ—re notwithstanding the Law of Nature if there be no power erected or not great enough for our security every man will and may lawfully relye upon his own strength and art for caution against all other men â— Let us put these together the right passeth by contract saith he in this 20. Cap. Contracts are but words and have no force to bind saith he in his â—7 Cap. unless a Commonwealth be erected therefore no Covenant gives an active right to any
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 theâ— 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 Hâ—s 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 life being the end for which one becomes subject to another every man is supposed to promise obedience to him in whâ—se power it is to save or destroy him I answer preservation as the Philosopher speaks is continuâ—tâ—â— creatiâ—â—r generatio so that the very being of any thing is the substance which is preserved and that must needs be more excellent then such an acciâ—ent as preservation It is true a châ—ld ought to obey him who hath nourished him but not in such a degree as to a Parental relation when that obedience shall cross the obedience to the Parents Preservation of life is the end saith he for which one man becomes subject unto another But consider what preservation that is with that which is to come upon this ground the unvanquished man submits himself to the Conquerour that he may protect his future being and preserve him from future danger but this subjection is not to him who hath preserved him but to him who will preserve him or if this subjection be due yet not such nor contrary to that of his Parents But I must not tire my self nor my Reader with such needless discourses upon errors which fall of themselves without any dispute only entreat the Reader in perusing them to consider his inferences how they depend one upon another and that will be light enough to shew him the weakness of them He goes on If the Mâ—ther be the Fathers subject the Child is in the Fathers power c. It is not worth the transcribing he now runs from Parents barely under the Law of Nature to such as are in setled Common-wealths to all which one answer will serve that they must be according to the National and peculiar Laws belonging to that Commonwealth for Oeconomical Laws must submit to National The next learned note of his is He that hath dominion over the Child hath dominion also over the children of that Chiâ—d I must confess a most true and excellent observation and such as he will hear of hereafter and so I let it pass for this present The next conclusion he enters upon is the right of succession to Paternal dominion which he saith proceedeth in the same manner as doth the right of succession to Monarchy of which he had spoke in the precedent Chapter I will dispute nothing about this The Customes and Laws of every Nation
Upon what ground but on this submission of their own Exod. 20. Speak thou to us and we will hear thee but let not God speak to us lest we die By which two places saith he it sufficiently appears that in a Common-wealth a Subject that has no certain and assured revelation particularly to himselâ— concerning the will of God is to obey for such the command of the Common-wealth That is by his Logick the soveraign of the Common-wealth How this conclusion can be drawn out of these two places of Scripture I cannot imagine Why it should not I shall give these reasons First that although these two particular cases were to be understood as he conceits yet they are but particular cases which concerned those only affairs which were under their proper management and there is no one word which points at them to make them presidents for others or to give an universal rule for all others Secondly whereas he saith that in a Common-wealth a Subject should do thus as he sets down in one of his instances to wit that of Abraham there was no Common-wealth setled but only a noble family many things may be proper to a family which are not for a Common-wealth nay indeed the government of the Israelites under Moses was as yet not a pefect established Common-wealth but only in fieri the Common-wealth was in moulding the Laws for the government were in making Then consider in Moses his case for I have writ enough concerning the other the People said they would hear Moses and good reason for it because they discerned that he had conversation with God that Gods terrour was so great that no man durst injure him by doubting his Laws who had such near converse with God as he had when called up to the top of the Mount and therefore might be trusted on his relation And therefore it seems their promise of hearkning to whatsoever Moses should deliver for Gods Law was to him as a Prophet rather than as a King which indeed was in that regard more to be considered And certainly those dictates of the holy Scripture for our practices which are delivered by King David or Solomon have not that great obligation upon us as they were Kings but Prophets nor are the books which are Scripture and commanded to be so received amongst us therefore of divine authourity because Kings declare them to be such but contrariwise Kings declare them to be such because they are such And good Reader consider further that this reason of Mr. Hobbs might have excused all the worshippers of Baal all the idolatries and abominations committed in the reign of Jeroboam and the rest of those wicked Kings over Israel For if the â—eople were to receive that and that only for the word of God which their supremes authorized then they authorizing those and only those commands which were directed to those impieties were so to be accepted and obeyed unless they had particular revelation which in general the common people never had and then how could God justly punish them for violating those Laws which he had given them as he did often when their Kings exacted otherwayes But he gives reason for what he hath delivered for saith he if men were at liberty to take for Gods commandements their own dreams and fancies or the dreams and fancies of private men scarce two men would agree upon what is Gods commandements and yet in respect of them every man would despise the commandement of the Common wealth Alas poor man what a dream and fancy hath he vainly uttered this is like to what he affirmed before that we have no assurance of revelations unless we had particular revelations our selves And what I opposed to that will serve for this Were all those Councils all those Fathers all the consent of the Christian Church nothing but dreams all the blood of holy Martyrs nothing but fancies yea the blood of Christ whereby he hath subdued all the Kings of this Christian World nothing but dreams and fancyesâ— which yet are those Medium's by which men oppose Kings and ought to do it when they command contrary to our Christian Faith Certainly Mr. Hobos said right when he affirmed That private men must not oppose their dreams or fancies to the Laws of the Land wherein they live But under that Notion he doth amiss when he terms our assent to the revealed vvill of God â— clearly and intelligently apprehended a dream or fancy But because he terms it the Lavv of the Common-vvealth vvhich hath some sense according to his impossible principles viz. That the supreme represents the vvhole I vvill tell him it is a phrase of speech never used by any Author before for a Common-vvealth consists in the ordination of all the members of it supreme and inferiour the supreme is soveraign the inferiour are subjects but by a common vvealth here he only understands the soveraign But let us proceed vvith him out of the former confuted premisses he dravvs this conclusion I conclude therefore that in all things not contrary to the Moral Law that is to say to the Law of Nature all subjects are bound to obey that for divine Law which is declared to be so by the Laws of the Common-wealth Certainly the Moral Lavv or the Lavv of Nature doth not bid us be baptized or receive the holy Communion nay it doth not command us to make a profession of our faith in Jesus Christ. The Law of Nature did not command Daniel Shedrack Meshack and Abednego to refuse the voluptuous meat which Nebuchadnezar allowed them and fed upon pulse and water but the fear that they should break the Law of God by obeying the King I mean the positive Law which God had not writ in their Natures but in Tables so that this conclusion of his was most Heathnish CHAP. XXII SECT XVIII Mr. Hobbs his further reasons to prove the former assertions examined and censured His diminution of the authority of the divine positive Law and constant vilifying of scripture censured The Law of Nature restrained by the divine positive Law Obedience in Religious dutyes not founded in the command of the soveraign but of God The perswasion of the Turks that the Alcoran contains the Law of God not the command of the Grand Signiour causes their conformity to it The difference betwen the commands and acts of Christian Princes and their subjects from those of other Religions All other Societies as that of Theeves illegitimate combinations Mr. Hobbs his doctrine abhorrent to Christianity BUT he labours further to prove it Which also saith he is evident to any mans reason for whatsoever is not against the Law of Nature may be made Law in the Name of them that have the Soveraign power and there is no reason men should be the less obliged by it when it is propounded in the Name of God I answer that whatsoever is not against the Law of Nature may be made Law by God i. e. his