same continued till our times but the whole frame was strangely altered and corrupted Many different opinions there be concerning our Government yet three amongst the rest are most remarkable For one party conceives the King to be an absolute Monarch A second determines the King Peers and Commons to be three co-ordinate powers yet so that some of them grant three Negatives some only two A third party give distinct rights unto these three yet in this they are sub-divided and they would be thought to be more rational who give the Legislative Power unto the Lords and Commons in one house the judicial to the Lords in a distinct house and the executive to the King who was therefore trusted with the Sword both of War and Justice None of these can give satisfaction There is another opinion which puts the supreme power radically in the 40. Counties to be exercised by King Peers and Commons according to certain rules which by Antiquaries in Law together with some experienced States-men of this Nation might be found out but are not The seeds of this division were sown and begun to appear before the wars and the opinion that all these were only in one man that is the King absolutely some say was the greatest cause not only of the last but also of other civil wars in former times And it hath been observed that every man liked that opinion best which was most suitable to his own interest Our several opinions in Religion have heightened our differences and hindered our settlement yet Religion is but pretended for every party aims at civil power not spiritual liberty from sin And the power to settle us thus wofully distracted is only in God and if he ever will be thus merciful unto us the way whereby he will effect it will be by giving the greatest power to men of greatest wisdom and integrity not by reducing us unto one opinion that all the powers civil must be in one as the Author doth fondly fancy Let the form be the best in the world yet without good Governors its in vain The subject of this Chapter is Majestas jura Majestatis the Rights of Soveraigns which this Author hath handled very poorly and if he had but translated that which others had more excellently written in this particular before him he might have informed us better given his Reader more satisfaction reduced them to a better method and neither have made such to be Rights which are none nor omitted those which truly are such as he hath done CAP. III. Of the Second part and the Nineteenth of the Book of the several kinds of Common-wealths by institution and of succession to the Soveraign power BY these brief contents it appears that the subject of this Chapter is the distinction of Common-wealths and Succession to the Soveraign power in a successive State In the first part he 1. Reduceth all Common-wealths to three kinds 2. Prefers Monarchy one of them before all the rest T. H. Other kind of Common-wealths besides Monarchy Democracy Aristocracy there cannot be G. L. This is conceived to be a distribution into species or kinds yet if we throughly examine it it is not so for it s but an accidential difference For it ariseth only from the distinct and different manner of disposing the supreme power in one or more In more and these are the Optimates some of the best and most eminent or in the whole Community Yet in all these the essential acts of Government and so the Soveraign power are the same in all States and they are as you heard before three Legislation Judgement and Execution for its meerly accidental to the supremacy to be disposed more or more That it must be disposed in some certain such sect is necessary and that as the Supremacy is one and indivisible so the subject must be one also and that either physically or morally The great variety of Common-wealths which is such that there be not two in the whole world in all things like ariseth not from the constitution but from the different manner of administration Though the Author denies all mixt Common-wealths yet wise and learned men which without disparagement to him may be preferred before him as in other things so in State-learning have said 1. That there is no pure Monarchy or Aristocracy or Democracy in the world 2. That not only some but all Common-wealths are in some measure mixt or tempered and allayed because they conceive it s hardly possible for any pure State to continue long Against these I find in Mr. Hobbs a verbal contradiction but no real confutation And it seems to me he never truly understood them neither hath he taken notice of the difference between Real and Personal Majesty or of the Natural or Ethical subject of Supremacy or of the exercise thereof by certain persons and the constant inherency of it in a certain subject And we know by experience that such as are only trusted with the exercise of supreme power will by little and little usurp it and in the end plead prescription So Lewis the 11. of France when he violated the Laws of the constitution removed all such as by right ought to have poysed him could boast That he had freed the Crown from Wardship And this hath been the practise of the Princes of Europe which in the end will prove their ruine as for the present it hath been their trouble There is no Common-wealth but may be reduced to one of these three in some respect yet so that Monarchies differ as much from one another as they differ from the other two Some are regal some despotical and there be several sorts of these But I do not intend at this time to contest with him about this distribution but proceed T. H. Tyrannie and Oligarchy are but different names of Monarchy and Aristocracy not different forms of Governments G. L. These names do not signifie Chimera's but real Entities and if any have abused them to signifie forms of Government let them answer for themselves I know them not they cannot be men of any note Tyrannie doth not signifie Monarchy nor Oligarchy an Aristocracy They signifie the vicious corruption of States degenerate from their original constitution and that by the wickedness of a Prince and the faction of an assembly ingrossing power and enhansing it above that which is due and just and so become a multitude of Tyrants and this hath been the cause why many Nations when they had power in their own hands have altered the form of Government been jealous of trusting one man or assembly of men long with too much power and the wisest have set their wits on the rack to find out a way how to limit and restrain the power of their Governors T. H. Subordinate Representatives are dangerous And I know not how that so manifest a truth should of late be so little observed that in a Monarchy he that had the Soveraignty from a descent
be their due and lest they should lose any of them he renews his Catalogue of them again These must be taught the people that they may know themselves to be absolute slaves And Princes must take heed of tranferring any of their Soveraign Rights unto another But this was needless for they have a desire of power before they do obtain it and after they are once possessed of it they not only keep that which is due but also usurp far more then either God or man hath given them Kings who are but trusted with a limited power endeavour to make themselves absolute Lords and Despotical Soveraigns must be petty Dieties The best Princes had always a greater care to exercise their power well then to enlarge it And by their Wisdom and Justice have governed more happily then any of these absolute Soveraigns who desire rather to be great then good and themselves more honourable then the people happy The Errours of this Author vented in this part as that Soveraign power Civil is absolute A civil Law against Rebellion is no Obligation A good Law is not a just Law because no Law can be unjust All his Rules of Government may be proved out of Scripture and other such like I will not here examine because some of them are ridiculous some of them have been formerly answered and his proof of these in his next part shall be discussed CAP. XV. Of the 2. part the 31. of the Book Of the Kingdom of God by nature THis Chapter is the conclusion of the second part the Leviathan and makes way for the third following The principal subject hereof is the Laws of nature as distinct to laws supernatural For he truly and wisely makes God the King and Law-giver both in the Kingdom of God by nature and above nature That God is the universal King by nature he seems to prove out of the Scripture T. H. God is King let the earth rejoyce saith the Psalmist Psal 96.1 And again God is King though the nations be angry and he that sitteth upon the Cherubins though the earth be moved Psal 98.1 Whether men will or not they must be subject always to the Divine Power G. L. In the Allegation of these two places he seems to follow the vulgar Latine and the Septuagint both for the number of the Psalms and the Translation For with us they are the words of the first verses of the 97. and 99. Psalms and are turned in another manner The translations though seemingly different may agree in the substance And it s agreed on all hands that the Psalmist speaks of the Kingdom of God yet seeing there is a kingdom of God as Creator and a kingdom of God as Redeemer it may be a question whether his kingdom in general be here meant or one of the former particular kingdoms Both ancient and Modern Divines for the most part understand both the Psalms of the kingdom of Christ and which is more the Apostle Heb. 1.6 so expounds the former Psalm which agrees with Psal 2. which speaks to the same purpose and undoubtedly intends the Kingdom of Christ The Kingdom and Government of God is most properly so called in respect of Angels and men as onely capable of Laws Punishments and Rewards no rational man will deny yet he by his wisdom doth direct and order all creatures T. H. God declareth his Laws three ways By natural reason Revelation and Prophecy From the difference of the natural and Prophetick Word of God there may be attributed to God a two-fold Kingdom Natural and Prophetick c. G. L. In the rest of this Chapter we may observe three things 1. The manner how God declares his Laws 2. The distinction of his Kingdom 3. The ground of his Dominion 1. God doth manifest himself both to Angels and men two wayes by his Works and his Word By his works in the Creation and Providence By his word immediately by Revelation mediately by Prophesie In the latter he maketh use of man to speak to man the same thing he hath spoken to man by Revelation and the word of prophesie to man is the word of Revelation from God and the matter of both is the same The word of Creation and Providence is received by natural reason the word of Revelation seems to be apprehended by reason supernaturally elevated and illuminated The Kingdom of God is natural or supernatural according to the natural or supernatural Laws The first Kingdom by the rules and dictates of natural reason directs man unto a temporal peace and prosperity on Earth The second by the Laws of Revelation orders him to a supernatural and eternal peace and felicity to be enjoyed fully in Heaven For the former end all civil Policies were instituted For the second the polity spiritual of the Church The declaration of the Laws of Gods Kingdom by nature were universally always declared even to all nations the Laws of his supernatural Kingdom were revealed universally at the first in the times of Adam and after in the dayes of Noah But after a general Apostacy Israel was trusted with the Oracles of life untill the exhibition of the Messias and after his Resurrection the Apostles received a Commission to teach all Nations and make these Laws known more generally So that this Author doth bewray his ignorance in divinity and pretending to the knowledge of the Scripture he little understands them and much abuseth those heavenly Writings For the Kingdom of God by Prophesie was in all times and confined in a more special manner for a time unto the people of Israel for a special reason And at the first election of them after their deliverance from the Egyptial bondage he immediately instituted not onely their spiritual but their civil Government In which respect their civil government might be called in a peculiar manner the Kingdom and Common-wealth of God and so the government of no Nation in the world could be accounted T. H. The right of Gods soveraignty is not derived from Creation but from his irresistible Power G. L. This is his great ignorance to think that Gods Soveraignty should be derived from the executive power of force and strength of his Godhead For Dominion in general is twofold Possessionis ant regiminis of possession or government That of possession we call propriety in which respect God is absolute Lord of all his creatures because he createth and preserveth them so that their very being is more his then theirs But his soveraign power over man ariseth not onely from propriety in general but from Gods propriety in him as a rational intellectual creature ordinable to an higher end then the inanimate and irrational creature is capable of For God created and preserved him a rational creature and both as a creature and as rational he is wholly his As he is rational he is capable of Laws Rewards Punishments and hath a power to become Gods subject by voluntary submission and donation of himself and also
in doubtful matters men should first debate and throughly examine the thing debated before they proceed to give their voices and this is most properly and conveniently done when after a diligent search no preponderant reason can be found for either part of the proposition Mens votes are inferiour to reason and superiour Laws and are not good because votes but because agreeable to reason And whereas he alledgeth two reasons 1. That to protest against a major part is injustice 2. It puts the party protesting out of protection the answer is easie 1. That a protestation is not unjust because it is against the major part except it be against reason and right and no man will be so mad as to assent unto a major against reason which is above all votes 2. It s true that the party protesting puts himself out of the protection of that Soveraign against whom he protests but this may be a misery but no injustice T. H. The Soveraigns actions cannot be accused of injustice by the subject because he hath made himself Author of all his actions And no man can do injustice to himself The Soveraign may do iniquity but not injustice G. L. 1. The Soveraigns actions are to punish the evil and protect the good as a Soveraign he can do no other actions and these cannot be justly accused 2. Neither can the consent of the people nor doth a Commission of God give him any power to act contrary to these 3. When he acts unjustly for so he may do and all iniquity is injustice neither God nor the people are authors of such actions for he was set up by them to do justly and no waies else 4. Civil justice and injustice as they consist in formalities differ much from moral and essential justice and injustice In this respect a Prince may be civilly just and morally unjust 5. To accuse may be judicial or extra judicial Judicially a Prince as a Prince cannot be accused by his subject as such Yet the subject may represent unto his soveraign his saults and by way of humble petition desire them to be reformed T H. Whatsoever the Soveraign doth is unpunishable by the subject because if the subject punish him he punisheth another for his own actions G. L. 1. A Soveraign as a Soveraign cannot be punished by his subject as his subject 2. Yet he that is supreme only for administration may be punished and put to death Thus the Ephori might punish the Lacedaemonian Kings and the Justice of Arragon the Kings of that Kingdom 3. Absolute Princes may cease to be such and then they differ not from other men And it will be an hard task to prove that any consent of man or humane title can free one from punishment with death who is guilty of a crime which God hath determined to be capital and commanded to be punished with death 4. Why should it be lawful for a forrein Prince warring and proving victorious upon a just quarrel to put a wicked Prince to death and not for those who have been his subjects when they have power to do it and tends to the publick good which cannot possibly without this act of justice be preserved Yet this cannot warrant any cursed Rebels or Traytors or the like to murther Princes though their pretences may be coloured with piety and justice The jura Majestatis or rights of higher-higher-powers following are truly such Two things only I take notice of 1. That the Prince is only Judge of Doctrines taught so far as either the matter of right or manner of teaching may be prejudicial to the State or beneficial to the same as the Doctrine of the Gospel wisely taught alwaies is a blessing 2. Whereas he affirms that there is no propriety before a form of Government be established it s evidently false and civil Laws determine how every man may keep or recover that which is by justice his own According to his rules the institution of a Soveraign takes away all propriety of the subject That the rights of Soveraigns are indivisible and incommunicable is true if rightly understood To this purpose Authors distinguish these royalties into the greater and the less and say the latter may the former cannot be divided or communicated Others affirm That in a mixt State they of necessity must in a pure State they must not be either divisible or communicable This point may be made more clear if we understand 1. That these rights or jura are but so many branches of one and the same power supreme civil as it may act upon several objects And all these branches are reducible to three For supreme power civil is Legislative Judicial Executive as before and because it extends to these three acts therefore it may be said to be threefold And all these rights reckoned up by him which are such indeed are contained under these three though neither he nor other Authors have much observed it Amongst these the Legislative is the principal not only the first but the chiefest yet the other are necessary because without them it s in vain for what are Laws without Judgement and Execution yet even the Laws regulate both And to know who are Soveraign in any act the only infallible way is by the Legislation For in whomsoever the Legislative power originally is he or they are supreme for it is not the actual making of certain rules to order all things in a State but the giving of a binding force unto them which makes the Soveraign This power not only as it is a power but as supreme cannot be divided For if you take any essential part from it you destroy it so that its indivisible in it self 2. In respect of the subject For whether the subject be the Community or the Optimates they must be considered as one person morally though they be many physically and the reason is they must go all together otherwise there can be no first mover in a State for it is one supreme power in it self and must also be in one subject yet for the administration it may be divided because the Soveraign doth exercise this power and acts severally by several Officers which are but instruments animated and acted by him This power is also incommunicable within one and the same community and territory except you will constitute more States then one T. H. pag. 93. If there had not first been an opinion recieved of the greatest part of England that these powers were divided between the King and the Lords and the Commons the people had never been devided and fallen into these civil wars G. L. The cause moral of these wars was our sins the Political cause was the male-administration yet so that all sides have offended through want of wisdom and many other waies The ignorance of Politicks in general and of our own constitution in particular cannot be excused or excepted What the ancient constitution was we know not certainly though some reliques of the
Laws of Nature These Laws are the moral precepts of eternal justice and equity from which all civil Laws have their rise and are either conclusions drawn from them or certain rules tending to the better observation of them Which things well considered do make it very evident how little the power of civil Lords and Princes must needs be In some few indifferent things they may be absolute have arbitrary power and be in some respect above those constitutive Laws which they themselves enact His instance in Jephtah gives them power above and contrary to the Laws of God and Nature Yet who will grant him that Jephtah sacrificed his daughter The text will not evince it for it only saith that whatsoever cometh forth of my doors to meet me c. shall be the Lords or I will offer it up for a burnt-offering Judges 11.31 For the particle 〈◊〉 Vau turned by some copulatively for and is here as in many other places dis-junctive and signifies or Again if Jephtah did sacrifice her he sinned not only against the Law of Nature but also the written Law of Moses For God gave no command permission or toleration to any that we read of but only to Abraham to sacrifice with humane blood and that Commandment was but to try him for he would not suffer him to put him to death Besides God threatens ruine and destruction to such as did offer their children to Moloch and shed their blood And their sin was not only because they offered them to Idols and Devils but also because they shed innocent blood without any warrant or Commission from God the only supreme and absolute Lord of life Further how could the vow of man which was but a voluntary Obligation be above the Law of God and make that lawful which by a Superiour Law was unlawful I verily believe she was devoted only not sacrificed But suppose he did sacrifice her to God to whom he had vowed her yet he did not this as a Soveraign of her life but as a subject to God The example of David murthering Vriah can much less prove the absolute power of Soveraigns to take away the lives of their innocent subjects For David had no such power for 1. He was no absolute Prince but limited both by the written Laws of God and also the Natural 2. Neither he nor any other can have any such power because man cannot God doth not give any such power 3. David did not only iniquity but injustice to Vriah 1. As his fellow-subject in respect of God 2. As his own subject whom he was bound as innocent to protect not to destroy 4. His proof out of Psal 51.4 Against thee only is invalid For 1. Though it be so translated by some and so understood by Ambrose and others who follow him yet neither that translation nor the interpretation thereon can be evinced either out of the Original or the Septuagint or the vulgar or Junius or Vatablus 2. Genebrard Vatablus Junius Ainsworth and others understand it that God only was privy to and knew of this sin and the words following And done this evil in thy sight seem to confirm this sense 5. Yet suppose it should be turned against thee only yet others interpret onely to be principally as supreme Law-giver and Judge not only to me but all others who only hast the Original power of punishing and pardoning not only me but others and that not only temporally but spiritually and eternally Yet the exposition of Ambrose is taken up because Princes desire it to be so absolute and both Divines and other men are very ready to slatter such as are in present possession of power But to make the point more evident let me digress a little and search out the reason and cause of the power of life and death as in the hands of civil Soveraigns To this end observe That no man hath absolute power of his own life as he hath of his goods Man may have the use and possession but not the propriety and dominion of it Therefore it s granted on all hands that though a mans life be said to be his own yet he may not be felo de se and kill himself he is not Master of his life so far as to have any power or liberty to do any such thing It s true that God who is Lord of life and death gives liberty to man in some cases to hazard in some he commands to lay down his life He may hazard it in a just war and defence of his own Countrey and also of himself against an unjust invader He must lay down his life and God commands it for the testimony of Christ in which case he that loseth it shall find it From all this it follows that no people can by making a Soveraign give any absolute power of life and death unto him For nothing can give that which it hath not neither can they make themselves Authors of the unjust acts of their Soveraign much less of his murthers and taking away the lives of their innocent subjects Id enim quisque potest quod jure potest If thus it be then they must have power to take away life from God who alone hath power of life and this power he only gives in case the subject be guilty of such crimes as by his Laws are capital T. H. pag. 110. in the margent The liberty which writers praise is the liberty of Soveraigns not of private men G. L. By writers he means the Roman and Greek Historians and Philosophers who wrote so much of liberty amongst the rest especially Aristotle and Cicero By this it seems he never understood these Authors though he accuse others of ignorance The liberty which the English have challenged and obtained with so much expence of blood is not the power of Kings much less of absolute Soveraigns as he would make the world believe but that which is due unto us by the constitution of the State Magna Charta the Laws and the Petition of Right It s but the liberty of subjects not Soveraigns when he hath said all he can we are not willing to be slaves or subject our selves to Kings as absolute Lords Neither are we willing that either flattering Divines Court-Parasites or Unjust Ministers of State should wind up the pretended prerogative so high as to subject our lives and estates and also our Religion to the arbitrary absolute and unreasonable will of one man whom they did desire to advance so much for their own interest There is a difference between the subjects liberty whereby in many things he may command himself and supreme power which commands others under their Supremacy By liberty Aristotle Cicero meant such a priviledge as every subject might have in a free-State not that Soveraignty which belonged to the whole and universal body over several persons where it is to be noted that one and the same person who is a subject and at the best but a Magistrate
another and be parts one of another I do not understand 6. A Law of Nature is only then a civil Law when it s declared to be so by the civil Soveraign yet it s a Law before 7. For the most part learned men do understand by the Laws of Nature certain divine principles imprinted upon the heart of man by the Laws of Nations more immediate by the Laws civil more remote Conclusions of constitutive Laws civil T. H. Seeing all Laws have their authority and force from the will of the Soveraign a man may wonder whence proceed such opinions as are found in the Books of Lawyers of eminence in several Common-wealths directly or by consequence making the Legislative power depend on private men or subordinate Judges as for example That the Common-Law hath no Controuler but the Parliament Item That the Common-Law hath two arms Force and Justice the one whereof is in the King the other deposited in the hands of the Parliament G. L. The former Conclusion which is the fifth in order That the Laws of Princes and Countries subdued depend upon the Soveraign conquering is true And it is wisdom in the Conquerors to grant them the Laws and Customs of God and no waies prejudicial to their power For many are willing to change their Governors yet unwilling to change their Government But as concerning the two maximes of Law I might refer him to the Learned in that profession who no doubt can make them good against any thing he hath said They seem to him to be unreasonable partly because he is ignorant of the Constitution both of this and also of other States partly because they are inconsistent with his Utopian principles For he presupposeth 1. That the King of England is an absolute Monarch 2. That the Parliament as a Parliament is meerly a subject 3. That the King hath power at will and pleasure to call Parliaments and dissolve them yet these hath he not made good neither can he 1. That our Kings are not absolute Monarchs is well known the Laws and practice have made it manifest And whatsoever ignorant persons and parasites may say yet wise men both English and Forreign States-men who have dealt with England have been assured of the contrary especially when in certain leagues they have required the consent of the Parliament Again the Kings of England never made or repealed a Law nor levied a subsidie alone themselves without a Parliament And they are sworn corroborare leges quas vulgus elegerit For let Elegerit be what tense it will vulgus which is populus non rex eligit leges and the late King in his answer to the 19. Propositions did confess that the Lords and Commons had a share in the Legislative power And it were very much to be wondered at if that King who himself alone could never make or repeal a Law nor levy or impose a subsidie nor revoke the judgement of any Court nor alter a word or clause in any Law agreed upon in Parliament should be an absolute Monarch It s far more probable he was only trusted with the force for the execution of justice according to Law and Judgement according to the second maxime And if he was no absolute Soveraign then his second supposition that the Parliament as such is only an Assembly of private men and subjects and to be considered in no other capacity is false As likewise his third That the King can call and dissolve Parliaments at will and pleasure For by the Constitution the Laws and practise he was bound to call them once a year and oftner as the necessity and exigency of affairs either of peace or war should require And in such cases to dissolve them before the ardua Regni were dispatched was both dangerous and destructive and did argue either a bad constitution or a corruption of the same T. H. Law cannot be against reason neither is it the letter but the intention of the Law-giver that is the Law And this reason is not private of subordinate Judges but of the supreme Lawgiver G. L. All this is willingly granted if he understand by Reason not the meer conceit or will of the Soveraign but that reason which is a ray of divine wisdom shining in the mind of the Law-giver regulating his judgement and expressed in the words of the Law And the sense of a Law given by a learned Judge subordinate may be very true yet not authentick because he that makes the Law can interpret Law in that manner and none else I pass by his discourse concerning promulgation and interpretation of Law as also the qualification of Judges which belongs to that Chapter of Officers formerly mentioned He might have done well to have improved these excellent Treatises of other learned Authors who have informed us both more accurately and also more particularly of these things then he himself hath done But he conceits himself as far above them as they surpass ordinary men Neither is his distribution of Laws worth the examination as being very crude and indigested as also heterogeneous I proceed therefore to his two questions concerning what assurance may be had of and obedience ought to be given unto divine positive Laws The questions are T. H. 1. How can a man without supernatural revelation be assured of the revelation received by the declarer of those Laws 2. How can he be bound to obey them The answer to the first By sanctity miracles wisdom success without particular revelation its impossible for a man to have assurance of a revelation made to another Therefore no man can infallibly know by natural reason that another hath had a supernatural revelation of Gods will but only a belief G. L. This presupposeth 1. That there is a positive Law of God 2. This positive Law is declared and witnessed to be the Law of God 3. That this testimony concerning this Law is divine and infallible 4. That it is such because it s grounded on and agreeable to an immediate revelation from God of that Law to him that doth declare it as to Moses the Prophets or Apostles For God formerly spake unto the Fathers by the Prophets in the latter times to their children by his Son first and after by his Apostles The question here is not how we shall attain a demonstrative clear or intuitive knowledge of the matter of the Law nor of the manner of the revelation but how we may be assured that the declaration or testimony of him to whom the revelation was made is divine that we may believe it as divine and from God The means whereby the divinity of the testimony was made evident at the first were extraordinary as signs wonders and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost according to his own will Heb. 2.4 But after that upon these divine attestations the Gospel was generally received in all Nations and the prophesies of the Old Testament in this particular fulfilled these ceased yet one thing
the guily he may justly suffer Some are one person with the guilty by nature as children with parents some by consent as sureties with the principal guilty of non-payment or by Laws civil as the subjects with the Soveraign 6. The just execution of judgement is a means to avert Gods wrath to protect the just to preserve the State and procure Gods mercy Rewards are contrary to punishments and are due to such as are loyal and obedient subjects doing well These either are ordinary and general as protection of life liberty estate or extraordinary and more special and such as enrich or advance or give priviledges immunities and exemptions And these latter should never be disposed of but according to desert and by this means they would encourage the subject and breed gallant men Thus far his constitution of the Leviathan the great monstrous animal hath been examined and viewed and is found to consist of an absolute power and absolute slavery The head is an absolute Soveraign the body and members absolute slaves CAP. XIII Of the Second Part. And the twenty ninth of the Book Of those things which weaken and tend to the dissolution of a Common-wealth ALL bodies Politick are truly mortal as the Author saith though not so mortal as the individual persons whereof they are constituted be For by reason of succession of these singular and several persons they are of longer continuance and therefore said to be immortal the proper meaning whereof is that they are not so mortal Many States are constituted by degrees not in a moment or any short time and in the like manner they decay by little and little until they utterly vanish in a total dissolution And though both constitution and dissolution seem sometimes to be fortuitous yet they are not so for its God who in his mercy plants and builds and in his just judgement plucks up and pulls down This is the place assigned by Authors to the head of Politicks which delivers the causes of the alteration corruption and subversion of States Alterations of the forms of Government are sometimes for the better and so they are a blessing sometimes for the worse and so they are the same with corruption Corruption is from man subversion from God as the supreme and universal Judge Corruption goes before subversion follows And this corruption is from the sins and crimes of the Governors or governed or both The crimes of Governors are either Personal or Political Personal are many times the same with the offences of the people sins of them as men Political are such as make them guilty as they are Governors as ignorance imprudence negligence in justice Political and these not only in assuming and acquiring power but in the administration of the same The sins of the people as subjects are impatiency when they will not endure the severity of just Governors good Laws and impartial Judgement a desire of innovation and alteration of Government without just and necessary causes open rebellion secret treachery and conspiracy sedition and such like The sins of both which are personal are impiety against God injustice and unmercifulness towards man the abuse of peace and plenty to bravery drunkenness gluttony lewdness and such like Vices And when in these they become impudent incorrigible and universally delinquent their ruine is fatal and unavoidable the harvest is ripe and the sickle of Gods vengeance will cut them off The Apostle in his Epistle to the Romans cap. 13. gives a perfect model of the best and most lasting States 1. The higher powers must so ascend the Throne as that it may be truly said they were ordained of God and advanced not only and meerly by his permission but Commission and Command 2. They must have a sword and a sufficient coactive power 3. They must use the same according to just judgement and wholsom Laws for the protection of the good and the punishment of the bad 4. The people must be subject not only out of fear but conscience 5. They must obey their good and wholsom Laws 6. They must give them such allowance as shall be sufficient to maintain and make good their just power 7. They must love one another 8. They must not live in rioting and drunkenness chambering and wantonness nor in strife and envying In a word they must be sober in themselves just towards man devout towards God But when Prince Priest and people refuse to follow these Laws they draw Gods judgements from heaven upon the Common-wealth Idle filthy and abominable Sodom must be destroyed Gold-thirsty and blood-thirsty Babylon cannot stand Idolatrous and Apostate Israel and Judah must be wasted with sword famine pestilence their Countrey made desolate and the remnant carried captives and dispersed in remote parts and in the midst of their enemies But let us examine the causes of the weakening and dissolution of States determined by the Author T. H. The 1 is when a man to obtain a Kingdom is content sometimes with a less power then to the peace and defence of the Common-wealth is necessarily required G. L. This may prove to be a cause yet very rarely Princes and Monarchs for of them he speaks offend usually on the other hand If they can they will assume and challenge far more power then either God will or man can give them for they desire to be absolute Lords Few of them are of brave Theopompus his mind who willingly made his power less that it might be more lasting To be Dukes of Venice can in no wise satisfie their vast ambitious desires The Lacedemiun Ephori are terrible to them The Justitia Arragoniae cannot be endured Legislative and judicial Parliaments do too much restrain and limit their power 〈◊〉 with them its treason to affirm that there be any lawful means to reduce them into order when they apparently transgress the Laws of nature which are the Laws of God The people indeed must be kept in awe and order and this cannot be without power But what is here understood by power It s not potestas but potentia strength and force which may be great in a Leviathan yet without wisdom and justice can never long keep the people in subjection His examples of the Roman and Athenian free-States are not fully applyed neither do the applyed come home unto the point Rome was strong enough to subdue a great part of the world before she became imperial and Athens in that Law concerning Salamis had power enough but wanted wisdom and therefore were reformed by the wise folly of Solon That which is here spoken of the power of Kings is not to derogate the least from that power which is due unto them by the constitution of the State wherein they raign Some have more some have less Yet none should have less then is sufficient for the full discharge of their place And it is to be wished every one of them would keep the bounds determined by God and the Constitution T H.
too For such the Jews here charged were So that all that can be either by him evidently proved or by others granted is That if by Nature he mean corruption of Nature and the same not only original and native but also acquired by perpetual acts so far as to quench the light of Nature and suppress the vigour of those Principles which God left as reliques of his image then his Position may be true That the state of Nature is the state of War Secondly That by a well-constituted civil Government to which Nature inclines man the Laws of Nature and Peace may be more easily and better observed But I hasten to his Definition of a Common-wealth and it is thus defined by Mr. Hobbs A Common-wealth is a Person of whose acts a great multitude by mutual Covenant one with another have made themselves every one the Author to the end he may use the strength and means of them all as he shall think expedient for their peace and common defence G. L. 1. This Definition is obscure and might have been made more plain and easie and such as we read in other Authors 2. It s imperfect and only tels us what pars imperans is and that most poorly if not falsly too 3. It may agree unto the Head or Captain of a sedition or rebellion or a company of Thieves and Robbers by Land or Pirats by Sea nay but that he speaks of a society or multitude of men it exactly agrees unto Belzebub the prince of Devils In a word it agrees to any unlawful multitude united to do mischief For here is no mention of reason or justice or law Aristotle and other Authors use to qualifie their Definition of a State with some such term For they make it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 legitimam ordinationem and do not give up all to the soveraigns judgement which may be blinded or his will which may be corrupted or his power which may act more like a beast then like a man 4. A Common-wealth may be defined in another manner thus It is a community of men orderly subjected to a supreme power civil that they may live peaceably in all godliness and honesty This Definition or rather Description is not so accurate yet it is sufficient to inform the Reader of the nature of civil Government somewhat better then the Author hath done In it we may consider 1. The community as the Matter and Subject 2. The supreme Power civil informing this Matter 3. The orderly Subjection unto it for peace and a good life 1. The community is the Matter of which some things may be observed as 1. That the name in Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latine Civitas which is not as the Author saith a Common-wealth in proper sense for that in Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latine Respublica 2. That it is a multitude of reasonable Men not a Leviathan which is an irrational Brute The number of this multitude may be greater or less and not certainly determinable For Ragusa a little City as well as the vast Roman Empire may be a community to make a perfect State 3. This community must be associated and united not only in vicinity of place which is convenient but also in some stricter bond before they can be capable of a supreme Power 4. The Members of this Society are by nature free and by God to whom they are subject left at liberty to choose what Governours or form of Government they please yet so that they must desire and endeavour the best and such as shall be most conducing to Peace and Righteousness 5. Sometimes it fals out and is so ordered by Providence that a People who have continued for a certain time under a form of Government return unto their first liberty yet even then when God doth offer them an opportunity to establish the best form and constitution that they are fearfully divided Some are for the former Government others idolize some new Idea framed in their own brains Others in the mean time get the sword into their hands and once possessed of Power are unwilling to part with it Yet these sometimes are dispossessed again in the mean time the People like so many waves of the Sea are tossed this way and that way by contrary winds like as in Daniels vision when he saw the four winds strive upon the great Sea out of which arose the great Empires of the world Dan. 7.2 3 c. And all this comes to pass through the just Judgement of God and the wilful folly of men who are enemies to their own Peace Lastly In these many alterations of Governours and forms of Government the Community abides the same except it be cut off by the sword as the Amalakites and Canaanites were or destroyed by some extraordinary Judgement as Sodom and Gomorrha with fire and brimstone from heaven The second part of the Definition is the Supreme Power And here we must consider 1. The Nature of Power in general 2. The Nature of supreme Power civil 3. The Original of it 4. The Subject wherein it s fixed 1. Power in Latine Potestas in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Jus imperandi a quality inherent in a Superiour as such whereby he can effectually command or bind any person subject as subject Imperium or Command is properly an act of a superiour Will whereby the person subject is bound to obedience or punishment It presupposeth the Understanding and practical Judgement whereby it is directed and is to no purpose without an executive power and coactive force sufficient to protect the Subject obeying and punish him if he prove disobedient And because the Judgement may be erroneous and the command unjust therefore there can be no Jus imperandi without Divine wisdom to direct the Understanding and Justice to regulate the Will which is to direct the coactive force And though Superiours may in many things abuse their Superiority yet they do not cease to be Superiours though as abusing their power they are not Superiours because Nulla datur Potestas ad malum none can have power to bind contrary to Divine Wisdom and Justice 2. Supreme Power civil which is in Latine called Majestas which is maxima Potestas in Civitate may be defined out of Rom. 13.1 2 3 4 5 c. and 1 Pet. 2.13 to be a Sword committed by God unto higher Powers for to punish the bad and protect the good For 1. In all Government civil there must be a sword which is an outward coactive strength and force and the same sufficient for the end it was ordained and given by God How otherwise can there possibly be any sufficient protection or punishment within the precincts of the community and territory And here two things are to be observed 1. That one and the same Sword must protect from enemies without and unjust Subjects within For the Sword of War and Justice are but one Sword 2. That there
good to deliver concerning the Nature of a Common-wealth civil The Distribution followeth Mr. Hobbs A Common-wealth is either by institution or acquisition G. L. This is not the distribution of a Common-wealth either into the integral parts which are two 1. The soveraign 2. The subject not into the kinds for those are usually taken from the several manners of disposing the supreme power in one or more to make it Monarchical or Polycratical but it s a distinction of the manner of acquiring supreme power And the ordinary way or rather means whereby it is acquired is either by force or consent Yet this distinction is imperfect for there be other means besides these neither when supreme Power is obtained either by force or consent is a Common-wealth framed The Power is alwayes derived from God as before and he takes it from one and gives to another either in an extraordinary or an ordinary way of Providence as by giving a finall victory or inclining mens hearts and that upon several reasons to submit and sometimes so that if they had liberty and power they would not consent at all And though men may be unjust in desiring and seeking yet he is just in giving it And by the way it s to be observed 1. That a Power acquired and held by force cannot govern without a tacit consent at least so that all Common-wealths are by consent 2. No man or men can govern any people long by force except it be the Will of God to punish and oppress them with an iron rod for their transgressions CAP. II. Of the Second Part and the Eighteenth of the Book Of the Rights of Soveraigns by Institution THis Chapter informs us what the rights of Soveraigns once constituted are In every Common-wealth there must be a supreme Power fixed in some certain Subject this is essential to it yet though this be a principal thing to be done yet it is not all neither being done doth it make a compleat Common-wealth His Covenant of every one with every one for to design a Soveraign is but an Utopian fancy For by the best Histories we may understand that many States have attained to a setled form of Regular Government by degrees in a long tract of time and that by several alterations intervening so that the Laws of their constitution are rather customs then any written Charter Some Communities come under a form of Government more suddenly and by a way fortuitous unto man though not so to God And in this point the practise of former times not the fancies and speculations of men must instruct us T. H. The first of the twelve Rights of the Soveraign is That Subjects cannot change the form of Government G. L. That Community which hath Power and Liberty to alter the form of Government to the better do not their duty or are not wise if they do it not And it were wisdom in any people to reserve the Power to the whole body to be used as occasion opportunity and necessity shall require As they are bound to reform the State when it is corrupted so they are bound to alter the form when without an alteration reformation cannot be obtained That the Subjects have no power to alter the form of Government may be granted for Subjects as Subjects must submit unto the Power established not take upon them the highest and most transcendent Prerogative of all others yet this is no right of the Soveraign nor to be reckoned inter Jura Majestatis For the Soveraign himself hath no right of himself to change the fundamental constitution Before this can be done the People must return unto the original State of Liberty and to a Community which in England is not a Parliament but the fourty Counties Upon this ground some have said that a Parliament cannot alter the Government what men may do upon a Dissolution and in a case of real not pretended necessity is another matter But let us hear his reasons T. H. The first upon supposition of no former Obligation is That it is a breach of that Covenant whereby they made themselves authours of every act the soveraign doth or shall judge fit to be done 2. If they depose the Soveraign that which is his own and they had formerly given him they take away unjustly 3. If any attempting to depose his Soveraign be killed or punished he is Author of his own punishment 4. A new Covenant pretended to be made with God cannot free them from offence and injustice in their disobedience unto their Soveraign because they can make no Covenant with God without his Leiutenant which is the Prince G. L. 1. I grant as formerly that a Subject as such cannot act to change the Government or depose his lawful Soveraign 2. They who set up a Soveraign and by Covenant advance him to the Throne must and ought to be free from all former superiour obligations which cannot stand with this But what is this to purpose The question is whether Subjects cannot change the form of Government in any case and whether the Subjects may not be freed and that lawfully from their allegiance and cease to be in the State of Subjects That it many times fals out so to be is evident For by civil wars by forraign invasions transmigrations and other wayes it comes to pass that Subjects are free from their Soveraigns who cannot protect them and in such cases if God give them Power they may alter the form of Government if it may be for the best But to come more close unto his first reason let us suppose as he affirmeth That a people by Covenant have set up a particular person to be a Monarch and so made themselves authors of all his acts whether is it lawful for you by a new Covenant to obey another or cast off Monarchy or transfer his person upon another without injustice He saith ye cannot without breach of Covenant do it But 1. He here presupposeth his former Utopian fancy of a Covenant of every man with every man whereas its plain few States of the world now in power were thus constituted 2. Soveraigns are of two sorts 1. Such as in whom the supreme power doth constantly and immediately abide 2. Such as are such only for execution and administration To these latter the subjects bind themselves to be faithful so far as they shall be faithful to the Kingdom and the Crown which is theirs not jurc dominii by absolute right with a power to alienate them or destroy them For every subject is first bound to be faithful to their Countrey then unto their King who swears to maintain the Laws Liberty and Religion by Law established These cannot bind us to do any thing against the Laws of God of Nature nor against our Countrey But with this Author every Monarch is absolute and in particular the Kings of England amongst the rest 3. Suppose a Covenant with a Soveraign absolute or limited be against the Laws of God
either moral or positive in force may not the subjects break this Covenant without injustice Nay is it not injustice for to keep it seeing Nullum juramentum ligat ad illicitum 4. If the Soveraigns Acts be directly contray to justice equity and the fear of God must the subjects who gave him no such power be Authors of these horrid acts as murther incest adultery blasphemy as also of his unjust commands and perverse judgements 5. To be obedient to another to transfer his power to depose him is not to change the form of government but to pull down one and set up another the form remaining the same 6. Subjects or rather they who are subjects as subjects cannot make any such Covenant as to make one who was no Soveraign to be their Soveraign If they can make a Soveraign they must be equal and equally free in making that Covenant whereby a supreme Governour is constituted 7. If they who were aequà liberi before and in the time of making this Covenant and after it is concluded become subjects afterwards rebel they cease to be subjects and become hostes enemies and are so to be dealt withall And what reason can be given why the Soveraign if he prove a Tyrant in the administration and challenge more power then was given him or could by the Laws of God or Nature be conferred upon him should not cease to be a Soveraign and the subjects free from their allegiance to him seeing he hath violated the essential part of the Covenant and perverted the main end of all Government Why should it be otherwise in this then in all other pacts and contracts This question is the more difficult to be answered by this Author because he allows the people a power to make a Soveraign and if he be such as is one onely for administration its unanswerable This point might have been more clearly determined if he had instanced in any particulars In all this I desire to be understood aright For 1. That power which the Bishop of Rome doth challenge and hath sometimes exercised in the excommunication and deposition of Princes and absolving their subjects from allegiance I detest 2. I desire all Covenants that are just and justly made whilest they are in force to be kept especially by all subjects to their lawful Soveraigns For no subjects are to be perswaded or encouraged to Treason or Rebellion 3. I would advise all people to beware how they rise against or resist the highest powers though the cause may be just and because the remedy may prove worse then the disease and often proves so and the confusions which follow such commotions are more mischievous then the former oppressions and a Tyrannie is better then an Anarchy His second reason is because they had given him the right of Soveraignty which the cannot take away Where 1. He grants That the people give the Soveraign his right and if so then they gave it him not as subjects and when they return to the same occasion again they may give the power to another 2. I deny that subjects do give any such right 3. Neither can he prove that there is any such Covenant of every man with every man in the constitution of civil States His third reason is not worth an answer But in the end of this paragraph he seems to take away the pretence and allegation of some new Covenanters with God What Covenant he means is not here expressed If he understand the National Covenant as it s very likely he doth then let those who pretend it answer for themselves For that Covenant could not give the least power either to England or Scotland or any in either Nation entering into it and in the same they only engaged to use lawful means to accomplish what they had promised Yet with him this and all other Covenants are void if made with God without his Vicegerent who is their Soveraign Yet if this were true then the Covenant made in Baptism by the converted Christians under the heathen Emperours cannot be valid This is evidently false because every man may voluntarily bind himself to God in those things wherein the Laws of God and man have left him free without the consent or express permission of his civil Soveraign T. H. The second right of a Soveraign is he cannot forfeit the reasons are 1. There is no Covenant made on his part either with them all joyntly or severally not with them joyntly because they cannot be one person before they subject unto him Not with them severally for they Covenant one with another not with him and if any one pretend freedom from subjection there can be no judge of the controversie 2. Words as all Covenants are be of no force without a sword publick G. L. This is the substance though not all the words to prove that Soveraigns cannot forfeit His 1. Reason takes that for granted which is false and cannot be proved For a community is one person moral by siction of Law as they use to speak or as the Civilians express themselves persona conjuncta opposed to singularis For a community is the immediate subject of a Common-wealth and must be associate before they can be capable of a form of Government and without union and communion too it cannot be civitas societas populus As thus united it may act and covenant by their Deputies who may be many or by a Deputy which may be one and here they may in the name of the whole Covenant with the person whom they like for Soveraign and upon conditions just and reasonable Thus Israel a meer community makes Moses their Deputy and Mediator to Covenant with God in their behalf Thus the ten Tribes by some of their principal men capitulate with Jeroboam Thus the Gileadites by their Messengers offer to contract with Jephtah and some of the Tribes make the same offer unto Gideon Thus a free people may invest one man or more either with original power or trust him and them only with the administration And they may put conditions upon them either to give them an unlimited or limited power as the wisest men amongst them shall think fit And there is great reason so to do For 1. They are free 2. He with whom they purpose to contract hath no right to command them no power over them before he be made Soveraign He is but a private person and they are mad men if they will subject themselves upon unreasonable conditions They are very unwise who will make a Butcher their Shepherd or set a Woolf over their Flocks And surely it s no point of wisdom in any free-people to trust any one man or assembly of men with an absolute unlimited power If an enemy come in by conquest they must be content with what conditions he pleaseth not with such as they desire For they are not free because their estates liberty lives are in his power As for the Covenant of every one with
is to inform the King of his errours and never to cease petitioning in the name of the people till he reform and return to the observation of the Laws These also inform the King of the miscarriage of all other Officers though never so great The other rule and practise is every third year to make a severe and rigid inquisition into the administration of all Magistrates and to put out and punish the unjust negligent and unworthy and to establish the just The Author endeavours to prove the excellency of Monarchy above other forms because it hath conveniencies proper to it self and is free from inconveniencies incident to Aristocratical and Democratical States Yet this is to little purpose For 1. The best forms have their imperfections 2. The inconveniences mentioned are easily prevented by wise States-men even in other forms of Government The discourse following concerning elective and limited Monarchies so called yet are not such as also concerning succession I omit 1. Because others have discussed these points in their Political systems more accurately 2. Because though some things are both ignorantly and untruly affirmed yet they are not worthy to be taken notice of much less of any refutation CAP. IV. Of the Second Part the twentieth of the Book of Paeternal and Despotical Dominion THE method of Politicks is miserably perverted by the Author For whereas power is first acquired before a Common-wealth can be constituted he first informs us of the several kinds of Constitutions which arise from the different manner of disposing the power acquired and after that of several waies how the power is acquired And further to bewray his ignorance of the rules of Government he confounds Oeconomical power with Political so that I may truly say that he is one of the worst that ever wrote either of Civil or Ecclesiastical Politicks In this Chapter he undertakes 1. To define a Common-wealth by acquisition and to shew the difference between it and that by constitution 2. To declare how dominion is acquired 3. To prove the Soveraign rights out of Scripture 4. From thence to demonstrate that all Soveraign power is absolute T. H. A Common-wealth by acquisition is that where the Soveraign power is acquired by force And the difference of this from that of constitution is that in the former men subject themselves for fear of the Soveraign in the latter for fear of one another G. L. This is the substance though not all his words where we must observe That this is no distinction of a Common-wealth but of the manner how the power whereby any is made a Soveraign is acquired and that all Soveraigns do one way or other acquire their power for it s meerly accidental no waies essential to any man for to be invested with power And howsoever the Soveraignty civil be obtained it makes no difference in the Common-wealth For in every state the power is acquired and so there is no Common-wealth but its both by acquisition and constitution too So that he hath made a distinction without a difference T. H. Dominion is acquired two waies by Generation and Conquest The first is Paternal the latter is Despotical G. L. This is very defective as in this place its heterogeneous and impertinent What have we to do with Family-power in a Common-wealth For Familes as they make vicinities and vicinities a Community civil are but a remote material part of Politicks In a Family there is a threefold power acquired the power of an husband over his wife by marriage covenant or contract the power of parents over their children by generation the power of Masters over their servants acquired several waies for some servants are slaves some are free Slaves are vernae servants born in the Family or emptitii bought with money such as are free be conductitii The two former are more subject then the last and the Master hath more power over the former sort who are born and bought then over the latter who are only hired So that there is a difference of Despotical power even in a Family the one is more absolute the other more limited Soveraignty civil is acquired several waies and all may be reduced to two For men come unto this power either justly or unjustly Justly and that either in an extraordinary way as by special unction and designation from God thus Saul and David and Davids lawful Successors of his Family were made the two first by particular nomination the other by ageneral entail or in an ordinary manner and that is either by the Law of Nature or by institution By the Law of Nature when a multitude sufficient for their own protection and government associate and by union and communion become a Community the Soveraignty is virtually and eminently in themselves and in the whole body of the people being free and this is so natural a subject that upon the defect of succession it returns unto them again By institution and more formal contract and that is by a free and full election or by a submission to a Conquerer which is so far voluntary that if they had power to protect themselves they would not submit Unjustly by usurpation when he or they who have no right yet take the possession into their own hands in a way contrary to the Laws of God and the consent of men yet such an Usurper cannot be a Soveraign without some kind of consent of God and man In this case fraud or force gets the advantage over the people so far as that they must submit or do worse When any ascend the Throne by Marriage Succession Election they are made Governors by institution with free and full consent In all this I speak of the supreme not the subordinate power which is by Commission derived from the supreme In all these waies of acquiring power we must distinguish between power of constitution in constitution and in administration and also take special notice that there is no power which can govern without consent not only of man but also and especially of God who either in justice and severity or in mercy doth change and alter the Kingdoms of the world at will and pleasure For he alone doth rule in heaven and earth at all times Thus far concerning the acquisition of power and of the jura majestatis rights of Soveraigns which he conceives to have made clear by reason and now in the next place undertakes to prove out of Scripture yet in such a loose and implous abusive manner that I verily perswade my self he doth not believe them to be revealed and written from heaven or that Jesus Christ was an ordinary just man much less the Eternal Son of God incarnate T. H. pag. 105. Le ts now consider what the Scripture teacheth in the same point To Moses the children of Israel say thus Speak thou to us and we will hear thee but let not God speak to us lest we die This is absolute obedience to Moses G. L. This is
the first Scripture alledged by him we read it in Exod. 20.19 To understand these words we must consider 1. That cap. 19.8 That all the people answered together and said All that the Lord hath said that will we do This was an absolute subjection of themselves to God and a promise to obey him 2. That the Lord said unto Moses Lo I come unto thee in a thick cloud that the people may hear when I speak with thee and believe thee for ever Verse 9. This was to procure authority and credit unto Moses as a Messenger between God and Israel 3. That the words of Exod. 20.19 quoted by the Author are expounded Deut. 5.27 For thus there we read Go thou near and hear all that the Lord our God shall say and speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak to thee and we will hear it and do it From all which it is apparent 1. That the people had formerly before they spake these words subjected themselves to God and he was their Soveraign not Moses 2. That they promise to obey the words of God declared by Moses not as they were the words and Laws of Moses but of God they will do them 3. That they promise to believe Moses as a Messenger between God and them not obey him as their supreme Lord. It s one thing to believe Moses as a Prophet from God and to yield him absolute obedience as a King Believe him as a Prophet they might obey him as their King they must not God was their King and Moses his Messenger and servant How grosly therefore doth he abuse the place how absurdly and falsly doth he thence infer the peoples promise of absolute obedience to Moses which was only due and promised unto God T. H. Concerning the right of Kings God himself by the mouth of Samuel saith This shall be the right of the King you will have to raign over you he shall take your sons c. 1 Sam. 8.11 12 c. G. L. 1. The translation which he confessed is allowed by his Soveraign and the Church of England is perverted For instead of This will be the manner of the King he turns it This shall be the right of the King There is a great difference between right which is alwaies just and manner or custom which is many times unjust 2. If this be a prerogative of Soveraigns then its a very great misery to be subject to a King and that in two respects 1. Because he will take away from his subjects unjustly that which justly is their own even the best things 2. Because by doing thus he will oppress them so grievously that having no remedy or redress from man they will cry unto God for deliverance from a King as a great and intolerable mischief 3. If it be the right of a King yet it is but the right of heathen Despotical Princes and not of the Kings of Israel But how can it be the right of heathen Kings seeing they had no power to oppress and do wrong 4. It could not be the right of the Kings of Israel for they were bound to act and judge according to the Laws God had made yet these acts here mentioned are directly contrary to those Laws and Rules of Regal Government delivered by God himself For he must have a copy of the Laws and read in it all his life that he may fear God keep his Laws not exalt himself above his Brethren c. Deut. 17.18 19 20. Neither did the Kings of Judah or Israel no not wicked Ahab practise or make use of this power as is evident in the case of Naboths Vineyard 5. To do according to this power pretended in this place is directly contrary to the very end of all Government civil which is to do justice and judgement to preserve to every one his own to protect the good and punish the bad How shall he punish the Oppressor when he is the great Oppressor himself How can he do justice upon thieves when he is the greatest thief in his Kingdom 6. If this should be the right of the Kings of Israel and of all Soveraigns then though the people of Israel were a free people yet if a King was once set over them they were meer slaves neither their Lands nor their goods nor their children nor their servants were their own and also by this reason there can be no subjects in any state under heaven that can have propriety or liberty but all are meer and absolute servants and slaves Kings may have potentiam but not potestatem force and fraud but no just power to oppress their subjects and do such things as are here mentioned Whereas some say That God in this place teacheth us what Kings may do and in Deut. 17.18 19 20. what they ought to do is to little purpose as being more acute then solid For id quisque potest quod jure potest And no man no not the greatest Princes in the world have any power to do that which is unjust 7. It s a question whether they had such a King as they desired For they desired a King which would offend God and oppress them but God gave them such a King as had no power to make Laws but such as were bound to Judge according to the civil or judicial Laws made by himself and even in the time of Kings he reserved the Soveraign Rights in his own hand It seems they understood not well what kind of King they had desired for to maintain the state and pomp of a great Court and an army in constant pay was a vast charge and required such a revenue as could no waies be raised without the great oppression of the people And this they did not consider neither would understand till it was too late and the yoak was upon their necks and the burden pressed them very sore When Princes are trusted with an absolute power to raise men and moneys at their will and pleasure they will not be content with the ordinary Revenue of their Crowns but what they cannot obtain justly by the Laws and the constitution of the State they will force by the sword and so the Government proves military and in the end meerly arbitrary Whereas Mr. Hobbs conceives That to go in and out before them and Judge the people contains as absolute a power of the Militia and Judicature as one man can possibly transfer unto another he is much deceived For both these may be had in a despotical or a Regal way or by Commission The first is absolute the two latter are not so The Kings of Sparta Poland Arraegon might have both these and yet be no absolute Soveraigns T. H. Solomon prayed that God would give him understanding to judge his people and discern between good and evil 1 Kings 3.8 therefore he had the Judicial and Legislative power supreme and absolute G. L. This is his meaning and thus he understands these words
few passages to manifest that he never understood what liberty is Liberty of subjects is not Natural nor Moral nor Theologicall but Political and Civil In the Civil Law and Politicks it s opposed to servitude and bondage not simply and meerly to obligation by Laws as he fancieth for thus he writes T. H. So men have also made artificial Charms called Civil Laws which they themselves by mutual Covenants have fastened at one end to the lips of the Soveraign at the other to their own ears G. L. The Authors meaning is That so far as Laws bind the subject so far they take away his liberty and men by constitution of a Soveraign over them give a power absolute to make Laws and so far as they are virtually subject to his power and actually bound by his Laws they cannot be free yet this well examined will not prove true For not any kind of Obligation takes it away for then the Laws of Nature by which a man is bound before he be subject to a civil Soveraign should deprive him of his liberty yet they leave him as free a man as any possibly in a free-State can be The Obligation of just Laws and wise Edicts do regulate liberty keep it within its proper bounds and no waies destroy it or take it away Therefore that which follows is questionable For he affirms T H. That the liberty of a subject therefore lieth only in those things which in regulating their actions the Soveraign hath pretermitted G. L. But 1. In things left indifferent because not defined by Law the subject is not only liber sed dominus and hath not only libertatem but potestatem He is not only free but Lord of those actions and hath not only liberty but also an absolute power 2. Though wise and just Laws do regulate actions yet they do not make the agent a slave or a servant For to be a slave or a servant is to be cast below the condition of a man and make him subject to some thing below himself Wisdom and Justice are above the power of the Soveraign much more above the liberty of a subject They are particles of the divine perfection and to be bound by them is not only a liberty but an honour To be free from the dominion of our own base lusts and sins and the power of Satan is true liberty divine and so not to be subject to the lusts and imperious unworthy commands of absolute Soveraigns whose wills though irrational contrary to justice must stand for Laws is civil liberty And then a man is Politically free when he is so far Master of his life goods children and that which is justly his that they cannot be taken away from him but for some crime contrary to just Laws deserving such a penalty In a word the liberty of a subject is such a state or condition as that he is neither by the Soveraign power nor any Laws bound to do any thing which a rational and just man would not willingly do though there were no Laws or Penalties Civil at all This is not to be free from Laws And I do not know who they are which he saith demands any such thing The rude and ignorant people and also all children of Belial desire to have a licence not only to do good but evil too as they please and they judge all Laws as heavy burdens and grievous yoaks If he mean that the subjects of England demanding the benefit of Magna Charta and the Petition of Right did aim at any such extravagant liberty he must needs be a slanderer of his own fellow-subjects and an enemy to the English liberty as indeed he is and that through an erroneous notion and conceit of absolute power civil The liberty of the subjects of this Nation is very great and such as if we either consider the Laws of the Constitution or Administration the ordinary and common subjects of other Nations are but slaves unto them Our Free-holders have the choice of their Knights and Burgesses for the Parliament so that neither any Laws can be made nor moneys imposed upon them without their verbal consent given by their Representatives In all causes civil criminal capital no Judgement can pass against them but by the verdict of a Jury made up of their neighbours which in it self is an excellent priviledge The Civilians say Libertas est res inestimabilis and to be redeemed at any rate much more the English liberty is to be valued and ever was by our ancestors who obtained it recovered it kept it though with the blood of many thousands But the question is whether this liberty is consistent with the Soveraigns power His opinion is T. H. That by the liberty of the subject the Soveraigns power of life and death is neither abolished nor limited G. L. It s certain that the Soveraigns power and the subjects liberty are consistent For the Soveraign may take away the life of his subject yet according to the evidence of Judgement agreeable to Law no otherwise Yet he presupposeth 1. That the King is supreme and the primary subject owner and possessor of the original power which sometimes may be yet with us its far otherwise 2. That the power of civil Soveraigns is absolute For with him T. H. Nothing the Soveraign representative can do to a subject on what pretence soever can properly be called Injustice or Injury because every subject is Author of every act the Soveraign doth so that he never wanteth right to any thing otherwise then as he himself is the subject of God and bound thereby to observe the Laws of Nature When Jephtah sacrificed his daughter and David murthered Uriah both innocent yet they did them no injustice c. G. L. Here he seems to contradict himself For he grants two things 1. That the Soveraign is subject to God 2. That in that respect he is bound to observe the Laws of nature yet he saith he can do no injustice to the subject and that he hath right to any thing yet so as he is limited by subjection to God and the Laws of Nature 1. If he be Gods subject as certainly he is it follows 1. That in that respect he is but trusted as a servant with the Administration of the power civil 2. That he is fellow-subject with his subjects 3. He may do injustice as one fellow subject may wrong another Secondly If he be bound to observe the Laws of Nature which are the Laws of God then 1. He is not absolute or solutus legibus His power is limited and bounded by these Laws 2. Then he hath no power to murther oppress and destroy his innocent subjects who are more Gods then his and only trusted by God in his hands for to be protected righted in all just causes and vindicated from all wrongs 3. No Prince or Soveraign can assume or any people give to any person or persons any the least power above or contrary unto the
hath a share in the Soveraign power Yet this he hath not as a single person but as one person joyntly with the whole body or major part at least of the people So in our Parliaments every man there is as a single person and all of them any waies considered but as the joynt Representative of the people in a certain place at a certain time acting according to a certain order are but subjects yet in the capacity and habitude of a Parliament they are no subjects but in the name of the people have a Legislative power and exercise the highest acts of Government excepting those of the Constitution And this may be one reason why our English Ancestors have been so careful to maintain and preserve this great Court and Assembly of Parliaments because they knew upon that depended their liberty in the vacancy and intervals of Parliaments For take away this and our liberty is gone And wise men know that the liberty of the English subject depends upon these great Assemblies Some therefore have attempted either the total extirpation of them according to the example of France and Spain or a diminution of their power and priviledges so as to make them meer shadows If any say and infer from all this that therefore the form of our Government even under Kings is popular and hath the nature of a free-State I say it hath much of a free-State in the Constitution but not in the Administration Yet it s far different from those four kinds of popular Governments mentioned by Aristotle Pol. lib. 6. c. 4. The constitution whereof is little better then levelling The principal thing aimed at in such forms as the Author alledgeth out of the Philosopher cap. 2. Ejusdem libri was liberty supposing it could be had no where but in such Governments and this liberty was to do either what they pleased or to govern by course fearing lest any person or persons continued long in any eminent place of command would in time ingross the power Yet this supposition was false For liberty might be had without levelling and free-States might be and have been better constituted and regulated For no constitution is good where provision is not made that Wisdom and Justice rather then persons may govern and the multitude so kept under as that they may be subjects not rebels and cast off all power To return unto the matter proposed and conclude this point 1. The English liberty is their birth-right 2. It s not the power of Soveraigns 3. It s not unlimited but bounded within reasonable bounds 4. We do not learn it out of the Greek and Roman Histories nor from the Athenians or Romans but from our own Laws which are far different from theirs and far more agreeable to the written Laws of God which left the people of Israel under their Judges the freest people of the world and yet no Levellers 5. Our learning out of Greek and Latine Authors hath not been bought so dear or cost so much blood except out of the breech of School-hoyes And most of those who have controlled the just acts of their Soveraigns never read much less understood those Authors T. H. pages 111 112 113. The liberty of the subject is in such things as are neither determined by his first submission to the Soveraign power nor by the laws G. L. This is the substance of three pages and amounts to so much as may easily be comprised in a few words For when a subject is not bound either by the Laws of the Constitution or Administration he is free according to Mr. Hobbs his judgement Yet in proper sense in both these cases he is no subject but Dominus and far more then liber The Civilians do better determine the liberty of the subject to be potestatem agendi sub publicae defensionis praesidio though this be no perfect definition As before so now I say that liberty here is not opposed to obligation but servitude For â—o be subject to a wise Soveraign according to just Laws is so much liberty as any reasonable man can desire for in this respect he is rather subject to God then man and to serve him is doubtless perfect freedom As no Soveraign should be denyed so much power as to protect the least if innocent and to punish the greatest if guilty so no subject should be bound to do evil which is servitude and bondage indeed or restrained from doing that good which God commands him Civil government was never ordained by God to be destructive either of moral or divine vertues or of the noble condition of man as a rational creature Therefore regular submission unto supreme power will never stand with any obligation unto evil or contract for protection except in innocency Paul pleading before Festus saith If I be an offender or have committed any thing worthy of death I refuse not to die Acts 25.11 How this can stand with what this Author saith when he affirmeth that its lawful for a man guilty and condemned to save himself if he can I leave to others for to examine From the Apostles words its evident he desires no protection even of himself as worthy of death neither hath God given any power to man to save in such a case And though any person by the Law of nature may defend himself yet this must be done cum moderamine tutelae inculpatae In case a subject hath made himself capitally guilty he hath forfeited his life to his Soveraign as Gods Vicegerent whom he must not resist in the execution of Justice though he be not bound to kill himself neither doth the multitude or strength of any such capital offenders any waies give them right to resist their Soveraign in their own defence as the Author would have it For they cannot defend themselves as men but they must defend themselves in this case as guilty men which is not lawful How the offer of pardon should take away the plea of self-defence I understand not seeing they had no right before it was offered The offer of pardon indeed if the party offering may be safely trusted may take away all fear and so all colour of any plea by force to defend themselves from that death which pardon will take away or remove In the close of this discourse concerning liberty of the subject he grants it a part of this liberty That the subject may sue his Soveraign and before a Judge appointed by the said Soveraign If this be so then 1. The subject hath propriety of goods 2. That he and his Soveraign are two distinct parties and in this case the Soveraign represents him not as one person 3. That the Law in this respect is above the supreme Governor 4. Therefore the Soveraign is not absolute 5. That the subject may complain of some actions and injustice of the Soveraign contrary to the Authors fourth right of Soveraigns 6. That to him belongs not all Judicature in all Causes as in
the eighth right of majesty he did affirm Yet he distinguisheth of the Soveraigns demand as twofold either by vertue of a Law or by force if he demand or take away any thing by power or pretence thereof there lyeth in that case no action of Law because the subject is made Author of the Soveraigns acts and therefore the suit against him is against the Plantiff himself being his subject If this answer be good then the Soveraign may do what he can and will not what he ought he may rule according to his strength and power and not according to Justice he may borrow and promise to repay take away and engage to restore and yet do no such thing but violate his promise and engagement contrary to the very Law of Nature He hath a liberty to be unjust and wicked and that more then any of his subjects as he hath greater power I leave him to be a subject of such a Soveraign and wish all good men a better The true reason why a Soveraign may be sued is 1. Because in the institution of a Soveraign especially of administration the subjects may reserve the propriety of their goods which may be done without any diminution of a lawful supreme power and in this case when a Soveraign takes away or detains that which is his subjects and an action is brought against him the subject is not his subject nor he his Soveraign in that respect Both of them in this particular are but private persons and he that is subject to him as he is just in his Government questions him as he is unjust in his actions Again propriety belongs unto the Law of nature which is above civil power But he proceeds T. H. If a Monarch or Soveraign Assembly grant a liberty to all or any of his subjects which grant standing he is disabled to provide for their safety the grant is void unless he directly renounce or transfer his Soveraignty to another G. L. By this we easily understand to what purpose the Treaty in the Isle of Wight with the King was For though the Parliament had voted his concessions to be satisfactory in some respect that of Bishops and he was ready to close with them yet in the judgement of this man and all that party adhering to the King the Parliament was accounted no Parliament the King an absolute Monarch and the Concessions ipso facto void and for this reason because the King had disabled himself by granting the Militia to protect his subjects And the issue of this Treaty to be expected was this so far as the King had obtained liberty and opportunity he would declare his Concessions void and unreasonable and so possess himself of the Militia and proceed against the Treators as Rebels and Enemies for so they were accounted Yet this was not a meer grant of liberty but of power which in the Treaty is presupposed to be his though confined and a prisoner and vanquished in a civil war But if we will speak properly the grant of liberty may be such as it may amount to an exemption from a sufficient degree of subjection but it doth not transfer the Soveraign power to another And this must needs be granted that to pass away any of the greater rights is to dethrone In the conclusion of this Cap. we are informed when the obligation of the subject to the Soveraign doth cease and it is then when his power to protect doth cease And there is great reason for it For whatsoever his title may be and how unjustly soever it may be taken away and howsoever his subjects may stand well affected towards him yet seeing there can be no protection from wrong within nor from invasion of enemies without nor administration of Justice without which any people returns unto the confusion of Anarchy except there be actual possession of power therefore Obligation for the present must cease or at least be suspended There be many waies whereby a Soveraign may cease to be a Soveraign as by conquest death resignation cession c. and when the Soveraign ceaseth to be such the Obligation must needs determine as to such a particular Governor And here I might take occasion to treat of subalternate Governments and fiduciary Princes who are Soveraigns in respect of their subjects yet acknowledge a superiour from whom they hold their territory But seeing he is silent I will be so too CAP. VI. Of the Second Part and the two and twentieth of the Book Of Systems subject Political and Private I Pass by his divisions and subdivisions of Systems as being well known to such as are acquainted either with Politicks or Civil Law For the subject of Jurisprudentia civilis being communio or communitas hominum wherein the Lawyers out of their institutions observe persons things and actions both private and publick that they may the better find out the several rights determined by Law They distinguish personam in singularem conjunctam Persona conjuncta consists of several persons distinct Physically yet made one by consent and association Politically And these Systems and Societies may be considered as parts of the Community which is the immediate subject of a Common-wealth and a civil Government Some of these are natural as a Family some are voluntary and by institution In a Common-wealth once constituted all these are subject to the supreme power and their actions are so far warrantable as they derive their power from the Soveraign and are agreeable to the Laws Some of these are made by division co-ordination and subordination as Provinces Counties Hundreds Allotments Town-ships Parishes Some of them are Ecclesiastical some Civil Some are made by Charter and Patent and have their special priviledges and immunnities and have their Statutes and power to make Orders and By-Laws within themselves and some have jurisdiction within their liberties Some are more noble as Colledges and Universities and Schools and all such as are Nurseries of Law and Learning some less noble as Corporations with their several Companies and Officers The end of the institution of these is either for the better and more easie Government of the whole Community or for the better education of the subjects in learning or trades or for the maintenance or enriching or adorning of the State And it concerns the supreme Governors of a State to have a special care of these Societies to order regulate and reform them as they shall see occasion or need For the good of the Common-wealth doth much depend upon the regulation and wise ordering of them CAP. VII Of the Second Part. Of the Book 23. Of the publick Ministers of the Soveraign power MY intention in the examination of the Author is to manifest 1. That where he hath done ill none hath done worse And 2. where he hath done well many before him have done better This latter is my work in this part of his Book as also in other passages of his discourse The subject of this
means and motives used for to rectifie the heart CAP. XII Of the Second Part. The 28. of the Book Concerning punishments and rewards UPon obedience or disobedience follow punishments or rewards determined by Judgement which is an act of Jurisdiction and considers the Law as violated or observed And here comes in according to order that head of Jurisdiction in general which properly is handled in that part of Politicks we call Administration And he that undertakes to deliver a model of Politicks and yet saith nothing of Jurisdiction but proceeds from crimes to punishments per saltum as Mr. Hobbs doth is but a superficial Author But let us hear his definition of punishment T. H. A punishment is an evil inflicted by publick Authority on him that hath done or omitted that which is judged by the same Authority to be a transgression of the Law to the end that the will of men may be thereby better disposed to obedience This is a very imperfect definition and one reason is the Author presumes much of his own judgement and desires to be singular otherwise he had a better definition made to his hands For poena est vindicta noxae This punishment is defined in general as it includes the penalties inflicted by Parents Masters or any one who have power to command another it reacheth the punishments executed by God This definition may easily be made so as fully to express the nature of civil punishment intended by this Author But for the better understanding of the nature of punishment we must observe that it may be considered several waies 1. As determined by the Law which binds the party subject either to obedience or punishment 2. As deserved by the party offending who is bound to suffer it 3. As defined by the Judge upon judicial evidence 4. As inflicted by the Minister of execution 5. As suffered by the party condemned 6. As prevented by pardon out of meer mercy or upon satisfaction made and accepted The efficient cause of punishing in a Common-wealth is the Soveraign or higher powers bearing the Sword and as exercising Jurisdiction either by himself or his Minister For a Soveraign doth punish as a Judge The immediate and formal object of this act is noxa civilis some offence or crime judged upon evidence to be a violation of the Law The general nature of it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 retribution The thing retributed or rendred is something that brings hurt or dammage to the delinquent or party offending who as judged guilty is the proper subject of it It s called by some Malum triste proper malum turpe The proper act complete and consummate is the inflicting of this evil determined by just judgement so as that the party condemned doth actually suffer it All this for the general notion of it may be observed out of the words of the Apostle who saith That God will render to them who are contentious and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness indignation and wrath tribulation and angnish upon every soul of man that doth evil Rom. 2.8 9. For here we have the Judge the crime Judged to be so the retribution or rendering the thing or evil rendred so as to be suffered the cause why it s rendred In this respect the higher powers are said to bear the sword to take vengeance upon evil doers Rom. 13.4 The ends of punishment are many 1. Some of them are to correct and reform the party punished 2. Some for example that others may hear and fear 3. The end of all punishments in general is to vindicate the power of the Law-giver and the honour and force of the Law to manifest Justice and the hatred of evil and to procure the peace and tranquillity of the Community Before the Author proceed to draw conclusions from his definition he enquires how the Soveraign acquired the power of punishing And resolves T. H. That the-subject in the first constitution laid aside his power of self-preservation by hurting subduing killing others in his own defence and so did not give it but left it to the Soveraign G. L. This is ridiculous absurd and grounded upon his false principles For 1. The Soveraign is the Minister of God and is bound to do so that he keep within the compass of his Commission that which God would do and that is to punish evil And as all his power of making Laws Judgement Peace War c. are from God so is this amongst the rest By whom he is made a Soveraign from him he hath the sword to punish Men may give their consent that such a man or such a company of men shall raign but the power is from God not them 2. In the constitution of a supreme Governor no man can Covenant to be protected or defended in doing evil Neither can any or all higher powers in the world justly promise to protect any in evil neither hath any man any power unjustly to preserve himself For that of the Author that in the state of nature every man hath right to every thing is absolutely false and abominable When a man subjects himself unto a Soveraign ordained of God not only to protect the good but punish the evil he cannot except himself from his punitive power if he do ill because he subjects according to the just Laws of God and cannot lawfully do any other waies So that power to punish is given by God not left by man unto higher powers civil After his definition of punishment civil and determination of the means how power punitive is acquired he 1. Draws conclusions from his definition 2. Declares the several kinds of punishment 3. Distinguisheth of rewards 1. The conclusions are either good and pertinent or false or not deducible from the definition and I will not trouble the Reader with the examination of them 2. His distribution of punishments is tolerable And here we must observe 1. That punishment civil can only reach the body and this temporal life of man for the sword cannot reach the soul 2. That these punishments as well as spiritual are either of loss or pain poena damni aut sensus privative or positive The one takes away some good the other inflicts some positive evil 3. That some of them take away life either civil as banishment or natural as death and some take away such things as make life comfortable as goods such are sines and confiscations or liberty as imprisonment bondage or our honour as all ignominious penalties Those which infer some positive evil contrary to nature are all kind of tortures whatsoever which cause pain in the body of man and all these positive punishments tend to the destruction of life either in part or in whole 4. These penalties are so to be inflicted and in such a measure and proportion as that no man may gain by doing evil 5. That though an innocent person as such cannot be justly punished yet as he is made one person with
Chrstianity but per accidens so far as the persons who are Christians are subject to the civil power And this care of the Magistrate may do much good not only in preventing all tumults and seditions about Religion as prejudicial to the peace of the State and suppress them but also protect the servants of Christ and promote Christianity very much And in this respect only I conceive Soveraigns to be in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil supreme Governors From the definition formerly given he concludes T. H. That because in all Common-wealths that assembly which is without warrant from the civil Soveraign is unlawful that Church also which is assembled in any Common-wealth that hath forbidden them to assemble is an unlawful assembly G. L. There is a diffecence between warrant permission and prohibition Acts 15. we read of a Church-assembly at Jerusalem yet without any warrant from the Roman Emperour and the same did debate determine engross and publish certain binding Canons yet I hope he dare not dictate it to be unlawful though it had been forbidden Permission perhaps they had warrant they had none There are actions and such as God commands and civil Governors forbid yet the prohibition of man cannot make void the command of God For we must obey God rather then man But he tells us T. H. That temporal and spiritual Government are but words brought into the world to make men see double and mistake their lawful Soveraign G. L. As Government the thing signified by the word is a real act so spiritual and temporal Government are two not words but things really different For there is a temporal Government which is not spiritual and spiritual which is not temporal And though he will not give us leave yet we will take it to distinguish between Church and State temporal and spiritual man and Christian For he knows and that certainly there be men who yet are no Christians States which are not Churches and temporal things which are not spiritual And those things which not only may be but actually are separated in existence must needs be really distinct The rule is infallible as its evident And he that will confound these may build a Babel but no orderly society And it s a fault to make that which is double to seem single as well as make that which is single appear to be double CAP. IX Of the third Part. The 40. of the Book Of the rights of the Kingdom of God in Abraham Moses the high Priests and the Kings of Judah HItherto Mr. Hobbs hath abused his Reader in the explication of certain words and terms used in Scripture and hath bewrayed his gross ignorance and abominable errours And as though he had laid a sure foundation whereon to ground his following discourse or at least made way for it he proceeds to prove out of the said holy writings of the Old Testament the absolute power of Christian Soveraigns and States both in matters of Religion and Civil Government And this is so done that there is little fear least any intelligent Reader should he deceived or perswaded by him because there is so great a distance between his premises and the conclusion that no wit of man is able to see the connexion or the illative force of them For he argues That because Abraham in his family Moses in Israel the high Priests after Moses in the times of Judges and the Kings from Saul to the captivity had the supreme power Civil and Ecclesiastical therefore all Christian Governors supreme have the same For this is the substance of this Chapter Yet 1. Abraham was but the Master of a family Moses a Mediator between Israel and God retaining the supreme power both temporal and spiritual in his own hands not only in his time but in the raign of Judges and the Kings The high Priests did only ask counsel of God by the Vrim and Thummim and declared it to the Rulers The Kings had no power Legislative at all but only executive according to the Laws of God they had no right unto the Sacerdotal power For Vzziah usurping that of offering Incense was smitten with leprosie Therefore his Assumption is notoriously false 2. Abraham Moses and some of the Kings were extraordinary Prophets and immediately inspired Such are not Christian Soveraigns Neither can they from God in difficult and perplexed cases receive counsel of God by Vrim and Thummim 3. Suppose all these had been invested with supreme power Civil and Ecclesiastical as they were not yet it doth not follow that therefore Christian Soveraigns are so His consequence therefore is no consequence but false 4. Here it s to be observed That no example can be drawn from the Government of Israel either under Moses or Judges or Kings because that Government all along was extraordinary And as no State Christian is bound to follow it so no State can parallel it And its in vain for Divines or any other writers to argue from that particular form of politie to any other in the world Some general Rules and practises therein may be made use of for the reproof or reformation of Government in other States His innovations and particular false glosses upon several texts are not worthy confutation CAP. X. Of the third part the 41 of his Book Of the office of our blessed Saviour THey who desire to obtain eternal salvation by Christ Jesus must know both who he is and what he hath both suffered and done for them Jesus Christ as Saviour and Redeemer for person is the eternal Son of God for Natures he is God and Man yet so that these two Natures remain distinct one from the other yet personally united For Office he is Prophet Priest and King and such he is made as man by Commission from his Heavenly Father He was Initiated at his Baptism after which time he began to exercise his three-fold power And 1. Of a Prophet to manifest that he was their Saviour and to perswade men to believe in him 2. He performed some acts of a King in making Laws and Officers 3. He acted as a Priest at his death by offering up himself that great sacrifice first by inffering and dying on earth secondly by entring the Holy place of Heaven and presenting himself as slain and so obtained eternal Redemption After his consecration finished upon the Resurrection he was made a compleat Priest for ever after the Order of Melchizedeck Upon his Resurrection he was more selemnly setled in his Throne as universal and eternal King And then in a more glorious manner began to act 1. As Prophet to teach not onely Jews but Gentiles and that not onely by his word but by his Spirit powred down from Heaven upon all flesh 2. As a Priest interceding by vertue of his blood 3. Of a King in all the acts of government in his Universal Kingdom By his sacrifice offered on earth and presented in Heaven he satisfied Gods justice offended by the
is a plain difference between Civil and Ecclesiastical Power between the Sword and the Keyes For what is bound by the civil Power on Earth is bound and made good on earth by an earthly Sword But what is bound on earth by the Spiritual Power is bound in heaven and made good and executed by Jesus Christ and that by a Spiritual force upon a Divine Promise Secondly this Sword must protect the good and punish the bad which implies there must be wise and just Laws 2. There must be just judgement according to these Laws For otherwise there can be no true and certain knowledge of good and bad for to put a difference between them that the one may be punished for violation the other protected for the observation of the Laws And here again we must note 1. That there is a threefold Power civil or rather three degrees of that Power The first is Legislative The second Judicial The third Executive For Legislation Judgement and Execution by the Sword are the three essential acts of supreme Power civil in the administration of a State 2. That there is no Power to punish the good and protect the bad For the Sword must execute according to Judgement and that must pass according to Laws and both Judgement and Laws must be regulated by Divine Wisdom and Justice Thirdly This Sword must be in the hands and possession of higher or supereminent Governors For a Title without the possession of a Sword can neither punish nor protect Therefore in all States of the world they who have possession of the Sword do rule let the Title be what it will neither can it be otherwise And no Prince can rule when God hath taken away his Sword It hath been declared in some measure 1. What Power in General 2. What Power civil in Particular is The third thing concerning this supremacy of Power to be examined is the original of it And the same Text of the Apostle Paul tels us that it is of God therefore in the Definition I said That the Sword was committed by God to higher Powers who become such by this Commission when God gives them possession of the Sword So that the Original of this Power is from God both in respect of the Power and the persons possessed of Power For it is he that gives Understanding Will and Power sufficient for to govern he gives Wisdom and Justice he commands all Societies that have opportunity to set up a wise and just Government for Peace and Godliness In respect of the persons he designs them either in an ordinary or extraordinary way he inclines the hearts of the people to submit and obey he prevents seditions rebellions treasons and such like acts as tend to confusion and the ruin of Common-wealths according to that of the Psalmist Thou hast delivered me from the strivings of the people Psal 18.43 And it is God that subdueth the people under me Psal 47. In this designation God sometimes useth the consent tacit or express sometimes the force and consent of Man Fourthly The Subject of this Power is either standing or movable The standing Subject by Nature is the community in whom vertually it resides and is exercised by a general representative upon extraordinary occasions or at certain determinate times And this is the best way to preserve liberty if these general Assemblies be well ordered and fit persons rightly qualified be chosen For its dangerous to trust either one man or a number of men with too much power the constant exercise of the same This supreme power reserved to the whole community to be exercised as necessity or occasion shall require might be called Realis Majestas yet every Community is neither so wise nor so happy For in most States we find only a personal Majesty or supreme Power and the same sometimes Despotical and too absolute yet in other Common-wealths the supreme Governours are limited and only trusted with the exercise of the power according to certain Rules and fundamental Laws Of this Majesty or supreme Power civil some Writers have observed that it must be not only supreme but also perpetual and above Laws soluta Logibus That it must be supreme and above all subordinate power within and independent upon all other soveraigns without its necessary It must be also perpetual and fixed that it may be distinguished from the extraordinary and temporary powers trusted in the hands of one or more upon extraordinary occasions How far it is absolute or above the Laws I shall examine hereafter After the supreme Power civil is determined and sixed in a certain Subject Subjection to it follows which is the third thing in the Definition Regimen est ordo Imperii subjectionis For in all Government some must be above and have power to command some must be below and be bound to obey And in a civil State there must be one universal supreme to which all others in the Community must subject themselves This Subjection must be rational free and orderly or else the State cannot continue long nor be well administred And wisdom must determine not only the general order of superiour and inferiour but also in particular the Community must be divided into parts with a co-ordination of equals and subordination of the unequals and of every several part unto the whole that so every one may know his place and rank that he may keep it Therefore the Apostle commands every soul Rom. 13.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not barely to be subject any ways but in a certain order for the Community must be like an Army put in array that so the supreme Power may the better animate and order it upon which followeth a more regular motion of this great body both in the whole and every part tending the more directly to Peace Godliness and Honesty For there is a twofold end of regular civil Government The first is Peace The second is Godliness and Honesty to which Peace is subordinate For the Apostle exhorts us to pray for Kings and all that are in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all Godliness and Honesty 1 Tim. 2.1 Government is for Peace Peace for Godliness and the performance of our duty towards God and Honesty That we may live soberly and justly towards men When God doth bless a people with a setled Government and an happy peace for these are Gods blessings neither Prince nor people must forget their God or live in Luxury and deal unjustly one with another For these things offend him provoke him to anger and pull down his Judgements upon them He expects Piety and Honesty from every one even from the highest to the lowest And these earthly States are erected and subordinated to an higher end then peace and plenty here on earth they should be so ordered as to prepare men for eternity otherwise Regna are but latrocinia a den of thieves and a combination of devils Thus much I thought
sin of man and merited for himself eternal power and glory and for us eternal life and all effectual means for the certain attainment thereof All the rest of his acts performed by him as King Priest and Prophet tended unto the application of his sacrifice that we by faith might be partakers of the benefit thereof This is the sum of that Doctrine of Redemption delivered clearly and more fully in several places of the Scripture especially of the New Testament Yet this Innovatour hath obscured the same several ways and determines the Kingdom of Christ to begin when the world doth end because Christ said to Pilate My Kingdom is not of this world Joh. 18.36 From whence he concludes T. H. That the Kingdom of Christ is not to begin before the general Resurrection G. L. This is a gross mistake and mis-interpretation of a place which is clear in it self For by his gloss he makes the Scripture to contradict it self Christ was then Candidatus imperii and was King when he gave this answer unto Pilate yet he began to reign and exercise his Royal power more eminently when he was set at the Right hand of the Father yet his Kingdom was not of this world that is not civil but spiritual and as Austin upon the place It was Hic non hinc in the world not of the world in the world yet not worldly but divine and far more excellent then the Kingdoms of the world This is the genuine sense of the words That Christ doth reign now and hath reigned since his ascension and sitting at the right hand of God is evident Before his Ascension he lets his Apostles know that all power in heaven and earth was given him and according unto and by vertue of that power he gave Commission to his Apostles to teach and baptize and perswade men to the obedience of his commands Mat. 28.18 19 20. He that hath an universal power in heaven and earth who makes officers and gives them power who makes Laws Institutes Sacraments and sends down the Holy Ghost must needs reign and his Kingdom is begun already We read that Christ must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet and the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death And when all things shall be subdued unto him then shall also the Son of man be subject unto him that put all things under him that God may be all in all 1 Cor. 15.25 26 28. Where first from Psal 110.1 The Apostle tels us That Christs Kingdom did Commence at the time of Christs sitting at the right hand of God 2. That with him to sit at the right hand of God is to reign 3. That he must reign by Word Sacraments Spirit Ministry till all enemies whereof death is the last be destroyed 4. That when death is destroyed he shall deliver up his Commission and kingdom in respect of this administration by Ordinances 5. That at the Resurrection this manner of reign shall end when Mr. Hobbs saith it shall begin 6. That then God shall be all in all that is reign perfectly in his Saints without any enemy without opposition without Ordinances and more immediately Before that time indeed he will not proceed to the final and universal sentence and execution of the same Yet there are many acts of government besides judgement and many acts of judgement be sides those of the general Assizes and last Sessions To make Laws reduce men to subjection appoint Officers pass sentence and execute the same in the very souls of men are acts of one that reigns as likewise to subdue enemies Sin Satan and the world to protect the Church And in this manner Christ hath reigned since his Ascension And many Millions do adore him subject themselves unto him and obey him to this day Yet with this man Christ doth not yet reign Let him read Psalm 2. throughout It began to be fulfilled upon his Resurrection and Ascension as appears out of the Acts of the Apostles and their Epistles And if he or any other shall deny the present reign of Christ they must expect with his Iron Scepter to be dasht in pieces like a Potters Vessel CAP XI Of the third Part the 42. of the Book Of Ecclesiastical Power AFter he had enthroned Civil Soveraigns cap. 40. Dethroned Christ in the former Chapter In this he takes away all power from the Church and invests the Christian civil powers with it And herein it may be a question whether his ignorance or presumption is the greater for he is highly guilty of both He that will determine the controversie concerning the power of the Church must distinguist the universal power of God the spiritual power of Christ incarnate and exalted to the Throne of glory and the power deligated from Christ unto the Church universal here on earth as subject unto Christ as Lord and Monarch and also that which every particular Independent association of Christians is trusted withal for to preserve the Society and the Ordinances of God from profanation This he hath not done and therefore little or rather nothing can be expected from him This last power of particular Churches is called the power of the keys in foro exteriori in the particular government of their several combinations for there is no supreme universal Independent judicatory on earth to which all Churches in the world are bound to appeal in this outward visible administration General Counsels can be no such thing Neither was there ever any Oecumenical Synod in proper sense since the Gospel was preached to all Nations This power of outward Discipline is challenged by the Pope by the Clergy by the people Christian and by the States civil and Soveraigns of the world And in this last party is the Author deeply engaged but upon what reason I know not except he intends to side with the strongest for such are they which bear the sword The power of ordaining Ministers preaching the Word administring the Sacraments was in the universal Church since the time of the Apostles And in every particular Church reduced to a form of outward discipline there is a power of making Canons of jurisdiction of making Officers so far as shall conduce unto the better ordination of Ministers the preservation of the purity of Doctrine and the right administration of the Sacraments least they be profaned and Christ offended by the admission of ignorant scandalous and unworthy persons There is a power also of disposing and dispensing of those goods which are given to the Church for the maintenance of Christian Religion Civil Christian States may and ought to make civil Laws to confirm the just Canons and jurisdictions of the Church And those Laws may be a fence unto it against these who shall oppose or persecute Yet when all this is done those Laws are but Civil though the object of them be Ecclesiastical matters This might suffice for to confute and make void the main body and break in pieces