may represent the People yet he not they are Soveraigns The house of Lords which he means by those who represent a part of the People represent no body but their posterity for whom they act otherwise they do that business the King calls them for that is to advise with him in the great and difficult affairs of the Kingdome they are as Councellors not Soveraigns he only Soveraign and neither one house nor other sits in their sphere but when he calls them nor stayes after his dismission nor when they are there can act any material matter concerning the Kingdome only advise and inform but what he who is their Supreme and Soveraign enables them to do So then there is but one Soveraign in England though he most unworthily threw in such proud speeches to make them three He proceeds and I with him To what disease in the Natural body of a man I may exactly compare this irregularity of a Common-wealth I know not But I have seen a man that had another man growing out of his side with an head armes breast and stomach of his own If he had had another man growing out of his other side the comparison might then have been exact Thus he I answer there is no need of this fancy of his to compare every publick disease with a natural but if he had studied King CHARLES the first his most incomparable Book he would have found this composure not to have been a disease but a perfect constitution of a healthy body but since he makes this comparison I shall tell him that in such a man take away or cut off that humane sprout which grows out of the principal man even he will quickly dye I doubt not but believe confidently it would be so with this politie CHAP. XXIII SECT XVII The propriety of the subject again asserted against Mr. Hobbs His objection of the difficulty of raising money answered The inconvenience of investing all propriety in the Crown The convenience and decorum of raising money in a parliamentary way His late Majestie CHARLES the First his incomparable essay to this purpose recommended to the author of the Leviathan Mr. Hobbs his disaffection to the government of this Kingdom censured I Am now in p. the 137. where after he hath confessed that these diseases which have been hitherto named are of the greatest and most present danger that is his phrase although a man would think that this form of Government that hath lasted so many hundreds of years could not be in so suddain or present danger however he now enters upon others which tho' less are not unfit to be looked into He begins as first the difficulty of raising of money for the necessary uses of the Common-wealth especially in the approach of War I must confess this is of dangerous consequence â—his difficulty ariseth from the Opinion that every subjâ—ct hath of a propriety in his lands and goods exclusiv of the Soveraigns right to the use of the same I have heretofore taught that men have proprieties in their estates yet in cases of necessity as in War any mans house may be made a fort any mans land digged to make a trench with multitudes of the like Nature according to the necessities and exigencies of the Common-wealth Therefore this propriety without necessity cannot be dangerous nay a man may say that without this propriety we should not have a legal but arbitrary Government and that which he himself hath supposed to be the reason why a Common-wealth is instituted would be frustrated which is that men may peaceably sow and reap and enjoy the profits of their industrie which if the supreme might lawfully take away together with their estates for the support of his condition it would quickly come to pass that an Estate invested in the Crown may be the prey of other Subjects as it was with the Church revenue which although in Queen ELIZABETHS time it was alienable to none but the Crown yet we know that from thence it passed to mean Tenents until King JAMES most happily gave a stop unto it by enacting that there should be none afterward passed to the Crown so that this cannot fitly be termed a hinderance without which a Common-wealth loseth the end for which it was instituted But give me leave to speak to the main proposition it self Why should it be difficult to raise just summes for the defence or good of the publick every man hath an interest in it and they are reasonable creatures which will consider both their own and the publick benefit I but he will say it hath been so let this be granted it is true that all sins and wickednesses have been too and certainly this is a mighty great one But let him consider whether this way of their consent to the performance of this duty be not a decent way of doing it For first we may consider that few Persons of great estate do know their own estate much less a Monarch of a great kingdom How then can he be able to give a just esteem of every private mans estate to proportion him justly to that service this cannot be done but by such Persons who are universally acquainted with the generality and without an equality upon some legal measure the Tax will be unjust and the execution no doubt worse Secondly as to the making a Tax for such a supply the Commonaltie are necessary for by them the Collection will be more speedy than by any other means and therefore I think it a difficulty which may easily be taken away by letting them see what necessity there is of such an aid I mean not to meddle with these disputes and then no doubt but they will be so prudent in the execution of their trust as to give a proper assistance or else they are mad or worse I will conclude this point with that passage in those incomparable directions which that ever to be honored King CHARLES the First gave his son in his own words which none else can imitate nearly much less match speaking of the Laws of this land which he should govern by saith Which by an admirable temperance give very much to subjects industry liberty and happiness and yet reserve enough to the Majesty and prerogative of any King who ownes his People as subjects not as slaves And I may say who can add any thing to what this most incomparable King hath writ down which is matchless Yea what he speaks afterwards of the shifts Kings are put to and the Comparison Mr. Hobbs makes of this disease to an ague I let pass and do only affirm that such discourses savour of an ill disposition to this government and as I can guess can tend to no good neither then when they were first printed nor afterwards I mean to trouble the Reader no further with his observations of these lesser diseases as he terms them in a Common-wealth but come close to a censure of this which I have formerly
Where is the parity of reason betwixt any thing that went before and this to produce that saying of this for the same reason and there is no reason for this that the liking or disliking which are extremely outward things to the essence of any thing should produce a difference in the thing it self SECT III. The Authors Opinion of this division The denomination of mixed bodies as in natural so in political à principalion The strange mixture of the Government of Lacedaemon The Monarchy of Darius mixed with Aristocraâ—y ANd now Reader having passed some Notes I will proceed to set down my own judgment and Opinion of this so much honoured division which although out of the Reverence I bear to the consent of so many learned men in it I dare not deny that it is a good division yet methinks in political stories I can observe that take these in their pure and simple natures there 's scarce one of them purely such in any one Country of the whole world and therefore I may say of them as Philosophers say of the Elements they are the matter of which this great Globe of this sublunary world is composed and yet not found distinct in their pure nature in any creature in the world but are denominated such â— principalion as when heat is in any great degree then it is called fire when cold and moisture are intense it is then water or else as the Mathematicians speak Saturn is Lord of this House because he is predominant yet the power of his influence is more or less according to the assistâ—nce or detriment he receives from other Planets So when one is chief or Lord of the House either a Monarchical chief or Aristocratical yea I may add a Democratical or popular Government it is denominated from that which is principle although one or both the other may be joyned in the influence and concur in the Government over the whole I think this appears most true to any man who hath perused stories nay they are so conjoyned and mixed one with the other sometimes that it is exceeding hard to say which is the predominant and disputes amongst learned men are raised what name to give some Supremes You may find a common instance in Lacâ—daemâ—â— where there was a King a Senate and in many things the people came in for their sharâ—s learned men know not which to call it Look if you please upon Monarchy there is none I think so absolute in the world to which all he speaks may be applied I mean all those marks of Soveraignty which have been before touched upon I will give the Reader one instance in one of the greatest Monarchs that ever was or is in the world I mean Darius in the sixth of Daniâ—l you shall find at the seventh verse that all the Presidents of the Kingdom the Governors and the Princes the Councellors and the Captains consulted together to establish a Royal Statute and to make a firm Decree that whosoever shall ask a Petition of any God or man for thirty daiâ—s save of Darius himself should be cast into the Lyons Den. I will not descant upon the Dâ—cree being the most abominably wicked that possibly could be made by a mâ—n who did acknowledge a God as Darius did For how could he think that God would bless him acting so croâ—â—y against his Honoâ—r as to forbid prayers to him Mr. Hobbs indeed might have concurred with him that thinks no prayers have prevalence with God but that all things are governed by immutable necessity But Darius could not be of that mind who forâ— thought that God could and would deliver him Neither could Daniel be of that mind who would not leave praying for all the terrors of the world Well the Decree is out according to the Laws of the Medes and Persians which is unalterable when the Law was out and Daniel found to be a transgressor against it we shall find in the thirteenth verse that these Princes presented the crime to the King and required Justice against him in the fourteenth verse the King is said to labour until night to deliver Daniel and was displeased with himself Surely before he was aware he had consented to such a Law as was mischievous to a person of that great integrity and excellency as Daniel was and this Law which he had made must be Author of so great a Crime as to shed not only Innocent but vertuous blood and therefore he laboured until Sun-set with those men who joyned with him in the making that Law to deliver Daniel But they in the â—â—fteenth verse being fierce against Daniel urged the immutability of the Decree that it was a Law confirmed by him according to the Laws of the Medes and Persians which may not be altered and indeed the argument is of great force For if Laws made by any Supreme may be violated before they are repealed what security can any Subject have of any thing he enjoys And surely in keeping and preserving the Laws they have made they do imitate their great Master the King of Kings and Supreme of Supremes from whom they have all their Authority and by whom they reign who although by his infinite power he can do what he pleaseth yet out of his infinite goodness he cannot deny himself or alter the word which is gone out of his mouth falli non potest mentiri non potest so that all his Words and Covenants and Promises are Yea and Amen Such should Supremes be such was Darius that just King no doubt but he could have sent a party of Souldiers and have taken Daniel out of their power but having made the Law which bound him to the execution he would perform it although it were never so contrary and averse to his disposition From all which you may discern that this great Potentate had his power limited by a Law which he could not justly violate Now look upon him and see him in the following part of his story of a most absolute and unlimited power where it was not restrained by Law In the latter end of that Cap. you may observe that when the King had perceived that God had delivered Daniel from the Lyons and he had taken him out of the Dâ—n At the 24 verse the King commanded and they brought those men who had accused Daniel and cast them and their Wives and Children into the Lyons Den that is the Presidents and the Princes which was the greatest act of power exercised upon the greatest persons which were in that greatest Kingdom and all this meerly arbitrary SECT IV. The result of the former example No Government de facto purely Monarchical and therefore not susceptible of all the properties of Monarchical Government required by Mr. Hobbs Darius bound to the execution of those Laws which himself had made MY Collection here is That there is no Supreme upon earth which hath no commixion of any the other principles in all those particular rights
positive Law but many Laws are limited not only by Gods Laws of Nature but his positive Laws likewise which have as great force as the other to whomsoever they are revealed Now I am in the 150 pageâ— let the Reader consider again how he takes occasion to lessen the authority of Scripture I am perswaded he can produce no Christian writer from our Saviours time downward that ever delivered so unworthy a conceipt of the positive Law of God it is as if he should say we should obey a Constables command against the Kings command by Statute for the difference is much less betwixt the King and a Constable than betwixt the greatest King in the World and God The common Law which I conceive to be an unwritten tradition is like the Law of Nature the Statute Law like the positive Laws It is lawful not considering a statute for a man to act any thing not against the common Law but if a positive i e. a statute Law intervene it is no longer lawful by any private power to act that which otherwise had been lawful Thus until a positive Law of God interpose whatsoever is not against the Law of Nature is lawful but when that positive Law is manifest it is necessary that that likewise be obeyed and no humane Law of mans making can have right to dispense with it He proceeds besides there is no place in the world where men are permitted to pretend other commandements of God than are declared for such by the Common-wealth Christian States punish those that revolt from Christian Religion and all other States those that set up any religion by them forbidden For in whatsoever is not regulated by the Common-wealth 't is equity which is the Law of Nature and therefore an eternal Law of God that every man equally enjoy his Liberty Here is an Argument drawn à facto ad jus Because this is done therefore it is rightly done and an equal weight put upon the acts of Heathens and worshippers of the Sun Moon c. with that of Christians who only worship the true God As if because Kings justly punish those who violate the Laws of those Kingdomes which they are intrusted with therefore Thieves justly may destroy such as break the Laws of their Combination when indeed the first are just but the other most unjust The case seems to be the same here for all those are combinations of Thieves who rob God of his due honour required by him the Christians only act by the Law of God So that here we may discern a great difference in the right of the two aâ—tings of the Christian and the Heathen but then consider what is the ground of them both we shall find it different from what Mr. Hobbs delivers He conceiveth the reason to be this why delinquents are punished because they swerve from the Law of the supreme but it is clearly otherwise The Christian doth not therefore receive the holy Communion or repent of his sin or do such like heavenly duties because the supreme Magistrate requires them but because he finds those duties exacted by God in his positive Laws and if the Magistrate shall controulit he knows God must be obeyed before man when he requires contrary to God And the same reason persvvades the Turk concerning his Alcoran vvhich he vainly imagineth to be the divine Lavv and if the Grand Signior himself do contradict that Lavv they vvill not obey him upon that reason And surely the same Argument prevails vvith all other Nations vvho have their Religion by tradition it is not the Lavv of man but the imagined Lavv of God vvhich they subject themselves unto in divine performances And therefore though soveraigns punish such transgressions vvhich are against those Lavvs vvhich they have established for divine yet it is therefore because they are esteemed divine Therefore they made such Lavvs not that they could think that they ought to be esteemed divine because they established them I vvill add but one observation more vvhich is this That although he saith that all Nations practise this that is that they allovv only such divine Lavvs vvhich they have established to be such yet I believe no Nation in the World no Christian I am assured would have allowed this doctrine to be published but only such as were in that distracted condition as our poor Nation was when he published it For since every Christian Kingdome professeth a conformity to divine Law it cannot be imagined that they durst obtrude such an impossible thing to be credited as that they could make divine Laws but only confirm and exact an obedience to them Nay I can think the same of all even Heathen Nations So that it is a conclusion abhorring to Christianity yea humane Nature wheresoever it is planted with any Religion For since all do conceive God to be an infinite able and wise Governour even of Kings supremes and kingdomes how can they think it afe for them out of humane obedience to subject his rules to the controul of his Subjects which all Kings and Potentates are I have handled this Paragraph verbatim and although there are many more expressions in this case which may deserve censure yet I pass them over and indeed did think here to have concluded his Politiques and so not to have passed any further censure upon them in this place But there are some egregious errors hereafter which must not be passed over with silence I will also skip over his twenty seventh and twenty eight Chapters as containing things in general less malitious and I will enter upon his twenty ninth Chapter which he intitles Of those things which weaken or tend to the dissolution of a Common-wealth CHAP. XXIII SECT I. Mr. Hobbs his second Paragraph purged The signification of the word Judge Inferiour Judges apply the determinations of Laws concerning good and evil to particular persons and facts Private men have judicium rationis and therefore may determine upon their own ratiocination No man to intrude upon the office of a judge but by deputation from the Soveraign THe first of these I let pass as having spoken something of it already materially and begin with his second which he enters upon page 168. towards the bottom of that Page which begins thus In the second place I observe the diseases of a Common-wealth that proceed from the poyson of seditious doctrines whereof one is that every private man is Judge of good and evil actions To purge this doctrine from all poyson observe first that this word Judge sounds like a legal Officer and truly to speak properly I think the supreme legislative power is the Judge of politick good and evil the other subordinate Judges are only Judges of the application of the supreme to particular cases for instance thus The legislative power commands that no man shall steal if he do he shall be thus and thus punished the Judge applyes this sentence of this evil to â—itius who is brought
Consider then first that a hundred thousand men meet together to institute a Soveraign for out of his former Institution of a Commonwealth he deduceth these Inferences these men are either of one Religion or divers for Religion all people have if of one Religion it is not possible for men to think that they should be so careless of the greatest and dearest concernment in the world as to throw it away to anothers dispose without any Covenant or promise to preserve it for them Let us in our thoughts run over the universal world and consider the various judgments in Religion Christians Jews Mahumetans and the several sorts of Gentilismes with their several Subdivisions we shall find none that hold so mean a price upon their Worship of God as to part with it upon such ridiculous terms as to subject themselves so totally to a Leviâ—than as not to have any engagement for their duty towards their God and most of them would rather put themselves upon their protection by his Providence then to offer up his good pleasure a Sacrifice to their worldly preservation by an arm of flesh But if they are of divers Religions which is a most dangerous Enemy to the peace of any Kingdom they certainly will either agree for an absolute tolleration or else one being countenanced which most surely must be the Supreme Religion the rest may enjoy their own upon certain conditions and then he deals unjustly when he violates that condition when he shall command othâ—r Opinions to be brâ—ached or them to be punished otherwâ—ys then was agreed upon before But let the Reader consider here are divers actions intermixed some of which the Soveraign may act in his own person and some which he must act by Commissions Of the first sort are limitation of popular Orators his meaning is our Preachers who are the Publick Speakers to the People of whom it is affirmed that 〈◊〉 must jâ—dge on what occasions how far and what men are to be trusted withall in speaking to multitudes of people that this cannot exact an absolute obedience and that the Soveraign may offend in all these will be evident if we lay the Seene among Turks and the Moguls commanding not to preach Christ and it be granted that they punish all them who do so will Mr. Hobbs say this is just It may be he will but I am sure the Apostles were of another mind when Acts 4. 18. they were commanded not to preach in the Name of the Lord Jesus they answered in the nineteenth verse Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more then unto God judge ye The answer was of invincible force implying thus much That ye be ye what you will Leviathaâ— or what can be imagined to have Commanding Authority ye are Gods Deputies if when God Commands any thing you give a cross Command judge which should be obeyed If when the King in express terms commands one thing and his Lieutenant commands another which should be obeyed The case is so betwixt the greatest King Soveraign or Leviathan in this world and God judge ye then They could reply nothing to this answer of the Apostles none did endeavour to do it but immediately went to Club-Law Threats and Menaces and let them go so that it is clearly evident that Soveraigns in such Commands may do unjustly and are not to be obeyed in their unjust Commands by vertuous men who may and must suffer obediently though they ought not to act obediently I must add no more at this time hereafter will be a greater opportunity SECT II. Books justly examined before published Such a Commission wanting when Mr. Hobbs his Book was printed His reason of this Proposition asserted IN the second sort of Acts he is in the right they ought and have Authority to grant Commissions to some who shall â—xâ—â—ine the Doctrine in all Books before they are published This is most reasonable for else Libels scandalous to the Religion and present Government would fly abroad to the disturbance of the Kingdom and it is impossible for the Supreme to do it himself and certainly had there been such a Commission here in England when this Book was to be printed it would never have been allowed no not in any well-governed Nation in the World His reason for this is very strong likewise for the actions of men procâ—ed from their Opinions And surely although he hath only inforced this in order to peace yet it is evident that the practicks of any vertue are best regulated by the Opinions of wise men as all the actions of a mans life SECT III. Bishops the most competent Judges of Books especially in Divinity so also of Doctrines and Publick Orators or Preachers to the people THis therefore hath usually been allotted to such men whose Function requires the Study of such things from them I mean Bishops the Reverence of whose judgments and the honour of whose persons may gain a submission to their determinations This I speak for Preaching for Books in Divinity others have their proper spheres to move in according to their Professions He proceeds SECT IV. Mr. Hobbs his Assertion affirmed his expressions of regulating Doctrines by Peace censured some kind of Peace among Devils ANd although in matter of Doctrine nothing ought to be regarded but the truth yet this is not repugnant to the regulating the same by peace for Doctrine repugnant to peace can be no more true then Peace and Concord can be against the Law of Nature I am of his mind that in matter of Doctrine the truth and only truth is to be considered and I am confident that truth and peace will certainly meet together But methinks that is not handsomely spoke when he saith that Doctrine should be regulated by peace without doubt peace is an excellent Box to preserve truth when it is setled it is a Child a Daughter and fruit of truth for true Doctrine brings peace wheresoever it is but it cannot so regulate a Doctrine as to enforce this conclusion That because these men live in peace amongst one another therefâ—re they have the truth of Doctrine preserved amongst them For there may be a peace amongst men who are Rebels nay amongst the Devils themselves for ought I know I am sure it appears to be the force of our Saviours argument when they said He casteth out Devils through Beelzebub the Prince of Devils that a Kingdom divided against it self cannot stand Therefore their Kingdom being a lasting Kingdom must have peace in it But yet it is a more probable argument that because truth naturally tends to peace therefore where is peace and quiet it is reasonable to think there is truth SECT V. The former conclusions repugnant to Mr. Hobbs his Doctrine Peace not consonant to the Law of Nature according to his assertion the true reason of the former conclusion BUt the Argument by which he proves it did not become his mouth or pen for saith he
things lawful but against Equity Of mixed Contracts and Actions of just and lighter or unwarrantable fears in avoidance of Contracts I Looked to have him prove they were not but instead of that he affirms they are vâ—id in an iâ—stituted Common-wealth when they Covenant for an unlawful thing But suppose they covenant to do a thing that is lawful when it is in its self lawful although full of many inconveniencies as that Thieves should with oaths and imprecations make a man swear to alienate his estate from his Wife and Children it is lawful for him to do it but it would be a most wicked act to keep such a Covenant not because as his reason is that he had no power to do it for he had by all those Laws which he seems to acknowledge which are the Laws of the Kingdomes wherein he lives but the reason is that which he will not acknowledge that Covenants made upon such terms are not free but mixed actions which are done with a reluctancy and not plenâ— consensu For although he that throws his goods into the Sea to save his Ship and his life doth that act willingly that is principally so yet because it is with a reluctancy and against his love of his riches which weighs the ballance heavier on the other side it is neither violent nor willing but a mixed action yet willing principally because it is chosen and upon this reason it is that this act done by such considerable fear is expounded not obligatory As if a Maid surprized by such means should promise Marriage upon terrors of death if she did not so Covenant if she finds she should be unhappy in such a Match without doubt she is not bound to perform it because it was not fully a willing or rational act but mixed but yet if it had been a voluntary act and with full consent she ought to keep her Covenant Which shews that many times forced acts or obligations made by terrour of death or with strong probabilities of great mischief if refused may when that fear or terror is removed and upon repentance of such Covenant be lawfully denied and are not obligatory But if it be for fear of some little danger such as may not cadere in câ—nstantem virum it doth excuse no body And now I let pass the latter end of that Paragraph and proceed to the next in the margin of which I find SECT V. The case of a conquered and instituted Kingdom not the same The best art of a Conquerour is to secure his Victory By what means such a security may be obtained THe rights and coâ—secuencies of Soâ—eraignty the same in both That is both in an instituted and an acquired Soveraignty in which his marginal note is the whole pith of that Paragraph for he only sets down the particulars formerly treated of and discoursed upon before by me and offers at no one argument but at the latter end he saith The reasâ—ns whereof are thâ— same which are alledged in the precedeâ—t Cap. He says they are the same and I say they cannot be the sâ—me For if there were such a tâ—ing as his institution of a Soveraignty yet the case of a conquered Nation must needs differ from it for either the Conquest is fully and compleat which seldome happens or else the wellâ—igh-conquered Nation comes to a Treaty for their conditions which may be to enjoy their ancient Laws sometimes sometimes accept of new sometimes pay a tribute to the Conquerour who gives them leave to live under their former Race of Kings sometimes have Deputies and Viceroys set over them impowred by the Conquerour sometimes they accept of Garrisons to bridle them sometimes their words are taken and then if there be an absolute Victory they must be ruled solely by the will of the Conquerour And in none of these is the condition of a conquered Kingdom the sâ—me with an Instituted And surely the more conform their conquered condition is to their former state the more lasting it will be and otherwise it is in danger to decay quickly for there is no discretion more becoming a Conqueror then to make his Victory certain and durable Nor is that any way to be atchieved so easily as by discerning the temper of those men which he is to deal with nor can their temper be so well understood by any thing as by their customes for the commonalty of men not being able to chuse for themselves must and will be contented with that Government which they are used to though perhaps another may be easier in its self So that it is evident I think to be apprehended that the same rights and consequencies of Soveraignty which belongs to a Supreme by Institution do not belong to one by Conquest CHAP. XVI SECT I. Mr. Hobbs his method censured his contradictions noted Of the right of Dominion from Generation Paternal Dominion not flowing from the consent of children Infants cannot consent Paternal Dominion flowing from the Laws of God and Nature Scripture vilified by Mr. Hobbs IN the next Paragraph he comes to treat of Dominion Paternal how attained as the Margin directs My first note shall be upon his method He had treated in the precedent Cap. of Dominion by Institution then the Title of this Cap. was of Dominion Paternal and Despotical In all the preceding part of this Cap. he hath handled only Dominion by acquisition and that without consideration of what he had writ before he defined to be such at is got by force Now he confutes himself in the first words of this Paragraph which are Dominion is acquired two ways either by Generation or by Conquest That by Generation I am sure cannot be called by force therefore either his definition of acquired Dominion is not good or that Dominion by Generation is not an acquired Dominion He proceeds The right of Dominion by Generation is that which the Parent hath over his Children and is called Paternal A high Mystery expounded that the Government of Parents should be called Paternal But his next words confute this immediately which are And is not so derived from the Generatiâ—n as if therefore the Parent had Dominion over his Child because he begot him How then can Paternal Dominion be acquired by Generation which he immediately before affirmed when he said Dominion is acquired two ways by Generation and by Conquest but saith he from the Childs consent either express or by other sufficient Arguments declared Let us consider this and examine what consent a Child can give in his Infancy certainly no otherwise then a Pig or any Infant Beast he can wish for a Teat and cry for it when he lacks it and be satisfied with any that is offered Ifâ— this Doctrine of his were true the Child did chuse his Nurse who give him suck not the Mother who gave him being At the first in his Infancy he cannot distinguish betwixt his Parents and therefore can have no election nor consent I mean
reading such Paradoxes as this Gentleman writeth But mark this although this was introduced with a for yet it proves nothing his Proposition he was to prove was That the Captive was a servant or slave when he was set at liberty and not before How is that enforced from this discourse he may say that clause is not before No say I for whether it be derived from servire or servare he is more a slave to his owner when he is compelled to work in fetters or bonds then when he is left to his Parol for I am sure he serves more slavishly and is saved more securely in that condition than the other He proceeds For such men commonly called slaves have no obligation at all I believe they are slaves not bound with any thing but fetters and may break their bonds or prison and kill or carry away captive their Master justly 'T is true because he is trusted with nothing by him not with himself but one saith he that being taken hath corporal liberty allowed him and upon promise not to run away nor to do violence to his Master is trusted by him This man if secure is a Captive by Mr. Hobbs and a servant but not the other I am opposite to him and put him in mind how little this agrees with his former discourse about the Covenant of him who is vanquisht In this last it is one that covenants not to run away and to do no violence but in the first it was to resign his whole body and being to his pleasure These are very thwarting discourses to happen in so little distance and this last hath much more easie terms then the other He next enters into another Paragraph It is not therefore the victory that giveth the right of dominion over the vanquished but his own covenant That covenant giveth no right when the justness of the cause did not warrant the War for as he elsewhere No man when he hath covenanted to one before hath right to make the same covenant to another no man can give that again which he hath first given to another Covenant upon Conquest may gain possession but not right when the cause of War was not just Reader you and I may think our selves tired with these dull discourses and therefore I let pass all the rest of that Paragraph and that which follows and will only drive at the fundamental which being shaken the building will fall of its self At the bottom of this page he begins a new old business In sum the rights and consequences to both paternal and despotical dominion are the very same with those of a Soveraign by Institution and for the same reasons which reasons ore set down in the precedent Cap. which Chapter and reasons have been examined heretofore and therefore I will not trouble the Reader with unnecessary repetitions CHAP XVIII SECT I. Mr. Hobbs his harsh conditions imposed on the Conquerors subjects assistants in the war Subjects newly conquered to be restrained with more severity then those to whom custom has made their yoak more pleasant and easie A difference to be made between those that are of a doubtful and others who are of a known and certain obedience The difference between Civil and Despotical Government HE proceeds So that for a man that is a Monarch of divers Nations whereof he hath in one the Soveraignty by institution of the people assembled and in another by Conquest that is by the submission of each particular to avoid death or bonds I am confident as I have formerly writ there was never such a Soveraign either by Institution or Conquest as he sets down he hath shewed none nor I believe can shew any example of either or a possibility how either should be composed But suppose those now as in his Vtopia is imagined why then saith he for such a Monarch who is Monarch of these two Nations to demand of one more then of another by the title of Conquests as being a conquered Nation is an act of ignorance in the rights of Soveraignty Now I am at the 105 page he hath passed a free and liberal censure upon such Soveraigns but let him know that if it were possible that there were two such Kingdomes it were very hard if such as adventured their lives and fortunes with their King and had a subordinate share in the Conquest should after the Conquest be no better but in the same condition with those whom they conquered and by them were conquered It is true an easie yoak and time the Mother of Experience may reduce them into one condition when it shall be observed that they who are conquered are gained to a liking of the customes and manners of their Conquerors and that mutually their good is beneficial one to the other then it is wisdom in a Conqueror to put them in a parity of condition but at the first subduing any Nation Regni novitas will enforce some severity though perhaps afterwards-Tros Tyâ—iusque mihi nullo discrimine agetur they are grown one and ought to be so governed I but saith he that were ignorance of government I say no but great wisdom to put a difference betwixt a forced obedience and that out of duty betwixt them who are of a known and others of a doubtful fidelity But he gives a reason for what he writes for saith he he is absolutely over both alike Let that be granted yet amongst his true and natural subjects he may justly and prudently dispence his favours and displeasures variously according to their differing merits and demerits or other prudential rules amougst which this is one not too far to trust a newly reconciled Enemy and much less an Enemy newly conquered SECT II. Servitude not equally absolute in a civil or setled Government as in despotical The right of servitude antiquated among Christians SEcondly that supposal may be denied that he is equally absolute over both he governs one despotically as servants or captives which are taken in the War and the other civilly and this is Aristotles distinction and received with applause by all latter Writers till we come to Mr. Hobbs the one are governed like slaves the other like subjects or else saith he there is no Soveraignty at all Away with such a hateful speech odious to all Nations No Soveraignty but arbitrary No subjection but slavish or servile Certainly no society of men can abide such language Look amongst Chriâ—â—ian Kingdoms and we shall find servitude I think banished every where by the universal consent of all Nations who have received the Doctrine of Christianity Those we call servants indeed are free at least not such servants as he and I have discoursed of yet they are subjects to their Masters and they have dominion over them but not such as a Conqueror hath over a vanquished man nay Kings themselves nor can any other Supreme take away by right an innocent mans life and yet they are Soveraigns and have not absolute power
noted in this Book CHAP. XXIII SECT XVIII The conclusion of all the Authors just censure of this book of Mr. Hobbs FIrst I affirm that it is not a book to be tolerated by Kings or supremes because according to his doctrine concerning the original of all such there is none in the Universal World for if it be necessary as he saith it is in the 17 Chap. where he handles the generation of Common-wealths and in the 18 Chap. where he sets down the institution of a Common wealth and in the 13 Chap. This only is the way to erect a Common wealth which way c. Now if this be the only way which have shewed not only not to be practised but not practicable there not only is none in the World but there can be none hereafter and therefore this doctrine is not to be tolerated either by them who think themselves supremes or may hereafter be such because they neither are nor shall be such supremes as he describes and they by his doctrine ought to be Again it is to be abhorred by supremes because it leaves too easie and open a gap yea a countenance for rebellion for if the Law of Nature be only to take care for a mans own particular as he saith it is and that every man should endeavour and ought by any means to free himself from death or wounds or any thing which may render his life unhappy how easie it is for these suggestions to be whispered in the ear of people upon any mishap in government without which none can be let the reader think I will not teach him So that by this doctrine the deliverance from private misery may justify the execution of a publick ruine So that whether we look upon the generation of supremes concerning which there neither is nor can be any such or upon the preservation thereof there is according to his doctrine no security in the throne of soveraignty but it may justly be disturbed by their subjects upon any terrors struck in them from a jealousie that they may be deprived of their contented being Now as this book is dangerous for Kings and Supremes so it is in some conclusions destructive to the Comfort happy being of subjects when he takes away their propriety for if they have no title to the enjoyment of their lives and estates but these must be at the will of the Lord only that is of the supreme which he affirmed but a little before then the very end of polity is lost which is that men may quietly enjoy the fruits of their own vertue and industry may sow and reap work and receive the benefit of their labour without fear of loss or injury It is true that there is an impossibility that there should be any such thing but to that man who is guarded by Gods providence who alone can foresee and deliver a man from all danger But yet humane providence with good Laws and Vertuous execution of them may protect men in safety against all humane oppression which in wisely settled Common-wealths ought to be done and although a Supreme may by force wring from a subject what is his yet he doth it unjustly and shall be responsible for it to his supreme which again he hath denyed by saying that a Soveraign can doe nothing unjustly So that in such a Case there is no room for any man who may have his Estate taken away without injustice that is justly without breach of Law It is not fit then to be tolerated by Soveraignes or Subjects I may yet go further and affirm it not fit to be tolerated by Christians because it robs them of all Assurance of heaven and all the Covenants of God by saying that they have no assurance that their holy Books are revealed by God which if it were true their confidence and trust in Gods promises are vain and all the Religion performed to our Blessed Saviour which only depends upon that assurance they have of the Revelation made in that Book Lastly it is not to be tolerated by those Theists who think there is a God because all such do think that this God hath many glorious attributes Is infinite in Essence infinite in all his attributes power wisdom justice mercy all which do propagate in men a fear and love of him and are in themselves so excellent that the least of them if any one may be said the least is to be valued by every knowing man beyond a world yet his legislator his supreme must have power to Eclipse this glorious Sun and to have so much as he will and no more be revealed of him Again this glorious God is by all Theists apprehended to be the governour of Heaven and Earth rewarder of good men and a punisher of all such as work wickedness when he makes him to reward only and punish his own decrees and acts not those of men And therefore I think it a Book not to be suffered amongst Christians and I am confident would not be tolerated amongst such kingdomes which do not acknowledge our Saviour but only one God FINIS To Mr. Hobs or the Reader or both I dedicate this short POSTSCRIPT CAP. I. A short Introduction declaring the reason of this POSTSCRIPT IN my Epistle before this Treatise I have said that I heard of some amendments Mr. Hobs would make in his Leviathan and upon that stop'd these papers which were intended for the Press being desirous rather that he should do it himself with his own hand than I a work which would be very beneficial to his own soul and more satisfactory to those Readers upon whom his name had gain'd an Authority but after a tedious expectation I found nothing corresponding to my Expectation Wherefore I urged this Treatise to the Press where I thought to have it Printed when I came to London but I was no sooner arrived than a cruel Cold locked me up in my Chamber which gave me leasure to enquire after him whilest these Notes were Printing and found that he had Printed his Leviathan in Latine which I never before had notice of I sent for it and viewed it hoping that it might prove the designed retractation as St. Aug. calls his or at least a recognition as Bellarmine calls his of the like nature but truly I found little to that purpose only the virulency of some English Phrases now and then more gently expressed in Latine And at the latter end which was not in the Title I found an Appendix consisting of three Chapters the first of which was of the Nicene Creed the second of Heresie the third an Answer to some Objections against his Leviathan In these three I hoped to have found much matter which might shew his Ingenuity in the true censuring his own writings but indeed very little what I find I shall deliver here especially reflecting any such thing as hath already passed my pen for other things which will deserve whole and entire discourses I