doth he mean by that I think that where divers men are supremes that have divers opinions there will be breach of Unity For perfect Unity there is none such but in God who being without composition is absolutely not one only in the concrete as created things are but Unity which nothing else is as there is no one man who is so at unity in himself as not to differ from himself now judging one thing then another yea at the same time he may have combustion in himself by diversity of Arguments which arise in his thoughts at the same time so that he cannot imagine any perfect Unity amongst men but yet when there is a subordination that reduceth them to the nearest method of unity that may be therefore where there shall be many supremes without subordination there can be no unity But where there is a subordination there we may find the greatest unity that this subject is capable of which will appear by my answer to what follows CHAP. XXIII SECT XVI The house of Commons not the King representative of the People The King only the soveraign the Peers the Councellors of the King Mr. Hobbs his unworthy expression of there soveraigns censured The odiousness of his comparison of tâ—o men growing out of the sides of another observed The danger of cutting off those sprouts assimilated to the removal of the two houses of Parliament THerefore saith he if the King bear the Person of the People and the general Assembly also bear the Person of the People and another Assembly bear the Person of a part of the People they are not one Person and one Soveraign but three Persons and three Soveraigns I answer the King is not the representative of the People but their Soveraign neither doth he act any royal thing by their Authority but by his own right the House of Commons are the representative of the People that is the Common People when by the Soveraign they are called and elected by them pro tempore during their sitting in Parliament and as their beginning is by the Kings Writ so their determination is by his dismission This shews that although they 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 This difficulty ariseth from the Opinion that every subject hath of a propriety in his lands and goods exclusive 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
being fierce against Daniel urged the immutability of the Decree that it was a Law confirmed by him according to the Laws of the Medes and Persians which may not be altered and indeed the argument is of great force For if Laws made by any Supreme may be violated before they are repealed what security can any Subject have of any thing he enjoys And surely in keeping and preserving the Laws they have made they do imitate their great Master the King of Kings and Supreme of Supremes from whom they have all their Authority and by whom they reign who although by his infinite power he can do what he pleaseth yet out of his infinite goodness he cannot deny himself or alter the word which is gone out of his mouth falli non potest mentiri non potest so that all his Words and Covenants and Promises are Yea and Amen Such should Supremes be such was Darius that just King no doubt but he could have sent a party of Souldiers and have taken Daniel out of their power but having made the Law which bound him to the execution he would perform it although it were never so contrary and averse to his disposition From all which you may discern that this great Potentate had his power limited by a Law which he could not justly violate Now look upon him and see him in the following part of his story of a most absolute and unlimited power where it was not restrained by Law In the latter end of that Cap. you may observe that when the King had perceived that God had delivered Daniel from the Lyons and he had taken him out of the Den. At the 24 verse the King commanded and they brought those men who had accused Daniel and cast them and their Wives and Children into the Lyons Den that is the Presidents and the Princes which was the greatest act of power exercised upon the greatest persons which were in that greatest Kingdom and all this meerly arbitrary SECT IV. The result of the former example No Government de facto purely Monarchical and therefore not susceptible of all the properties of Monarchical Government required by Mr. Hobbs Darius bound to the execution of those Laws which himself had made MY Collection here is That there is no Supreme upon earth which hath no commixion of any the other principles in all those particular rights which Mr. Hobbs requires as properties of Supremacy for the Legislative is one and the controul of the Execution is another Here you see at the making of this Decree there was Aristocracy mixed with Monarchy by the Princes for they petitioned the King to make this Law but the King gave life to it with his Fiat That this was so appears because if Darius alone had done and they had had no interest in this Legislation he who had made it might have recalled it of himself when he discovered the mischief which it produced but it is said that he strove and laboured to have saved him but those Princes who it seems had some influence in making the Law resisted and would not give way to it Then mark the second particle which is next of moment in the Law it self that is the execution he could not be spared from that And although in many polities the Supreme may and hath power to dispence with the execution of severe Justice yet it seems this great King had his hand tyed in respect of that and could not justly do it when upon their Petition he had established that Law Let no man censure this conclusion until he hath read the whole for it is not proper for me to prevent my method in any following discourse to satisfie every doubt which may interpose in the mean time but to preserve every particular until I come to its proper place SECT V. The general reasons of the precedent conclusions That Government best which is suited to the disposition of the people Some people fit only for subjection BUt to conceive a general reason for what I speak consider with me that the people must be governed as best suits with their condition for the multitude without doubt would be too hard for any Supreme if they knew how advantagiously to dispose of themselves And it is an easie thing with ambiguous language to sow discontents amongst the multitude against any present Government and therefore all Politicians besides Mr. Hobbs do shew that some Nations are fit to be ruled with a severe hand some with a more remiss one some fit for Monarchy some for Democracy The Fastern Nations best agree with those Monarchies under which they live which are the most absolute in the world but other Countries would not endure that Yoak It is a most ancient observation in this difference of Countries that some are so dull I dare not name them for fear of offending though others have done it as they are only fit to obey not to govern SECT VI. The former conclusion further asserted The Ephori amongst the Lacedaemonians first introduced by Theopompus BUt for this conclusion let it suffice what Aristotle writes of Theopompus and out of him other later Writers that he being King of the Lacedemonians first set up the Ephori there his Wife upbraided him with it that he should leave his Kingdom with less power to his Successors then he had received it from his Ancestors he answered that he should leave it more lasting Perhaps he was deceived in it but yet it meant this truth that the people being sweetned with the imagination that they have some interest in the Government they will put their necks more willingly under the Yoak The story is told in the fifth of his Politicks Cap. 11. which shew that it may be and may be profitable to receive this commixion SECT VII No Government absolutely pure Mr. Hobbs his Politicks calculated for Utopia BUt then go further and examine the flourishing Commonwealths of the whole world and you shall find them so mixed nay that mixture so equally poised that it will be hard to find the predominant from which it may receive its name as was the cause of the Lacedemonians disputed amongst divers Authors whether Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical and none so absolutely pure as that we may say this Element is without commixion that Planet hath alone influence and this he seems himself to grant in his 98. page concerning the practises in the world although he writes now an Vtopia a pattern which he would have all to follow He goes on page 95. CHAP. XIV SECT I. Mr. Hobbs his conclusions deduced from Principles founded in the Air. Absolute liberty not actually to be found in any people Several petite Common-wealths raised out of the Ruines of the Roman Empire None of these without mixture nor durable His exposition of Representative again redargued as an ill foundation of Government Religion and Propriety The formerly mentioned Commonwealths preserved by Laws IT is manifest saith he that men who
of it supreme and inferiour the supreme is soveraign the inferiour are subjects but by a common vvealth here he only understands the soveraign But let us proceed vvith him out of the former confuted premisses he dravvs this conclusion I conclude therefore that in all things not contrary to the Moral Law that is to say to the Law of Nature all subjects are bound to obey that for divine Law which is declared to be so by the Laws of the Common-wealth Certainly the Moral Lavv or the Lavv of Nature doth not bid us be baptized or receive the holy Communion nay it doth not command us to make a profession of our faith in Jesus Christ The Law of Nature did not command Daniel Shedrack Meshack and Abednego to refuse the voluptuous meat which Nebuchadnezar allowed them and fed upon pulse and water but the fear that they should break the Law of God by obeying the King I mean the positive Law which God had not writ in their Natures but in Tables so that this conclusion of his was most Heathenish CHAP. XXII SECT XVIII Mr. Hobbs his further reasons to prove the former assertions examined and censured His diminution of the authority of the divine positive Law and constant vilifying of scripture censured The Law of Nature restrained by the divine positive Law Obedience in Religious dutyes not founded in the command of the soveraign but of God The perswasion of the Turks that the Alcoran contains the Law of God not the command of the Grand Signiour causes their conformity to it The difference betwen the commands and acts of Christian Princes and their subjects from those of other Religions All other Societies as that of Theeves illegitimate combinations Mr. Hobbs his doctrine abhorrent to Christianity BUT he labours further to prove it Which also saith he is evident to any mans reason for whatsoever is not against the Law of Nature may be made Law in the Name of them that have the Soveraign power and there is no reason men should be the less obliged by it when it is propounded in the Name of God I answer that whatsoever is not against the Law of Nature may be made Law by God i. e. his positive Law but many Laws are limited not only by Gods Laws of Nature but his positive Laws likewise which have as great force as the other to whomsoever they are revealed Now I am in the 150 page let the Reader consider again how he takes occasion to lessen the authority of Scripture I am perswaded he can produce no Christian writer from our Saviours time downward that ever delivered so unworthy a conceipt of the positive Law of God it is as if he should say we should obey a Constables command against the Kings command by Statute for the difference is much less betwixt the King and a Constable than betwixt the greatest King in the World and God The common Law which I conceive to be an unwritten tradition is like the Law of Nature the Statute Law like the positive Laws It is lawful not considering a statute for a man to act any thing not against the common Law but if a positive i e. a statute Law intervene it is no longer lawful by any private power to act that which otherwise had been lawful Thus until a positive Law of God interpose whatsoever is not against the Law of Nature is lawful but when that positive Law is manifest it is necessary that that likewise be obeyed and no humane Law of mans making can have right to dispense with it He proceeds besides there is no place in the world where men are permitted to pretend other commandements of God than are declared for such by the Common-wealth Christian States punish those that revolt from Christian Religion and all other States those that set up any religion by them forbidden For in whatsoever is not regulated by the Common-wealth 't is equity which is the Law of Nature and therefore an eternal Law of God that every man equally enjoy his Liberty Here is an Argument drawn à facto ad jus Because this is done therefore it is rightly done and an equal weight put upon the acts of Heathens and worshippers of the Sun Moon c. with that of Christians who only worship the true God As if because Kings justly punish those who violate the Laws of those Kingdomes which they are intrusted with therefore Thieves justly may destroy such as break the Laws of their Combination when indeed the first are just but the other most unjust The case seems to be the same here for all those are combinations of Thieves who rob God of his due honour required by him the Christians only act by the Law of God So that here we may discern a great difference in the right of the two actings of the Christian and the Heathen but then consider what is the ground of them both we shall find it different from what Mr. Hobbs delivers He conceiveth the reason to be this why delinquents are punished because they swerve from the Law of the supreme but it is clearly otherwise The Christian doth not therefore receive the holy Communion or repent of his sin or do such like heavenly duties because the supreme Magistrate requires them but because he finds those duties exacted by God in his positive Laws and if the Magistrate shall controul it he knows God must be obeyed before man when he requires contrary to God And the same reason persvvades the Turk concerning his Alcoran vvhich he vainly imagineth to be the divine Lavv and if the Grand Signior himself do contradict that Lavv they vvill not obey him upon that reason And surely the same Argument prevails vvith all other Nations vvho have their Religion by tradition it is not the Lavv of man but the imagined Lavv of God vvhich they subject themselves unto in divine performances And therefore though soveraigns punish such transgressions vvhich are against those Lavvs vvhich they have established for divine yet it is therefore because they are esteemed divine Therefore they made such Lavvs not that they could think that they ought to be esteemed divine because they established them I vvill add but one observation more vvhich is this That although he saith that all Nations practise this that is that they allovv only such divine Lavvs vvhich they have established to be such yet I believe no Nation in the World no Christian I am assured would have allowed this doctrine to be published but only such as were in that distracted condition as our poor Nation was when he published it For since every Christian Kingdome professeth a conformity to divine Law it cannot be imagined that they durst obtrude such an impossible thing to be credited as that they could make divine Laws but only confirm and exact an obedience to them Nay I can think the same of all even Heathen Nations So that it is a conclusion abhorring to Christianity yea humane Nature
Soveraignty to be Judge of the means of peace and defence to do whatsoever he shall think necessary to be done I spare putting down every word For answer hereunto know That as I have oft observed he exceedingly often abuseth this general Rule he who hath right to the end hath right to some means but not to all A man hath right to his house in anothers possession right to get it peaceably by Law and not by force A Supreme or under him his Judge hath right to punish Felons but he hath no right to butcher any man without a legal Tryal no though the fact were seen by him so that he hath right to all legal means to obtain this end but not any other Let us change the person and this will appear most manifestly every man hath right to the peace and good of the whole Kingdom without which he cannot live contentedly and happily and he ought to use his endeavour for the obtaining and preserving it but it must have this little addition of lawful means if he have right to procure it by illegal means it will open a gap and give countenance to all Rebellion for there was never any Rebellion which had not that specious pretence of the peace and good of the Publick which otherwise could not be obtained and therefore although he who hath right to the end hath right to some means of obtaining it yet not to all And this I am confident may fully satisfie the following part of that Paragraph CHAP. X. SECT I. Mr. Hobbs his sixth Inference examined and censured The Soveraigns Commands in point of Religion submitted to the Commands of God NOw I am come to the 91 page where he proceeds Sixthly it is annexed to the Soveraignty to be Judge of what Opinions and Doctrines are averse and what are conducing to peace and consequently on what occasions how far and what men are to be trusted withall in speaking to multitudes of people and who shall examine the Doctrines of all Books before they be published The drift of all this Inference is to place the Government of Religious Doctrine in establishment of Doctrine in Religion whether by preaching or printing to be in the Soveraign I shall have opportunity to enlarge upon this conclusion hereafter when I shall meddle with his Divinity but will not let it pass now but speak a little to make way for that 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 Leviathan 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 other Opinions to be broached or them to be punished otherways 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 he 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 Scene 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 Leviathan 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 examine 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 proceed 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
condition together with the hope and expectation of many other conveniences which will accrew to them and their Families by it But saith he in both cases they do it for fear which is to be noted by them that hold all such Covenants as proceed from fear of death or violence void which if it were true no man in any kind of Commonwealth could be obliged to obedience Thus far he and indeed if there were no other obligation but these fears he speaks of there were no obligation to bind any man when he may secure himself For let the Reader observe that the fear he speaks of are fears of men one of another in an instituted and in his acquired Kingdom for fear of the Conqueror Here is put down no fear of God which is the obliging fear for the rest men may have worldly plots to escape and rid themselves of the dangers of War but he can have none to acquit himself of Gods anger which is the great weight and the only one which presseth man to obedience SECT III. Mr. Hobbs his Proposition asserted His reason of this Proposition censured Contracts against the moral Law ipso facto void HE proceeds It is true that in a Commonwealth once instituted or acquired promises proceeding either from fear of death or violence are no Covenants nor obliging when the thing promised is contrary to the Laws But the reason is not because it was made upon fear but because he that promiseth hath no right to the thing promised Here is a Proposition and the reason of it The Proposition I speak to first and allow it to be true not only in a Commonwealth instituted or acquired but in any estate of mankind Whosoever promiseth an unlawful thing is not obliged to the performance and the reason is that the Moral Law of Nature being written in mens hearts whatsoever engagement is made against it is ipso facto invalid whether he did it by fear or no being as he rightly speaks an act without his ability to perform and of that which was otherwise disposed of by the Moral Law But consider Reader what this is to his purpose the sense preceding was That all Commonwealths were founded upon fear whether instituted or acquired From thence he spake against such as hold Covenants made for fear of death or violence void SECT IV. Of Covenants arising from fear in 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 instituted 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— consersu 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 constantem vicum 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 consequencies of Soveraignty 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 reasons whereof are the same which are alledged in the precedent Cop. He says they are the same and I say they cannot be the same For if there were such a thing 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 well-nigh-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 Vice-roys 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
Conqueror by contract which is most abominable and indeed that is almost expressed in that sentence where it is said That he shall have the use of their bodies at his pleasure Let us once again look back and consider that formerly repeated conclusion That the same must be the state of an instituted Commonwealth Then all their bodies their Wives their lives excepted are at his dispose yea at the dispose of his pleasure and that justly which is most abominable He proceeds And after such Covenant made the vanquished is a servant and not before If he is no servant before he make such expression I think a conquered Nation will never generally be subdued to that servitude It is true some particular persons may stoop so low for fear of death but the generality of any considerable Nation can never subscribe to it or surely if they could would they for death is more eligible then many accidents which may happen to a man under such a Covenant SECT II. Sense desired in this Paragraph A Slave more a slave in Fetters then upon his Parol Mr. Hobbs his inconsistencies censured Conquest gives no right where the War is not just BUt he offers at reason to prove this assertion For saith he by this word Servant whether it be derived from servire to serve or from the word servare to save which I leave to Grammarians to dispute is not meant a Captive which is kept in prison or bonds till the owner of him what took him or bought him of one that did shall consider what to do with him I shall censure this first for apparent nonsense Can any man tell who he is that is called here the owner of him that took him Every man knows that he who takes a Captive is owner of the Captive but who is owner of that owner no man can tell At the first I thought it false printed and of put for or so that then it should have been read the owner or him that took him and that or might have been an explication of that word owner but this cannot be so because he adds this or immediately after or he that bought him of him that took him so that it seems to me a meer irrational Proposition to say the owner of him that took him c. This I observed because the Reader should consider how much care is to be used in 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 procceds 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
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 shall reserve to a future consideration as God shall please to spare me life and my Episcopal duties afford me leasure CAP. II. Of things omitted in this Discourse I Begin with his Chapter upon his Nicene Creed which he enters upon in his 328 page where I omit his observation upon that Phrase I believe in and that likewise which is in the bottom of the precedent and the subsequent Page about the exposition of that phrase which is not in the Creed that is Deus est God is which is not in the Creed for the language of the Creed is I believe in one God the Father Almighty in which it is not said there is a God but supposed and he affirmed to be one and he the Father Almighty so that if we must be forc'd to make one or more propositions of it they must be these I believe there is one and only one God and that he is Father Almighty where is is a copula not a substantive as he makes it and upon which he makes his discourse but I let it pass as he might well have done being nothing conducing to his or my dispute 't is true à tertio adjacente ad secundum valet argumentum and therefore when I affirm there is one God it must be imply'd there is a God but this proposition there is one only God supposeth and implicitely affirms it not by any express propositions CAP. III. The Nature of Light examined I Come to page the 330. which opposeth something that I have delivered there you shall find in the letter a which signifieth the Opponent a question asked Quid est lumen and answering himself lumen ut mihi videtur phantasma est non res existens This proposition I have opposed in my first part Cap. 4. Sect. 2. where I have divers arguments for it and the Reader may observe my Answers to his Arguments no one of which is touched here but a strange new Argument which I now proceed to examine whether I may term it argument or illustration of his conclusion I care not which is thus framed Exempli gratia si inter oculum Candelam vitrum statuas cujus superficies ex multis planis constat certo modo dispositis multae tibi videbuntur candelae scimus tamen unicam ibi esse candelam veram proinde caeteras omnes mera esse phantasmata idola hoc est ut dicit sanctus Paulus nihil For my part I cannot observe where the force of this Argument lies to prove that lumen or light is a meer Phantasm or nothing this light shews the Candle or if he will represents it now what represents another must be like it but nothing cannot be like a thing being clean contrary or rather privatively or negatively opposed to it therefore if light were nothing it could not represent the Candle but perhaps the force may be couched in these words Multae tibi videbuntur Candelae there shall many candles appear to wit by the reflection of those many plains of glass but surely this no way enforceth his conclusion for every one of these plaines for all I know represents the true Candle and are so far from being nothing as they must therefore be something because they represent something but they may by a false reflection multiply the Candle and make it seem many what if it does Does the erroneous representing make the representor nothing certainly no for then every man who tells a lye should say nothing for that lye is a false representation we see that light makes us see the Candle from whence it comes and indeed any body else in the Room where it is truly if it be not abused by some Hocus Pocus tricks or such devices as those jugling glasses he mentions but the abuse lies in the plains in the glass which returns the representing light wrong ways not in the light it self which is retorted he might therefore from hence fitter call that nothing which abuseth the medium than the light which is abused he proceeds in the same place with a strangely unnecessary discourse to this purpose as it seems to me neque tamen saith he earum una est verior Candela quam reliquae quatenus apparent I need repeat no more if there be strength in any part of his discourse it is in this but here is none for although none of these Images of the Candle is the Candle yet they are things such things as did represent the Candle for the Candle could not be represented to the eye by that which is nothing the thing that represents another and that which is represented are two but both of them must be things or neither but now it may be replyed to me that this is not Mr. Hobs his opinion but the Objectors I answer with Mr. Hobs