another and be parts one of another I do not understand 6. A Law of Nature is only then a civil Law when it s declared to be so by the civil Soveraign yet it s a Law before 7. For the most part learned men do understand by the Laws of Nature certain divine principles imprinted upon the heart of man by the Laws of Nations more immediate by the Laws civil more remote Conclusions of constitutive Laws civil T. H. Seeing all Laws have their authority and force from the will of the Soveraign a man may wonder whence proceed such opinions as are found in the Books of Lawyers of eminence in several Common-wealths directly or by consequence making the Legislative power depend on private men or subordinate Judges as for example That the common-Common-Law hath no Controuler but the Parliament Item That the common-Common-Law hath two arms Force and Justice the one whereof is in the King the other deposited in the hands of the Parliament G. L. The former Conclusion which is the fifth in order That the Laws of Princes and Countries subdued depend upon the Soveraign conquering is true And it is wisdom in the Conquerors to grant them the Laws and Customs of God and no waies prejudicial to their power For many are willing to change their Governors yet unwilling to change their Government But as concerning the two maximes of Law I might refer him to the Learned in that profession who no doubt can make them good against any thing he hath said They seem to him to be unreasonable partly because he is ignorant of the Constitution both of this and also of other States partly because they are inconsistent with his Utopian principles For he presupposeth 1. That the King of England is an absolute Monarch 2. That the Parliament as a Parliament is meerly a subject 3. That the King hath power at will and pleasure to call Parliaments and dissolve them yet these hath he not made good neither can he 1. That our Kings are not absolute Monarchs is well known the Laws and practice have made it manifest And whatsoever ignorant persons and parasites may say yet wise men both English and Forreign States-men who have dealt with England have been assured of the contrary especially when in certain leagues they have required the consent of the Parliament Again the Kings of England never made or repealed a Law nor levied a subsidie alone themselves without a Parliament And they are sworn corroborare leges quas vulgus elegerit For let Elegerit be what tense it will vulgus which is populus non rex eligit leges and the late King in his answer to the 19. Propositions did confess that the Lords and Commons had a share in the Legislative power And it were very much to be wondered at if that King who himself alone could never make or repeal a Law nor levy or impose a subsidie nor revoke the judgement of any Court nor alter a word or clause in any Law agreed upon in Parliament should be an absolute Monarch It s far more probable he was only trusted with the force for the execution of justice according to Law and Judgement according to the second maxime And if he was no absolute Soveraign then his second supposition that the Parliament as such is only an Assembly of private men and subjects and to be considered in no other capacity is false As likewise his third That the King can call and dissolve Parliaments at will and pleasure For by the Constitution the Laws and practise he was bound to call them once a year and oftner as the necessity and exigency of affairs either of peace or war should require And in such cases to dissolve them before the ardua Regni were dispatched was both dangerous and destructive and did argue either a bad constitution or a corruption of the same T. H. Law cannot be against reason neither is it the letter but the intention of the Law-giver that is the Law And this reason is not private of subordinate Judges but of the supreme Lawgiver G. L. All this is willingly granted if he understand by Reason not the meer conceit or will of the Soveraign but that reason which is a ray of divine wisdom shining in the mind of the Law-giver regulating his judgement and expressed in the words of the Law And the sense of a Law given by a learned Judge subordinate may be very true yet not authentick because he that makes the Law can interpret Law in that manner and none else I pass by his discourse concerning promulgation and interpretation of Law as also the qualification of Judges which belongs to that Chapter of Officers formerly mentioned He might have done well to have improved these excellent Treatises of other learned Authors who have informed us both more accurately and also more particularly of these things then he himself hath done But he conceits himself as far above them as they surpass ordinary men Neither is his distribution of Laws worth the examination as being very crude and indigested as also heterogeneous I proceed therefore to his two questions concerning what assurance may be had of and obedience ought to be given unto divine positive Laws The questions are T. H. 1. How can a man without supernatural revelation be assured of the revelation received by the declarer of those Laws 2. How can he be bound to obey them The answer to the first By sanctity miracles wisdom success without particular revelation its impossible for a man to have assurance of a revelation made to another Therefore no man can infallibly know by natural reason that another hath had a supernatural revelation of Gods will but only a belief G. L. This presupposeth 1. That there is a positive Law of God 2. This positive Law is declared and witnessed to be the Law of God 3. That this testimony concerning this Law is divine and infallible 4. That it is such because it s grounded on and agreeable to an immediate revelation from God of that Law to him that doth declare it as to Moses the Prophets or Apostles For God formerly spake unto the Fathers by the Prophets in the latter times to their children by his Son first and after by his Apostles The question here is not how we shall attain a demonstrative clear or intuitive knowledge of the matter of the Law nor of the manner of the revelation but how we may be assured that the declaration or testimony of him to whom the revelation was made is divine that we may believe it as divine and from God The means whereby the divinity of the testimony was made evident at the first were extraordinary as signs wonders and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost according to his own will Heb. 2.4 But after that upon these divine attestations the Gospel was generally received in all Nations and the prophesies of the Old Testament in this particular fulfilled these ceased yet one thing
acts thereof or 2. in respect of the executive only so far as that all Commissions Judgements Executions determined by Law should run in his name as they did I remember I have read in the Mirrour something to this purpose That in the first constitution of this Government of England in the time of the Saxons the 40. Counts of the 40. Shires or Counties set up a King above them so that he had neither any one his Superiour nor his Peer Yet ex obligatione criminis by his mis-government the 40. Counts joyntly together might judge him whether in their own names or the name of the 40. Counties may be a question And in this sense I believe is to be understood that saying Rex singulis major universis minor Let these things be so or no for they are out of my sphere its certain the Kings of England had the title of Majesty yet that 's no argument at all that he was invested with the supreme and universal power 4. He was unquestionably taken by them for their King I grant he both was so taken and was so truly and indeed And when our Kings were such as were more tender of the peoples good then their own greatness and also governed by the direction of a wise and faithful Council they found them the most loving and loyal subjects of any in the world For the English alwaies desired to be governed as men not as Asses And this is the quality of all understanding people of other Nations Some are not capable either of a mild or moderate power Eminent Authors who take upon them to know Law and the power of Kings have said 1. That the King of England may be judged so Horn. 2. That he is in Law considered as Infans minorennis as a pupil alwaies in nonage and as his Courts and Officers can do nothing but in his name so he can do nothing but by their heads and hands and he cannot take away the formalities of judicial proceedings nor by all his power revoke or make null the Judgement of any Court. So several Authors 3. He hath not Regiam potestatem sed politicam â populo effluxam so Fortescue the great Chancellor 4. That he was a King by Law not above Law and could not exercise any power but according to Law 5. He was sworn corroborare leges quas vulgus eligeret where vulgus is populus and populus eligit leges and as the Law-giver so his Oath 6. No King made a Law without a Parliament nor could justly impose a Subsidy upon the people without a Parliament These two things forreign writers could observe 7. By the manner of their Coronation which was turned to a Formality he derived not his power from the first investiture as some tell us the Princes of Germany and the Kings of France do nor from his immediate predecessor but by Election and this is agreeable to Fortescue A populo effluxam 8. King Henry 8. desires by an act of Parliament to be empowered to design by will which of his children he should please for to succeed him What power either Kings or Parliaments have assumed and exercised de facto and not de jure might be observed by some men and brought into example yet to little purpose From all this every one may see what little credit is to be given to Arniseus and Besoldus and some other outlandish writers who affirm the Kings of England to be absolute Monarchs For they took their information either from partial or ignorant men or from unlearned Histories as many of our English be For few of our Historians have been either Antiquaries in Law or learned and experienced States-men such as Thucidides Xenophon Polybius Livy Tacitus Guiccardine Commeignes and such like have been These are men that could penetrate into the bowels of a State and discover the inward fabrick of the same T. H. Monarchy is the best form of Government G. L. This is the substance of the next part of this Chapter And in this particular I will not be tedious nor answer him word by word But 1. It s certain there is no absolute Monarch but one and that is the eternal glorious God 2. Monarchy well regulated may be a good Government amongst men 3. There are several kinds of Monarchies so called and some better then another 4. Monarchy may be good for some people bad for another and sometimes good for the same people sometimes not 5. To infer that Monarchy in general is the best kind of Government alwaies for all people because some kind of Monarchy is sometimes good for some kind of people is very absurd One of our learned Bishops in his answer to Bellarmine who affirmed Monarchical Government was the best and therefore the Government of the Church must be such saith that purple is the best colour yet not the best for the Cardinals face so it is in this case No man I think can demonstrate the Government of Angels to be Monarchical There may be amongst those blessed spirits primatus ordinis not jurisdictionis We do not read that God did ever immediately institute a form of Government to any people except to Israel yet that was not Monarchical And though Monarchy were supposed to be the best yet wise men having the opportunity did never institute that form of Government which in it self was best but the best the people were capable of I am no enemy to Monarchy and I desire all Christian States to be content with their present form of Government especially if they may enjoy peace and the Gospel If divine Providence bring them into such a condition as that they must or may lawfully and safely alter let them use their utmost power to make the alteration so that it may be a reformation To endeavour a change in a quiet State and that out of ambition or an humour of innovation or an high conceit of their own State-learning will much offend God and bring great misery on man Alterations in Government which though they be for the better if sudden are dangerous and should be made insensibly and by little and little yet so that if there be any thing in the former old constitution which is good it should be retained what wise Polititians have done in this kind Histories inform us as in England if the Common-Law which so many excellent Lawyers have so highly commended as next unto the eternal Law were introduced it would prove a wonderful compendium in the regulation of Justice and cut off a world of useless Statutes which are rather an impediment then a furtherance to Justice There may be many forms of Government and all good yet its certain that is the best which provides most effectually for good Officers in the administration If we may believe Contzen the Jesuite There are amongst others in the constitution of the Empire of China two excellent rules constantly put in practise The one is an Office or Colledge whose duty
shall have benefit even treasure in heaven if he do so Yet even this is so a counsel as it is a command For man is bound to love God more then the world and to preferr treasure in heaven before treasure on earth and this by command As it directs its counsel as it binds its command For one and the same sentence may be a command a counsel and an exhortation too yet in different respects as it binds a command as it directs a counsel as it incites an exhortation And very many exhortations include or at least presuppose a command and a counsel But I wonder why Mr. Hobbs should make these words of Peter Repent and be baptized Acts 2.38 a counsel only Are not all men especially which hear the Gospel bound to repent For doth not Saint Paul say And the time of this ignorance God winked at but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent Acts 17.30 And what will he contradict the Apostle and in express terms It seems he is but a Divine of the lowest rank as he is a States-man far under the highest form His presumption and boldness is very great but his knowledge and judgement very defective For if he had known that repentance had been a principal duty according to a principal command of the Gospel and that it was nothing else but a return to obedience after disobedience he might have corrected himself and avoided this errour 3. In the next place he undertakes to determine the qualifications of a good Counsellor of State which hath been done to his hand and far better then here we read He is a good Counsellor who gives good connsel and that is only good counsel which is a greeable to the wisdom and justice of God and tends to the publick good of the State therefore his first Condition is either imperfect or else directly false For the interest and ends of the Counsellor in his counsel to be consistent with the ends and interest of a Prince counselled is no waies absolutely good but may be very wicked and unjust The rest of the conditions prescribed by him are good yet none of the chiefest mentioned by others omitted by him 4. In the last part of this Chapter he endeavours to prove but yet upon very weak and also very false grounds That its better to hear Counsellors apart then in an Assembly What he means by these words prefixed supposing the number of them equal I know not For he argues against counsel given in Assemblies without any mention of the equality of their number Yet this is evident by this rule of God that the privy Council and Parliaments of England are made useless unprofitable at least not so good as a secret pact Juncto This is very unworthy and base and hath been the ruine of many Princes The Constitution of England required a Parliament as the great Council of the Kingdom in arduis regni negotiis and a standing Privy-Counsel as it was called in other matters of lesser moment That both these may be ill constituted abused and turned into factions there is no doubt we have had too woful experience of this Yet all these inconveniences with others mentioned by the Author may be prevented and the Counsels rectified The way to our good and the welfare of England is not to take them away and destroy them but reduce them if possibly it may be done to their prime institution Otherwise we may fear a military Government or an absolute Monarch or a Tyrannie or an Anarchy A wise council of Lords standing and the great Council of the Parliament have been the best supports under God of the peace and happiness of this Nation In this I am brief because here is little that is material and it more properly belongs to that head of Ministers of State and Officers CAP. X. Of the Second Part. The 26. of the Book Of civii Laws THE principal heads and parts of this Chapter are 1. The definition of a Law civil with certain conclusions thence deduced 2. The interpretation of Laws 3. The distribution of Laws in general In the administration of a Common-wealth once constituted the first thing is Legislation the second is the Execution In the execution 1. Officers are made 2. Jurisdiction exercised according to those Laws Therefore the proper place of treating concerning Laws civil in general is in the first part of administration which requires first that Laws be made For God himself did avouch himself to be Israels Lord and King and they avouch themselves his subjects and people and this was the constitution of that State This being done in the next place he proceedeth to make Laws And this is the order of all such as will imitate God and proceed orderly to govern a State as appears Exodus 19. and the 20. Chapters and so forward This also was Jethroes counsel unto Moses and approved of God Thou shalt teach them Ordinances and Laws and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk and the work that they must do Moreover thou shalt provide thee of all the people able men c. and place such over them This was making of Officers after he had given them Laws and let them Judge the people This is jurisdiction Exod. 18.20 21 22. From hence it appears how preposterously this man and others are that treat 1. Of Magistrates 2. Of Laws The difference between Laws Civil in general and the Civil Law of the Roman Empire is more easily known and learned from the Civilians who have clearly delivered it then from him For Politicks speaks of Civil or Political Laws made for the Government of State more generally and if it mention any Laws of particular States they are but examples to the general rules concerning Laws But let us pass by this and proceed to his definition which is as followeth T H. Civil Law is to every subject those rules which the Common-wealth hath commanded him by word writing or other sufficient sign of the will to make use of it for the distinction of right and wrong that is of what is contrary and what is not contrary to the rule G. L. In this definition the Genus is it s a rule the efficient cause is the Common-wealth the party bound is the subject the end is the distinction of wrong which is contrary and right which is not contrary to the rule But 1. The Genus is not a rule which is an act of the understanding whereas Law is not only an act of the understanding but the will which is facultas imperans Many may give rules by their wisdom which can make no Laws by their wills 2. The efficient cause is not the Common-wealth but pars imperans the Soveraign who is but one part of it 3. The end is not only to declare a distinction between right and wrong but to bind the subject to do that which is right and to forbear that which is wrong For lex est regula
them in the supreme power Others are of a mind that seeing they cease to be Kings or Soveraigns they may be lawfully tryed and put to death as well as private men and that without any ordinary jurisdiction Others determine this to be lawful in such States as that of Lacedemon in Grece and Arragon in Spain What the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is cannot be unknown For the Pope doth arrogate an universal Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction whereby he may excommunicate any Christian King that shall not obey his Canons and Edicts and upon this sentence once given he may depose him free his subjects from their allegiance and command them as Catholicks to rise in rebellion against him some of them have taught that its a meritorious art to poyson stab or any other way murther Kings for the promotion of the Catholick cause This question after the terms thereof clearly explicated is of very great moment and let men advise well how they do determine either in their own judgement privately or before others T. H. There be Doctors that think there may be more sorts that is more Soveraigns then one in a Common-wealth and set up a Supremacy against the Soveraignty Canons against Laws and a Ghostly Authority against the Civil c. G. L. There cannot be any Soveraign but one in one and the same Common-wealth and to set up Supremacy against Soveraignty Canons against Laws Ghostly authority against Civil must needs be a cause of division confusion dissolution Yet this will not prove any inconsistency of an Ecclesiastical independent power with the Civil Soveraignty in one and the same Community And the distinction of the power of the keyes given by Christ unto the Church and the power of the sword trusted in the hands of the higher powers civil is real and signifies some things truly different one from another though he either cannot or will not understand it With Mr. Hobbs indeed this distinction can signisie nothing because he hath given unto the civil Soveraign an infallible judgement and an absolute power in all causes Ecclesiastical and Spiritual His discourse may be good against those Ecclesiastical persons who have usurped civil power otherwise it s impertinent and irrational And he must know that it is alike difficult to prove That the State hath the power of the keyes as for to evince that the Church hath the power the sword It s as great an offence for the State to encroach upon the Church as for the Church to encroach upon the State The Bishops of Rome have been highly guilty of the one and many protestant Princes and States of the other And though men will not see it yet its clear enough that one and the same Community is capable both of a Civil and Ecclesiastical Government at one and the same time and that the Church and State are two distinct Common-wealths the one spiritual and the other temporal though they consist of the same persons And these persons as Christians considered in a spiritual capacity make up the Community and Common-wealth Christian which is the Church as they are men having temporal estates bodily life and liberty they are members of the civil Community and Common-wealth The Power Form of Government Administration Laws Jurisdiction Officers of the Church are distinct and different from those of the State The sentence of the Church is Let him be an Heathen or a Publican and the execution is expected from heaven according to the promise Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and this sentence doth take away some spiritual but no temporal or civil right of the person judged though the judgement be passed and made valid both in foro interiore exteriore The sentence of the civil State is Let him be fined imprisoned stigmatized banished put to death and it s executed by the sword The several members of a Church National and the whole Church joyntly is subject to the civil power and the civil Soveraign if a Christian is subject to the Church because as a Christian he is subject to Christ and bonnd by his Laws And as a civil Soveraign he is bound to protect the Church and he may by civil Laws ratifie the Ecclesiastical Canons and then they bind not only under a spiritual but a civil penalty too If Church-assemblies give cause of jealousie to the Civil powers they may regulate them and order their proceedings if they offend they may punish them Their persons lives estates are under the sword and if this be taken from them because they will not obey them to disobey Christ they ought to suffer it patiently for Christs sake In this case the Church may pray and weep resist and rebel they may not for Christians as Christians have no power of the sword against any man not their own members much less against the civil Soveraign whom if they resist they must do it under another notion or else they transgress and can have no excuse And here it is to be observed 1. That Christ gathered Disciples instituted Church-discipline made Laws and the Apostles executed them in making Officers Acts cap. 1. 16. made Laws cap. 15. passed sentence and executed the same 1 Cor. 5. and all this without any Commission from any civil Soveraign Therefore it s not true which some learned Divines have affirmed That the State and Church are one body endued with two powers or faculties for they are two distinct bodies Politick It s true that if as some conceive there were no power but coactive of the sword then they must needs be one body But there is another power as you heard before 2. If a King become Christian by this he acquires no power not the least more then he had before and if he be Heathen or Mahometan and all his subjects become Christian he loseth not one jot of his former civil power which they are bound to submit unto by the very Laws of Christianity If he command any thing contrary to the Laws of Christ they may and must disobey but deny his power they may not they must not In this case a Christian may be perplexed between the Devil and a Goaler as some of Scotland were said to be when if they obeyed the Parliament and joyned with Duke Hamilton to invade England the Kirk excommunicate them and deliver them up to Satan if they obeyed the Church prohibiting them they were cast in prison by the State The cause of this perplexity is not from this that the Church and State are two distinct Common-wealths but because the commands of the one or both may be unjust T. H. Some make the power of levying money depend upon a general assembly of conduct and command upon one man of making Laws upon the accidental consent of three Such government is no government but a division of the Common-wealth into three independent factions c. G. L. Here again he hath made the Parliament which is the
good to deliver concerning the Nature of a Common-wealth civil The Distribution followeth Mr. Hobbs A Common-wealth is either by institution or acquisition G. L. This is not the distribution of a Common-wealth either into the integral parts which are two 1. The soveraign 2. The subject not into the kinds for those are usually taken from the several manners of disposing the supreme power in one or more to make it Monarchical or Polycratical but it s a distinction of the manner of acquiring supreme power And the ordinary way or rather means whereby it is acquired is either by force or consent Yet this distinction is imperfect for there be other means besides these neither when supreme Power is obtained either by force or consent is a Common-wealth framed The Power is alwayes derived from God as before and he takes it from one and gives to another either in an extraordinary or an ordinary way of Providence as by giving a finall victory or inclining mens hearts and that upon several reasons to submit and sometimes so that if they had liberty and power they would not consent at all And though men may be unjust in desiring and seeking yet he is just in giving it And by the way it s to be observed 1. That a Power acquired and held by force cannot govern without a tacit consent at least so that all Common-wealths are by consent 2. No man or men can govern any people long by force except it be the Will of God to punish and oppress them with an iron rod for their transgressions CAP. II. Of the Second Part and the Eighteenth of the Book Of the Rights of Soveraigns by Institution THis Chapter informs us what the rights of Soveraigns once constituted are In every Common-wealth there must be a supreme Power fixed in some certain Subject this is essential to it yet though this be a principal thing to be done yet it is not all neither being done doth it make a compleat Common-wealth His Covenant of every one with every one for to design a Soveraign is but an Utopian fancy For by the best Histories we may understand that many States have attained to a setled form of Regular Government by degrees in a long tract of time and that by several alterations intervening so that the Laws of their constitution are rather customs then any written Charter Some Communities come under a form of Government more suddenly and by a way fortuitous unto man though not so to God And in this point the practise of former times not the fancies and speculations of men must instruct us T. H. The first of the twelve Rights of the Soveraign is That Subjects cannot change the form of Government G. L. That Community which hath Power and Liberty to alter the form of Government to the better do not their duty or are not wise if they do it not And it were wisdom in any people to reserve the Power to the whole body to be used as occasion opportunity and necessity shall require As they are bound to reform the State when it is corrupted so they are bound to alter the form when without an alteration reformation cannot be obtained That the Subjects have no power to alter the form of Government may be granted for Subjects as Subjects must submit unto the Power established not take upon them the highest and most transcendent Prerogative of all others yet this is no right of the Soveraign nor to be reckoned inter Jura Majestatis For the Soveraign himself hath no right of himself to change the fundamental constitution Before this can be done the People must return unto the original State of Liberty and to a Community which in England is not a Parliament but the fourty Counties Upon this ground some have said that a Parliament cannot alter the Government what men may do upon a Dissolution and in a case of real not pretended necessity is another matter But let us hear his reasons T. H. The first upon supposition of no former Obligation is That it is a breach of that Covenant whereby they made themselves authours of every act the soveraign doth or shall judge fit to be done 2. If they depose the Soveraign that which is his own and they had formerly given him they take away unjustly 3. If any attempting to depose his Soveraign be killed or punished he is Author of his own punishment 4. A new Covenant pretended to be made with God cannot free them from offence and injustice in their disobedience unto their Soveraign because they can make no Covenant with God without his Leiutenant which is the Prince G. L. 1. I grant as formerly that a Subject as such cannot act to change the Government or depose his lawful Soveraign 2. They who set up a Soveraign and by Covenant advance him to the Throne must and ought to be free from all former superiour obligations which cannot stand with this But what is this to purpose The question is whether Subjects cannot change the form of Government in any case and whether the Subjects may not be freed and that lawfully from their allegiance and cease to be in the State of Subjects That it many times fals out so to be is evident For by civil wars by forraign invasions transmigrations and other wayes it comes to pass that Subjects are free from their Soveraigns who cannot protect them and in such cases if God give them Power they may alter the form of Government if it may be for the best But to come more close unto his first reason let us suppose as he affirmeth That a people by Covenant have set up a particular person to be a Monarch and so made themselves authors of all his acts whether is it lawful for you by a new Covenant to obey another or cast off Monarchy or transfer his person upon another without injustice He saith ye cannot without breach of Covenant do it But 1. He here presupposeth his former Utopian fancy of a Covenant of every man with every man whereas its plain few States of the world now in power were thus constituted 2. Soveraigns are of two sorts 1. Such as in whom the supreme power doth constantly and immediately abide 2. Such as are such only for execution and administration To these latter the subjects bind themselves to be faithful so far as they shall be faithful to the Kingdom and the Crown which is theirs not jurc dominii by absolute right with a power to alienate them or destroy them For every subject is first bound to be faithful to their Countrey then unto their King who swears to maintain the Laws Liberty and Religion by Law established These cannot bind us to do any thing against the Laws of God of Nature nor against our Countrey But with this Author every Monarch is absolute and in particular the Kings of England amongst the rest 3. Suppose a Covenant with a Soveraign absolute or limited be against the Laws of God
same continued till our times but the whole frame was strangely altered and corrupted Many different opinions there be concerning our Government yet three amongst the rest are most remarkable For one party conceives the King to be an absolute Monarch A second determines the King Peers and Commons to be three co-ordinate powers yet so that some of them grant three Negatives some only two A third party give distinct rights unto these three yet in this they are sub-divided and they would be thought to be more rational who give the Legislative Power unto the Lords and Commons in one house the judicial to the Lords in a distinct house and the executive to the King who was therefore trusted with the Sword both of War and Justice None of these can give satisfaction There is another opinion which puts the supreme power radically in the 40. Counties to be exercised by King Peers and Commons according to certain rules which by Antiquaries in Law together with some experienced States-men of this Nation might be found out but are not The seeds of this division were sown and begun to appear before the wars and the opinion that all these were only in one man that is the King absolutely some say was the greatest cause not only of the last but also of other civil wars in former times And it hath been observed that every man liked that opinion best which was most suitable to his own interest Our several opinions in Religion have heightened our differences and hindered our settlement yet Religion is but pretended for every party aims at civil power not spiritual liberty from sin And the power to settle us thus wofully distracted is only in God and if he ever will be thus merciful unto us the way whereby he will effect it will be by giving the greatest power to men of greatest wisdom and integrity not by reducing us unto one opinion that all the powers civil must be in one as the Author doth fondly fancy Let the form be the best in the world yet without good Governors its in vain The subject of this Chapter is Majestas jura Majestatis the Rights of Soveraigns which this Author hath handled very poorly and if he had but translated that which others had more excellently written in this particular before him he might have informed us better given his Reader more satisfaction reduced them to a better method and neither have made such to be Rights which are none nor omitted those which truly are such as he hath done CAP. III. Of the Second part and the Nineteenth of the Book of the several kinds of Common-wealths by institution and of succession to the Soveraign power BY these brief contents it appears that the subject of this Chapter is the distinction of Common-wealths and Succession to the Soveraign power in a successive State In the first part he 1. Reduceth all Common-wealths to three kinds 2. Prefers Monarchy one of them before all the rest T. H. Other kind of Common-wealths besides Monarchy Democracy Aristocracy there cannot be G. L. This is conceived to be a distribution into species or kinds yet if we throughly examine it it is not so for it s but an accidential difference For it ariseth only from the distinct and different manner of disposing the supreme power in one or more In more and these are the Optimates some of the best and most eminent or in the whole Community Yet in all these the essential acts of Government and so the Soveraign power are the same in all States and they are as you heard before three Legislation Judgement and Execution for its meerly accidental to the supremacy to be disposed more or more That it must be disposed in some certain such sect is necessary and that as the Supremacy is one and indivisible so the subject must be one also and that either physically or morally The great variety of Common-wealths which is such that there be not two in the whole world in all things like ariseth not from the constitution but from the different manner of administration Though the Author denies all mixt Common-wealths yet wise and learned men which without disparagement to him may be preferred before him as in other things so in State-learning have said 1. That there is no pure Monarchy or Aristocracy or Democracy in the world 2. That not only some but all Common-wealths are in some measure mixt or tempered and allayed because they conceive it s hardly possible for any pure State to continue long Against these I find in Mr. Hobbs a verbal contradiction but no real confutation And it seems to me he never truly understood them neither hath he taken notice of the difference between Real and Personal Majesty or of the Natural or Ethical subject of Supremacy or of the exercise thereof by certain persons and the constant inherency of it in a certain subject And we know by experience that such as are only trusted with the exercise of supreme power will by little and little usurp it and in the end plead prescription So Lewis the 11. of France when he violated the Laws of the constitution removed all such as by right ought to have poysed him could boast That he had freed the Crown from Wardship And this hath been the practise of the Princes of Europe which in the end will prove their ruine as for the present it hath been their trouble There is no Common-wealth but may be reduced to one of these three in some respect yet so that Monarchies differ as much from one another as they differ from the other two Some are regal some despotical and there be several sorts of these But I do not intend at this time to contest with him about this distribution but proceed T. H. Tyrannie and Oligarchy are but different names of Monarchy and Aristocracy not different forms of Governments G. L. These names do not signifie Chimera's but real Entities and if any have abused them to signifie forms of Government let them answer for themselves I know them not they cannot be men of any note Tyrannie doth not signifie Monarchy nor Oligarchy an Aristocracy They signifie the vicious corruption of States degenerate from their original constitution and that by the wickedness of a Prince and the faction of an assembly ingrossing power and enhansing it above that which is due and just and so become a multitude of Tyrants and this hath been the cause why many Nations when they had power in their own hands have altered the form of Government been jealous of trusting one man or assembly of men long with too much power and the wisest have set their wits on the rack to find out a way how to limit and restrain the power of their Governors T. H. Subordinate Representatives are dangerous And I know not how that so manifest a truth should of late be so little observed that in a Monarchy he that had the Soveraignty from a descent
of 600. years was alone called Soveraign had the title of Majesty from every one of his subjects and was unquestionably taken by them for their King was notwithstanding never considered as their Representative that name without contradiction passing for the title of those men which at his command were sent up by the people to carry their petitions and give him if he permitted their advice G. L. This man deserves to be a perpetual slave his intention is to make men believe that the Kings of England were absolute Monarchs their subjects slaves without propriety of goods or liberty of person the Parliaments of England meerly nothing but shadows and the members thereof but so many carriers of letters and petitions between home and the Court What he means by subordinate Representatives I know not I think his intention is to oppose those who affirmed King Peers and Commons to be co-ordinate not subordinate powers and all of them joyntly to make up one supreme Subordinate Representatives or powers he may safely and must grant in all States The word Representative he either doth not understand or if he do he intolerably abuseth his unwary and unlearned Reader by that term A Representative in the Civil Law called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is one who by his presence supplies the place of another that is absent for some certain end as to act that which another should do but in his own person doth not yet with the consent of the person represented so far as that the thing is judged to be done by him And in this sense the person representing is Judged to be one with the person represented by fiction of Law And one may represent another as a Superiour who may represent another in any act so far as that other is in his power or as an inferiour by a power derived from his superiour or as an equal by consent so far as the person will undertake to act for him In all these representations the Representeé and the Representer are judged one person In a free-State a Parliament is a Representative of the whole body of the people this we call a general Representative The reason of this representation is because the whole body of a people cannot well act personally What kind of Representative the Parliament of England was is hard to know except we knew certainly the first institution which by tract of time and many abuses of that excellent Assembly is now unknown It was certainly trusted with the highest acts of Legislation Judgement Execution The whole body consisted of several orders and ranks of men as of King Peers Commons the Clergy Whether they might meddle with the constitution or no is not so clear it s conceived they could not alter it though they might declare it what it was Their power was great without all doubt yet not so great but that it was bounded and a later Parliament might alter and reform what a former had established which argues That the 40. Counties and the whole body of the people whence all Parliaments have their original and being as they are Parliaments were above them In this great assembly the Knights and Burgesses did represent the Connties and the Burroughs the Convocation the whole body of the Clergy the Peers by antient tenure their Families Vassals and Dependants But whom the King should represent is hard to determine If the Law did consider him as an infant and this according to the constitution he could represent no other person or persons And if this be so then there is plain reason why he never should have the title of Representative yet evident reason there is why the rest should be called a Representative and the people are not Representers as he fondly imagines but the persons represented It s affirmed by the Author 1. That our Government is a Monarchy 2. The King had the Soveraignty from a descent of 600. years 3. Was alone called Soveraign 4. Had the title of Majesty from every one of his Subjects 5. Was unquestionably taken by them for their King 1. Our Government is called a Monarchy is true and he himself in this Chapter confesseth that Elective limited Kings are called Monarchs and their Kingdoms Monarchies yet he saith they are not so Again Monarchy is Regal over free-men Despotical over slaves and servants not by a Legal but an Arbitrary power If he say its Regal then the King is no absolute Monarch as he would have him to be If he say its Despotical its false and we know it so to be false And the Doctrine of Dr. Sibthorp and Mannering or Martin affirming this was condemned by a whole Parliament and that by men who have been as great Zealots for the King in these civil wars as any other 2. The King of England had Soveraignty by a descent of 600. years But first what doth he mean by Soveraignty If he understand an absolute supreme power it s not true the Kings of England have no such thing It s true that many of them did challenge so much power as they could acquire and keep and as their sword was longer or shorter so their power in possession was more or less Yet by the constitution of Law and the best custom it was alwaies determined within certain bounds Secondly Whence will he commence the date of 600. years and how will he derive the Soveraignty If from the Conqueror the date of so many years is not yet expired the Succession is interrupted if not cut off by the sword upon a civil war If he derive this power from the Conqueror as Conqueror all free English men will deny it the Kings themselves durst not challenge it upon those terms and by consent they never had it Therefore the Soveraignty the time of the commencement the title it self doth vanish He saith something proves nothing that he was called Soveraign doth neither prove that he was really such nor that he was absolute and that by his own confession 3. The King had the title of Majesty from every one of his subjects The title or name doth not prove the thing for we know very well that the title is constantly given to divers Princes who have not the thing no more then our Kings had the Kingdom of France though they had the title of the Kings of France France was so civil as to grant the title and the word but never part with the thing The Dukes of Venice as Contarene tells us had insignia sed non potestatem regis Majestas is sometimes maxima dignitas and this no subject denyed to the King He had his Scepter and his Throne his Robe and Diadem but all these are far short of supreme power Majestas is Personalis aut Realis Real he had not Personal he might have Yet personal Majesty might be his either in respect of dignity as it was or in respect of power and that also two waies either in respect of the whole power and all the
is to inform the King of his errours and never to cease petitioning in the name of the people till he reform and return to the observation of the Laws These also inform the King of the miscarriage of all other Officers though never so great The other rule and practise is every third year to make a severe and rigid inquisition into the administration of all Magistrates and to put out and punish the unjust negligent and unworthy and to establish the just The Author endeavours to prove the excellency of Monarchy above other forms because it hath conveniencies proper to it self and is free from inconveniencies incident to Aristocratical and Democratical States Yet this is to little purpose For 1. The best forms have their imperfections 2. The inconveniences mentioned are easily prevented by wise States-men even in other forms of Government The discourse following concerning elective and limited Monarchies so called yet are not such as also concerning succession I omit 1. Because others have discussed these points in their Political systems more accurately 2. Because though some things are both ignorantly and untruly affirmed yet they are not worthy to be taken notice of much less of any refutation CAP. IV. Of the Second Part the twentieth of the Book of Paeternal and Despotical Dominion THE method of Politicks is miserably perverted by the Author For whereas power is first acquired before a Common-wealth can be constituted he first informs us of the several kinds of Constitutions which arise from the different manner of disposing the power acquired and after that of several waies how the power is acquired And further to bewray his ignorance of the rules of Government he confounds Oeconomical power with Political so that I may truly say that he is one of the worst that ever wrote either of Civil or Ecclesiastical Politicks In this Chapter he undertakes 1. To define a Common-wealth by acquisition and to shew the difference between it and that by constitution 2. To declare how dominion is acquired 3. To prove the Soveraign rights out of Scripture 4. From thence to demonstrate that all Soveraign power is absolute T. H. A Common-wealth by acquisition is that where the Soveraign power is acquired by force And the difference of this from that of constitution is that in the former men subject themselves for fear of the Soveraign in the latter for fear of one another G. L. This is the substance though not all his words where we must observe That this is no distinction of a Common-wealth but of the manner how the power whereby any is made a Soveraign is acquired and that all Soveraigns do one way or other acquire their power for it s meerly accidental no waies essential to any man for to be invested with power And howsoever the Soveraignty civil be obtained it makes no difference in the Common-wealth For in every state the power is acquired and so there is no Common-wealth but its both by acquisition and constitution too So that he hath made a distinction without a difference T. H. Dominion is acquired two waies by Generation and Conquest The first is Paternal the latter is Despotical G. L. This is very defective as in this place its heterogeneous and impertinent What have we to do with Family-power in a Common-wealth For Familes as they make vicinities and vicinities a Community civil are but a remote material part of Politicks In a Family there is a threefold power acquired the power of an husband over his wife by marriage covenant or contract the power of parents over their children by generation the power of Masters over their servants acquired several waies for some servants are slaves some are free Slaves are vernae servants born in the Family or emptitii bought with money such as are free be conductitii The two former are more subject then the last and the Master hath more power over the former sort who are born and bought then over the latter who are only hired So that there is a difference of Despotical power even in a Family the one is more absolute the other more limited Soveraignty civil is acquired several waies and all may be reduced to two For men come unto this power either justly or unjustly Justly and that either in an extraordinary way as by special unction and designation from God thus Saul and David and Davids lawful Successors of his Family were made the two first by particular nomination the other by ageneral entail or in an ordinary manner and that is either by the Law of Nature or by institution By the Law of Nature when a multitude sufficient for their own protection and government associate and by union and communion become a Community the Soveraignty is virtually and eminently in themselves and in the whole body of the people being free and this is so natural a subject that upon the defect of succession it returns unto them again By institution and more formal contract and that is by a free and full election or by a submission to a Conquerer which is so far voluntary that if they had power to protect themselves they would not submit Unjustly by usurpation when he or they who have no right yet take the possession into their own hands in a way contrary to the Laws of God and the consent of men yet such an Usurper cannot be a Soveraign without some kind of consent of God and man In this case fraud or force gets the advantage over the people so far as that they must submit or do worse When any ascend the Throne by Marriage Succession Election they are made Governors by institution with free and full consent In all this I speak of the supreme not the subordinate power which is by Commission derived from the supreme In all these waies of acquiring power we must distinguish between power of constitution in constitution and in administration and also take special notice that there is no power which can govern without consent not only of man but also and especially of God who either in justice and severity or in mercy doth change and alter the Kingdoms of the world at will and pleasure For he alone doth rule in heaven and earth at all times Thus far concerning the acquisition of power and of the jura majestatis rights of Soveraigns which he conceives to have made clear by reason and now in the next place undertakes to prove out of Scripture yet in such a loose and implous abusive manner that I verily perswade my self he doth not believe them to be revealed and written from heaven or that Jesus Christ was an ordinary just man much less the Eternal Son of God incarnate T. H. pag. 105. Le ts now consider what the Scripture teacheth in the same point To Moses the children of Israel say thus Speak thou to us and we will hear thee but let not God speak to us lest we die This is absolute obedience to Moses G. L. This is
the first Scripture alledged by him we read it in Exod. 20.19 To understand these words we must consider 1. That cap. 19.8 That all the people answered together and said All that the Lord hath said that will we do This was an absolute subjection of themselves to God and a promise to obey him 2. That the Lord said unto Moses Lo I come unto thee in a thick cloud that the people may hear when I speak with thee and believe thee for ever Verse 9. This was to procure authority and credit unto Moses as a Messenger between God and Israel 3. That the words of Exod. 20.19 quoted by the Author are expounded Deut. 5.27 For thus there we read Go thou near and hear all that the Lord our God shall say and speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak to thee and we will hear it and do it From all which it is apparent 1. That the people had formerly before they spake these words subjected themselves to God and he was their Soveraign not Moses 2. That they promise to obey the words of God declared by Moses not as they were the words and Laws of Moses but of God they will do them 3. That they promise to believe Moses as a Messenger between God and them not obey him as their supreme Lord. It s one thing to believe Moses as a Prophet from God and to yield him absolute obedience as a King Believe him as a Prophet they might obey him as their King they must not God was their King and Moses his Messenger and servant How grosly therefore doth he abuse the place how absurdly and falsly doth he thence infer the peoples promise of absolute obedience to Moses which was only due and promised unto God T. H. Concerning the right of Kings God himself by the mouth of Samuel saith This shall be the right of the King you will have to raign over you he shall take your sons c. 1 Sam. 8.11 12 c. G. L. 1. The translation which he confessed is allowed by his Soveraign and the Church of England is perverted For instead of This will be the manner of the King he turns it This shall be the right of the King There is a great difference between right which is alwaies just and manner or custom which is many times unjust 2. If this be a prerogative of Soveraigns then its a very great misery to be subject to a King and that in two respects 1. Because he will take away from his subjects unjustly that which justly is their own even the best things 2. Because by doing thus he will oppress them so grievously that having no remedy or redress from man they will cry unto God for deliverance from a King as a great and intolerable mischief 3. If it be the right of a King yet it is but the right of heathen Despotical Princes and not of the Kings of Israel But how can it be the right of heathen Kings seeing they had no power to oppress and do wrong 4. It could not be the right of the Kings of Israel for they were bound to act and judge according to the Laws God had made yet these acts here mentioned are directly contrary to those Laws and Rules of Regal Government delivered by God himself For he must have a copy of the Laws and read in it all his life that he may fear God keep his Laws not exalt himself above his Brethren c. Deut. 17.18 19 20. Neither did the Kings of Judah or Israel no not wicked Ahab practise or make use of this power as is evident in the case of Naboths Vineyard 5. To do according to this power pretended in this place is directly contrary to the very end of all Government civil which is to do justice and judgement to preserve to every one his own to protect the good and punish the bad How shall he punish the Oppressor when he is the great Oppressor himself How can he do justice upon thieves when he is the greatest thief in his Kingdom 6. If this should be the right of the Kings of Israel and of all Soveraigns then though the people of Israel were a free people yet if a King was once set over them they were meer slaves neither their Lands nor their goods nor their children nor their servants were their own and also by this reason there can be no subjects in any state under heaven that can have propriety or liberty but all are meer and absolute servants and slaves Kings may have potentiam but not potestatem force and fraud but no just power to oppress their subjects and do such things as are here mentioned Whereas some say That God in this place teacheth us what Kings may do and in Deut. 17.18 19 20. what they ought to do is to little purpose as being more acute then solid For id quisque potest quod jure potest And no man no not the greatest Princes in the world have any power to do that which is unjust 7. It s a question whether they had such a King as they desired For they desired a King which would offend God and oppress them but God gave them such a King as had no power to make Laws but such as were bound to Judge according to the civil or judicial Laws made by himself and even in the time of Kings he reserved the Soveraign Rights in his own hand It seems they understood not well what kind of King they had desired for to maintain the state and pomp of a great Court and an army in constant pay was a vast charge and required such a revenue as could no waies be raised without the great oppression of the people And this they did not consider neither would understand till it was too late and the yoak was upon their necks and the burden pressed them very sore When Princes are trusted with an absolute power to raise men and moneys at their will and pleasure they will not be content with the ordinary Revenue of their Crowns but what they cannot obtain justly by the Laws and the constitution of the State they will force by the sword and so the Government proves military and in the end meerly arbitrary Whereas Mr. Hobbs conceives That to go in and out before them and Judge the people contains as absolute a power of the Militia and Judicature as one man can possibly transfer unto another he is much deceived For both these may be had in a despotical or a Regal way or by Commission The first is absolute the two latter are not so The Kings of Sparta Poland Arraegon might have both these and yet be no absolute Soveraigns T. H. Solomon prayed that God would give him understanding to judge his people and discern between good and evil 1 Kings 3.8 therefore he had the Judicial and Legislative power supreme and absolute G. L. This is his meaning and thus he understands these words
few passages to manifest that he never understood what liberty is Liberty of subjects is not Natural nor Moral nor Theologicall but Political and Civil In the Civil Law and Politicks it s opposed to servitude and bondage not simply and meerly to obligation by Laws as he fancieth for thus he writes T. H. So men have also made artificial Charms called Civil Laws which they themselves by mutual Covenants have fastened at one end to the lips of the Soveraign at the other to their own ears G. L. The Authors meaning is That so far as Laws bind the subject so far they take away his liberty and men by constitution of a Soveraign over them give a power absolute to make Laws and so far as they are virtually subject to his power and actually bound by his Laws they cannot be free yet this well examined will not prove true For not any kind of Obligation takes it away for then the Laws of Nature by which a man is bound before he be subject to a civil Soveraign should deprive him of his liberty yet they leave him as free a man as any possibly in a free-State can be The Obligation of just Laws and wise Edicts do regulate liberty keep it within its proper bounds and no waies destroy it or take it away Therefore that which follows is questionable For he affirms T H. That the liberty of a subject therefore lieth only in those things which in regulating their actions the Soveraign hath pretermitted G. L. But 1. In things left indifferent because not defined by Law the subject is not only liber sed dominus and hath not only libertatem but potestatem He is not only free but Lord of those actions and hath not only liberty but also an absolute power 2. Though wise and just Laws do regulate actions yet they do not make the agent a slave or a servant For to be a slave or a servant is to be cast below the condition of a man and make him subject to some thing below himself Wisdom and Justice are above the power of the Soveraign much more above the liberty of a subject They are particles of the divine perfection and to be bound by them is not only a liberty but an honour To be free from the dominion of our own base lusts and sins and the power of Satan is true liberty divine and so not to be subject to the lusts and imperious unworthy commands of absolute Soveraigns whose wills though irrational contrary to justice must stand for Laws is civil liberty And then a man is Politically free when he is so far Master of his life goods children and that which is justly his that they cannot be taken away from him but for some crime contrary to just Laws deserving such a penalty In a word the liberty of a subject is such a state or condition as that he is neither by the Soveraign power nor any Laws bound to do any thing which a rational and just man would not willingly do though there were no Laws or Penalties Civil at all This is not to be free from Laws And I do not know who they are which he saith demands any such thing The rude and ignorant people and also all children of Belial desire to have a licence not only to do good but evil too as they please and they judge all Laws as heavy burdens and grievous yoaks If he mean that the subjects of England demanding the benefit of Magna Charta and the Petition of Right did aim at any such extravagant liberty he must needs be a slanderer of his own fellow-subjects and an enemy to the English liberty as indeed he is and that through an erroneous notion and conceit of absolute power civil The liberty of the subjects of this Nation is very great and such as if we either consider the Laws of the Constitution or Administration the ordinary and common subjects of other Nations are but slaves unto them Our Free-holders have the choice of their Knights and Burgesses for the Parliament so that neither any Laws can be made nor moneys imposed upon them without their verbal consent given by their Representatives In all causes civil criminal capital no Judgement can pass against them but by the verdict of a Jury made up of their neighbours which in it self is an excellent priviledge The Civilians say Libertas est res inestimabilis and to be redeemed at any rate much more the English liberty is to be valued and ever was by our ancestors who obtained it recovered it kept it though with the blood of many thousands But the question is whether this liberty is consistent with the Soveraigns power His opinion is T. H. That by the liberty of the subject the Soveraigns power of life and death is neither abolished nor limited G. L. It s certain that the Soveraigns power and the subjects liberty are consistent For the Soveraign may take away the life of his subject yet according to the evidence of Judgement agreeable to Law no otherwise Yet he presupposeth 1. That the King is supreme and the primary subject owner and possessor of the original power which sometimes may be yet with us its far otherwise 2. That the power of civil Soveraigns is absolute For with him T. H. Nothing the Soveraign representative can do to a subject on what pretence soever can properly be called Injustice or Injury because every subject is Author of every act the Soveraign doth so that he never wanteth right to any thing otherwise then as he himself is the subject of God and bound thereby to observe the Laws of Nature When Jephtah sacrificed his daughter and David murthered Uriah both innocent yet they did them no injustice c. G. L. Here he seems to contradict himself For he grants two things 1. That the Soveraign is subject to God 2. That in that respect he is bound to observe the Laws of nature yet he saith he can do no injustice to the subject and that he hath right to any thing yet so as he is limited by subjection to God and the Laws of Nature 1. If he be Gods subject as certainly he is it follows 1. That in that respect he is but trusted as a servant with the Administration of the power civil 2. That he is fellow-subject with his subjects 3. He may do injustice as one fellow subject may wrong another Secondly If he be bound to observe the Laws of Nature which are the Laws of God then 1. He is not absolute or solutus legibus His power is limited and bounded by these Laws 2. Then he hath no power to murther oppress and destroy his innocent subjects who are more Gods then his and only trusted by God in his hands for to be protected righted in all just causes and vindicated from all wrongs 3. No Prince or Soveraign can assume or any people give to any person or persons any the least power above or contrary unto the
Laws of Nature These Laws are the moral precepts of eternal justice and equity from which all civil Laws have their rise and are either conclusions drawn from them or certain rules tending to the better observation of them Which things well considered do make it very evident how little the power of civil Lords and Princes must needs be In some few indifferent things they may be absolute have arbitrary power and be in some respect above those constitutive Laws which they themselves enact His instance in Jephtah gives them power above and contrary to the Laws of God and Nature Yet who will grant him that Jephtah sacrificed his daughter The text will not evince it for it only saith that whatsoever cometh forth of my doors to meet me c. shall be the Lords or I will offer it up for a burnt-offering Judges 11.31 For the particle 〈◊〉 Vau turned by some copulatively for and is here as in many other places dis-junctive and signifies or Again if Jephtah did sacrifice her he sinned not only against the Law of Nature but also the written Law of Moses For God gave no command permission or toleration to any that we read of but only to Abraham to sacrifice with humane blood and that Commandment was but to try him for he would not suffer him to put him to death Besides God threatens ruine and destruction to such as did offer their children to Moloch and shed their blood And their sin was not only because they offered them to Idols and Devils but also because they shed innocent blood without any warrant or Commission from God the only supreme and absolute Lord of life Further how could the vow of man which was but a voluntary Obligation be above the Law of God and make that lawful which by a Superiour Law was unlawful I verily believe she was devoted only not sacrificed But suppose he did sacrifice her to God to whom he had vowed her yet he did not this as a Soveraign of her life but as a subject to God The example of David murthering Vriah can much less prove the absolute power of Soveraigns to take away the lives of their innocent subjects For David had no such power for 1. He was no absolute Prince but limited both by the written Laws of God and also the Natural 2. Neither he nor any other can have any such power because man cannot God doth not give any such power 3. David did not only iniquity but injustice to Vriah 1. As his fellow-subject in respect of God 2. As his own subject whom he was bound as innocent to protect not to destroy 4. His proof out of Psal 51.4 Against thee only is invalid For 1. Though it be so translated by some and so understood by Ambrose and others who follow him yet neither that translation nor the interpretation thereon can be evinced either out of the Original or the Septuagint or the vulgar or Junius or Vatablus 2. Genebrard Vatablus Junius Ainsworth and others understand it that God only was privy to and knew of this sin and the words following And done this evil in thy sight seem to confirm this sense 5. Yet suppose it should be turned against thee only yet others interpret onely to be principally as supreme Law-giver and Judge not only to me but all others who only hast the Original power of punishing and pardoning not only me but others and that not only temporally but spiritually and eternally Yet the exposition of Ambrose is taken up because Princes desire it to be so absolute and both Divines and other men are very ready to slatter such as are in present possession of power But to make the point more evident let me digress a little and search out the reason and cause of the power of life and death as in the hands of civil Soveraigns To this end observe That no man hath absolute power of his own life as he hath of his goods Man may have the use and possession but not the propriety and dominion of it Therefore it s granted on all hands that though a mans life be said to be his own yet he may not be felo de se and kill himself he is not Master of his life so far as to have any power or liberty to do any such thing It s true that God who is Lord of life and death gives liberty to man in some cases to hazard in some he commands to lay down his life He may hazard it in a just war and defence of his own Countrey and also of himself against an unjust invader He must lay down his life and God commands it for the testimony of Christ in which case he that loseth it shall find it From all this it follows that no people can by making a Soveraign give any absolute power of life and death unto him For nothing can give that which it hath not neither can they make themselves Authors of the unjust acts of their Soveraign much less of his murthers and taking away the lives of their innocent subjects Id enim quisque potest quod jure potest If thus it be then they must have power to take away life from God who alone hath power of life and this power he only gives in case the subject be guilty of such crimes as by his Laws are capital T. H. pag. 110. in the margent The liberty which writers praise is the liberty of Soveraigns not of private men G. L. By writers he means the Roman and Greek Historians and Philosophers who wrote so much of liberty amongst the rest especially Aristotle and Cicero By this it seems he never understood these Authors though he accuse others of ignorance The liberty which the English have challenged and obtained with so much expence of blood is not the power of Kings much less of absolute Soveraigns as he would make the world believe but that which is due unto us by the constitution of the State Magna Charta the Laws and the Petition of Right It s but the liberty of subjects not Soveraigns when he hath said all he can we are not willing to be slaves or subject our selves to Kings as absolute Lords Neither are we willing that either flattering Divines Court-Parasites or Unjust Ministers of State should wind up the pretended prerogative so high as to subject our lives and estates and also our Religion to the arbitrary absolute and unreasonable will of one man whom they did desire to advance so much for their own interest There is a difference between the subjects liberty whereby in many things he may command himself and supreme power which commands others under their Supremacy By liberty Aristotle Cicero meant such a priviledge as every subject might have in a free-State not that Soveraignty which belonged to the whole and universal body over several persons where it is to be noted that one and the same person who is a subject and at the best but a Magistrate
God had conveyed it in common 4. It was for peace and order as also for to preserve the distinction of Tribes divided yet so as the Soveraign dividing it was God who ordered the lot Eleazer and Joshua were but Superintendents of the lot and no Soveraigns neither had they any the least propriety more then others of the people The Text expresly saith That when they had made an end of dividing the Land they gave Joshua Timnath Serah in Mount Ephra in for his inheritance Joshua 19.49 50. where it is to be observed That the people gave it him T. H. The propriety of the subject excludes all other subjects from the use of them and not the Soveraign G. L. It doth not only exclude other subjects but the Soveraign too For 1. The Soveraign is bound to observe the Laws of nature which are the moral Laws of God and propriety as by the Law of nature 2. Imperium nihil aliud esse sapientes definiunt nisi curam salutis alienae saith one very well For civil supreme power was never given by any people to destroy their propriety but to defend it Otherwise no intelligent people in the world would advance one person or more to take away their goods and so put themselves in a worse condition then they were by the Laws of nature 3. It may be granted that the Soveraign hath dominium eminens so far as to command not only the estates but the lives of the subjects for the publike safety but what is this to propriety properly taken 4. If his assertion were true then that distinction of Civilians and the Authors of Politicks whereby they put a difference inter res possessiones publicas and privatas were in vain and false but so it is not 5. By the Soveraigns in England he means the Kings who were no Soveraigns at all nor could at any time raise any moneys or impose any subsidy upon the people without their consent in Parliament as not only English men but forrein Ministers of State who have either read our Histories or our Laws or our practice do well know and have made it known to others 6. There may be a device in Law to pass all the land in England upon the Crown for to derive all tenures from thence or to confirm propriety to the subjects for that every one might not only know but keep and recover his own the better Yet this gives the King no more propriety then a Peoffee in trust may have and that is none T. H. The publick is not to be dieted in the Margint G. L. His meaning is that the Soveraign cannot be confined to a certain revenue as sufficient to defray the publick charge Yet the wisest States in the world have certainly defined a constant standing revenue for the publick use For we read of the Dominion of France which though the Kings could neither alienate nor justly impare yet Henry the fourth hath wofully mangled and given occasion of those heavy oppressions of the people of that State and also we are not ignorant of the Crown lands and revenue of England And this is but agreeable to Scripture where we read that God commanded in the division of the holy Land that the Prince should have his portion that he may no more oppress Ezek. 45.7 8. For the Land must be divided into three parts The first must be for God to maintain the Priests and Levites The second for the Prince the third for the people and thus some say the Land in England was divided in the time of the pious Saxon Kings Yet it must be confessed that sometimes the publick charge may be so great as that a standing revenue cannot defray it and then the subjects for the general good and safety are bound and may be commanded to contribute But if this in a time of peace and safety be embezelled and mispent by a prodigal Prince and his favourites and followers this will no waies warrant him to fly upon the spoyl and plunder his subjects What William the Conqueror here in England did it matters not much For if he did derive his title from Edward the Confessor as some Histories say he did pretend then he was no Soveraign If he did act as Conquerer then all compact and right upon Covenant is void as his successors who insist upon that title of conquest give full liberty to the English to fight against them and depose them if they can and deal with them as enemies As for making Laws for the regulation of Traffick Trade Exchange the value stamp and coining of moneys the sending out of Colonies for new Plantations as also to make them as Provinces or exempt them from subjection because they will not allow protection I grant all these are prerogatives of the Soveraign CAP. IX Of the Second Part. The 25. of the Book Of Counsel THE heads of this Chapter are 1. The difference between command counsel exhortation dehortation 2. The difference between counsel and command made evident out of Scripture 3. The qualifications of good Counsellors 4. To advise with Counsellors apart is better then to advise with them openly and in assemblies 1. The difference between counsel command exhortation dehortation is easily known For Counsel given is a declaration of the means which tend unto some certain end and also of the order and manner how they should be used to attain that end Command is the will of a Superiour made known whereby the inferiour is bound to obey or otherwise to suffer Exhortation presseth the practise of some good to be done as dehortation is the contrary Counsel directs command binds exhortation endeavours to stir up or incite the will dehortation keeps it back Command is of a Superiour Counsel exhortation dehortation are of a superiour inferiour equal For any of these may counsel exhort dehort as any of them may be counselled exhorted dehorted It s true that these words are not alwaies taken strictly That command should be for the benefit of the party commanding and counsel for the good of the party counselled is meerly accidental in waies essential to them And though sometimes both the intention and the event of both may be such as he determines yet we know it is many times otherwise For command may sometimes nay often be beneficial to the party commanded and intended to be so as counsel may be intended not only for the good of the party counselled but also counselling and also prove so to be The nature of exhortation and dehortation is as falsly loosely and impertinently defined as the former 2. Upon the former supposed difference between counsel and command he determines Thou shalt have none other Gods Thou shalt not make any graven image c. to be commands Yet these are not for the benefit of God but man keeping them For in keeping them there is great reward But Go and sell all thou hast c. is only a counsel with him because the party
bound to obey God more then man and as his subjection unto man is but conditional and subordinate to his subjection to God so his obedience to man is limited and only to be performed in such things as his supreme and absolute Lord doth allow him And though man may suffer for his disobedience to humane Laws yet he had better suffer a temporal then an eternal penalty and offend man rather then God Neither doth this doctrine any waies prejudice the civil power nor encourage any man to disobedience and violation of civil Laws if they be just and good as they ought to be and the subject hath not only liberty but a command to examine the Laws of his Soveraign and judge within himself and for himself whether they be not contrary to the Laws of his God T. H. The third Doctrine That faith and sanctity are not to be attained by Study and Reason but by supernatural inspiration and infusion G. L. That divine faith wherby we believe on Jesus Christ and obtain eternal life in him and that sanctity of life whereby we please God and are accepted of him are no doubt both merited by Christ and inspired and wrought in us supernaturally by the power of the Holy-Ghost And there can be no doubt of this to such as believe the Scripture to be the Word of God written wherein we read That except a man be born again of water and the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.5 And no man can come unto me except the Father draw him cap. 6.44 And to believe that Jesus was the Son of the living God was not from flesh and blood but by revelation of his heavenly Father Christ himself teacheth us Mat. 16.17 This revelation was an inspiration or infusion except we will quarrel with words and it was not natural for then it might have been by and from flesh and blood but it was supernatural and from God revealing not only outwardly but inwardly too It is also further taught us in Scripture That no man can say that Jesus Christ is the Lord but by the Spirit 1 Cor. 12.3 Yet this faith and sanctity are so wrought in us as that ordinarily God makes use of the Scriptures taught explained applyed unto mans heart of hearing study and meditation which are acts of reason and such acts as man may naturally perform and also so neglect them as to give God just cause to deny the inspiration of his Spirit for to make the word taught heard meditated effectual upon his heart This Doctrine hath been believed and professed in the most peaceable Common-wealths of the world and did strengthen not weaken much less dissolve the same If he understand by the professors of this Doctrine the phanatick Enthusiasts of these times who pretend so much that Spirit which God never gave them and upon this pretence boast themselves to be spiritual men judging all and to be judged of none as they use to abuse the Scripture then its true that these are enemies to all Government and their Doctrine tends to the dissolution of all order Ecclesiastical and Civil and is to be rooted out of all Common-wealths T. H. A fourth opinion repugnant to the nature of a Common-wealth is this That he that hath the Soveraign power is subject to the Civil Laws G. L. There is no doubt but this is destructive of Government and contrary to the very nature and essence of a Common-wealth the essential parts whereof are imperans subditus the Soveraign and the subject take this difference away you confound all and turn the Common-wealth into a Community yet though Soveraigns are above their own Laws how otherwise could they dispense with them and repeal them wise men have given advice to Princes for to observe their own Laws and that for example unto others and good Princes have followed this advice Soveraigns are to govern by Laws not to be subject unto them or as Subjects obey them or be punished by them But what this man means by Soveraign in the hypothesis is hard to know For he presupposeth all Soveraigns absolute and all Kings of England such Soveraigns and so in general it may be granted that all Soveraigns are above the Laws civil yet the application of this rule to particular Princes of limited power may be false and no waies tolerable The question is not so much concerning the superiority of the Soveraign over the Laws but whether a Soveraign by Law for Administration who is not sole Legislator is not in divers respects inferiour to the Law or whether an an absolute Soveraign may not cease to be such and ex obligatione criminis ex superiore fieri inferior T. H. A fifth Doctrine which tendeth to the dissolution of a Common-wealth is That every man hath an absolute propriety in his goods such as excludeth the right of the Soveraign Every man hath indeed a propriety that excludes the right of the subject which is derived from the Soveraign without whose protection every man should have equal right to the same G. L. 1. If the subject have propriety as the Author grants it must needs be absolute and must needs exclude not only the right of the fellow-subject but of the Soveraign too For propriety in proper sense is an independent right of total alienation without any license of a Superiour or any other 2. This propriety is not derived from the Soveraign except he be despotical and such indeed the Author affirmeth all Soveraigns to be and in that respect the subjects can neither have propriety nor liberty therefore he contradicts himself when he saith in many places that the Soveraign is absolute and here that the subject hath propriety 3. It s to be granted that even in a free-State the subjects proprity cannot free from the publick charges for as a Member of the whole body he is bound to contribute to the maintenance of the State without the preservation whereof he cannot so well preserve his own private right 4. Propriety is by the Law of Nature and Nations at least agreeable unto both And when men agree to constitute a Common-wealth they retain their proper right which they had unto their goods before the Constitution which doth not destroy but preserve propriety if well ordered For men may advance a Soveraign without any alienation of their estates No man hath any propriety from God but so as to be bound to give unto the poor relieve the distressed and maintain the Soveraign in his just Government yet this doth not take away but prove propriety because every one gives even unto the Common-wealth that which is his own not another mans nor his Soveraigns who may justly in necessary cases for the preservation of the State impose a just rate upon the subject But if the Reader seriously consider the Authors discourse in other parts of his Book he may easily know whereat he aims For 1. He makes all Soveraigns absolute 2. The Kings
Chrstianity but per accidens so far as the persons who are Christians are subject to the civil power And this care of the Magistrate may do much good not only in preventing all tumults and seditions about Religion as prejudicial to the peace of the State and suppress them but also protect the servants of Christ and promote Christianity very much And in this respect only I conceive Soveraigns to be in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil supreme Governors From the definition formerly given he concludes T. H. That because in all Common-wealths that assembly which is without warrant from the civil Soveraign is unlawful that Church also which is assembled in any Common-wealth that hath forbidden them to assemble is an unlawful assembly G. L. There is a diffecence between warrant permission and prohibition Acts 15. we read of a Church-assembly at Jerusalem yet without any warrant from the Roman Emperour and the same did debate determine engross and publish certain binding Canons yet I hope he dare not dictate it to be unlawful though it had been forbidden Permission perhaps they had warrant they had none There are actions and such as God commands and civil Governors forbid yet the prohibition of man cannot make void the command of God For we must obey God rather then man But he tells us T. H. That temporal and spiritual Government are but words brought into the world to make men see double and mistake their lawful Soveraign G. L. As Government the thing signified by the word is a real act so spiritual and temporal Government are two not words but things really different For there is a temporal Government which is not spiritual and spiritual which is not temporal And though he will not give us leave yet we will take it to distinguish between Church and State temporal and spiritual man and Christian For he knows and that certainly there be men who yet are no Christians States which are not Churches and temporal things which are not spiritual And those things which not only may be but actually are separated in existence must needs be really distinct The rule is infallible as its evident And he that will confound these may build a Babel but no orderly society And it s a fault to make that which is double to seem single as well as make that which is single appear to be double CAP. IX Of the third Part. The 40. of the Book Of the rights of the Kingdom of God in Abraham Moses the high Priests and the Kings of Judah HItherto Mr. Hobbs hath abused his Reader in the explication of certain words and terms used in Scripture and hath bewrayed his gross ignorance and abominable errours And as though he had laid a sure foundation whereon to ground his following discourse or at least made way for it he proceeds to prove out of the said holy writings of the Old Testament the absolute power of Christian Soveraigns and States both in matters of Religion and Civil Government And this is so done that there is little fear least any intelligent Reader should he deceived or perswaded by him because there is so great a distance between his premises and the conclusion that no wit of man is able to see the connexion or the illative force of them For he argues That because Abraham in his family Moses in Israel the high Priests after Moses in the times of Judges and the Kings from Saul to the captivity had the supreme power Civil and Ecclesiastical therefore all Christian Governors supreme have the same For this is the substance of this Chapter Yet 1. Abraham was but the Master of a family Moses a Mediator between Israel and God retaining the supreme power both temporal and spiritual in his own hands not only in his time but in the raign of Judges and the Kings The high Priests did only ask counsel of God by the Vrim and Thummim and declared it to the Rulers The Kings had no power Legislative at all but only executive according to the Laws of God they had no right unto the Sacerdotal power For Vzziah usurping that of offering Incense was smitten with leprosie Therefore his Assumption is notoriously false 2. Abraham Moses and some of the Kings were extraordinary Prophets and immediately inspired Such are not Christian Soveraigns Neither can they from God in difficult and perplexed cases receive counsel of God by Vrim and Thummim 3. Suppose all these had been invested with supreme power Civil and Ecclesiastical as they were not yet it doth not follow that therefore Christian Soveraigns are so His consequence therefore is no consequence but false 4. Here it s to be observed That no example can be drawn from the Government of Israel either under Moses or Judges or Kings because that Government all along was extraordinary And as no State Christian is bound to follow it so no State can parallel it And its in vain for Divines or any other writers to argue from that particular form of politie to any other in the world Some general Rules and practises therein may be made use of for the reproof or reformation of Government in other States His innovations and particular false glosses upon several texts are not worthy confutation CAP. X. Of the third part the 41 of his Book Of the office of our blessed Saviour THey who desire to obtain eternal salvation by Christ Jesus must know both who he is and what he hath both suffered and done for them Jesus Christ as Saviour and Redeemer for person is the eternal Son of God for Natures he is God and Man yet so that these two Natures remain distinct one from the other yet personally united For Office he is Prophet Priest and King and such he is made as man by Commission from his Heavenly Father He was Initiated at his Baptism after which time he began to exercise his three-fold power And 1. Of a Prophet to manifest that he was their Saviour and to perswade men to believe in him 2. He performed some acts of a King in making Laws and Officers 3. He acted as a Priest at his death by offering up himself that great sacrifice first by inffering and dying on earth secondly by entring the Holy place of Heaven and presenting himself as slain and so obtained eternal Redemption After his consecration finished upon the Resurrection he was made a compleat Priest for ever after the Order of Melchizedeck Upon his Resurrection he was more selemnly setled in his Throne as universal and eternal King And then in a more glorious manner began to act 1. As Prophet to teach not onely Jews but Gentiles and that not onely by his word but by his Spirit powred down from Heaven upon all flesh 2. As a Priest interceding by vertue of his blood 3. Of a King in all the acts of government in his Universal Kingdom By his sacrifice offered on earth and presented in Heaven he satisfied Gods justice offended by the
that though no Reason can prove yet no Reason can contradict justly because there is nothing in them contrary to the principles of pure Reason They are proposed unto us with such credit and urged upon us as matters of greatest concernment in the world in so much that he cannot be rational that shall refuse either to give assent unto them or make trial of them with the sincere heart which once done he shall find by reall effects in the heart not only that God did reveal them as he believed before by an acquired faith but have an intuitive knowledge that they are Gods testimony because he who spake by the Scriptures and the Ministers hath spoken to him immediately by his spirit working in his heart and then Reason is satisfied and convinced that God hath spoken and thereupon ceaseth to deny and oppose and yields a firm assent And to conclude this point whereof 〈◊〉 had formerly spoken if we will but consider what kind of men have questioned or opposed the divinity of the Scripture we shall find it in that very thing to be much honoured 〈◊〉 and the reason why men do not believe them is not onely the imperfection but the corruption of Reason and mans will For most men love darkness rather then the light and the Doctrine of the Cross of Christ as it declares a deep design of Gods Eternal Wisdom so it s directly contrary to our false notions and base lusts And this is a plain reason why an acquired faith cannot be sufficient to save any man without the powerful sanctification of the Spirit both to prepare the heart and work a Divine Faith which can never take kindly in an heart that is not prepared These Scriptures he pretends to make the rule of his ensuing discourse yet it s but a bare pretence for he followes his own fancies and false notions not the sense and genuine mind of God in them He doth not re ferre sed ferre sensum as grave Hilary saith He doth not conform his notions to the Scripture but wrests it and makes it to speak that which God never intended CAP 2. Of the third part the 33. of the Book of the Number Antiquity Scope Authority and Interpreters of the holy Scripture SEeing he had made the Scripture to be his Rule he thought good to say something of the Scripture in general And 1. Of the number of the Books and seeing herein he follows the Church of England which followed the Ancient Canon I agree with with him in this as I have no reason to the contrary neither will I debate with him in the second point of Antiquity It s the most Ancient writing in the world and the doctrine more ancient then the writing And its remarkable that though it contain the History of 4000. years yet it was written within the space of 2000. 2. That all the Writers of it if Luke be not excepted were of the seed of Abraham by Jacob and of no other Nation all of them according to the flesh kinsmen to our Saviour Christ 3. That the Prophetical part reacheth the end as the Historical did the beginning of the world and this no other book in the world doth 4. That neither Jews nor Mahumetans have any thing good just and rational but that which is contained in these books and retained by them 5. That these Scriptures are found translated into the languages of the most if not all civil Nations of the world The scope of these writings is to direct sinful man unto eternal life And because this eternal life is virtually in God and issues from him as the Fountain and Author thereof therefore in the same is revealed the Eternal Infinite glorious perfection of God in himself and also his glorious works of Creation and Preservation his supreme and universal Dominion his Laws and Judgements and special government of man And because man as sinful and guilty is no ways capable of eternal life in strict justice therefore the Scripture directs him to God as Redeemer in Jesus Christ that by the observation of the Laws of Redemption he may be for ever blessed Christ our Lord Redeemer is the principal subject of that Book of books For Moses and all the Prophets speak of him as well as the writers of the New Testament though not so clearly and the doctrine of his Laws takes up the greatest part of that Revelation though many other things are therein declared yet in reference unto the principal subject and End In a word the end of the Scripture is to teach us to believe and obey God the Father Son and Holy Ghost Creating Redeeming and Sanctifying us if it speak of civil Kingdoms Laws and judgements it s upon the by with reference to the eternal spiritual Kingdom of God Redeemer and Sanctifier This end and scope is both obscurely and confusedly declared by the Author as will more appear hereafter The Authority of the Scripture is Divine and so perfect that it cannot be improved or impaired by all the Laws of all the civil Soveraigns of the world Neither can the Angels in Heaven add any degree of Authority unto it but if any of them should as they cannot contradict it they are by the divine Apostle declared to be accursed That any person or persons do not apprehend it to be Divine that 's accidental and cannot prejudice it Therefore how vain and false is that of Mr. Hobs when he gives the supreme power of making it to be Law and interpreting the same so made unto the Civil Soveraignss There is a two-fold Law the one is Divine and binds the conscience immediately the other is humane and Civil and cannot bind the conscience but per accidens The Doctrine of the Scripture not onely in Morals but in Positives is Divine and the precepts thereof as being the precepts of God do bind the conscience immediately The Laws of Civil Soveraigns may bind their subjects upon peril of civil and temporal punishment to receive them as authentick But Laws they are and binding to obedience and belief though there were no civil government in the world The State and Church may declare them to be Divine but no wayes make them to be such And as our Saviour said of his Doctrine so its true of all the Scripture that if any man will do the will of God declared therein he shall know it to be of God It s not so much the imperfection of our understanding or the difficulty of the thing to be understood as our disobedience which is the cause why we do not see the divinity of these blessed Books These things being so how absurdly and falsly hath he stated the Question concerning the Authority of the Scripture so as to make it depend either upon the civil Soveraign in his Territory or upon the Pope For thus he writes The Question of the Authority of the Scripture is reduced to this Whether Christian Kings and the Soveraign Assemblies in Christian
Common-wealths be absolute in their own territories immediately under God or subject to one Vicar of Christ c. Whereas neither civil Soveraigns nor Popes can make the Scripture to be Law but all Christians are bound to believe the Scriptures to be the Law of God upon better grounds then civil laws or Ecclesiastical Canon or else they cannot be saved by them CAP. III. Of the third Part And 34. of the Book Of the signification of Spirit Angel Inspiration in the Book of holy Scriptures A Great part of his discourse in this division of his Book is spent in the explication of certain words and terms much used in the Scriptures and as he informs us the reason of this labour is to take away the ambiguity of the words that his inferences from them may be more clear and distinct Yet he hath done it in that manner that he hath perverted the genuine sense of Gods Word and so much as in him was made it more obscure and which is worse hath falsifyed the same These terms have been examined and explained far better by more learned men which I desire the ignorant to consult and advise with least they be seduced from the truth For Mr. Hobbs in this particular work as in others is not to be trusted But let us hear him T. H. Substance and body signifie the same thing and therefore substance incorporeal when they are joyned together destroy one another as if a man should say an incorporeal body G. L. The signification of words whereby we signifie our minds to others is of great consequence and without the distinct knowledge of the several significations of one and the same words we can neither understand the Scriptures nor any other rational Author This signification of words is either proper and Grammatical or Tropical and Rhetorical Of some words we have lost the proper sense and therefore must understand them according as they are most usually taken in the best Authors These words Body and Substance wherewith he begins his Scripture Lexicon are sometimes taken in the same sense to signifie the same thing yet neither properly nor most usually We find some of the antient Divines affirming Angels to be bodies and bodily creatures yet by body they meant substance and yet did acknowledge them to be Spirits And for my part I cannot be perswaded that either Angels or souls rational are pure forms as some nay many Peripateticks do affirm Yet they may be spirits and this nature better expressed by the word Spirits then the word Bodies And the vanity and presumption of this man is very much who would perswade us that incorporeal substance is a contradiction Some have observed that the word Guf in Arabick and Rabbinical Authors signifies 1. A body 2. A person 3. The substance or principal of a thing yet no rational man will hence conclude that body and substance are the same The next word he undertakes to explain is Spirit of which he saith T. H. That the proper signification of Spirit in common speech is either a subtile fluid invisible body or a Ghost or other idol or phantasm of the imagination But for Metaphorical significations there be many c. G. L. One word hath but one proper signification according to the first imposition therefore it s not true that there be three proper significations of this word and as for the improper there may be and are many and the same not only Metaphorical but Metonymical Ironical and Synechdochical Yet he hath observed seven distinct senses of the word Spirit in the Scripture But he fearfully abuseth some of those places alledged by him doth not reach the multitude of the significations of the same in that holy Book much less doth he reduce them into any Grammatical Rhetorical or Natural method If any man will but search the Scriptures he shall find the word Spirit therein to signifie above twenty several things The original Concordances will make this apparent to an intelligent Reader if he look but in the word Ruach which the Septuagint express and turn by 14. several Greek words the first whereof is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spirit which is used by them most frequently by far yet so as that by that one word they signifie many things And this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spiritus we find in the New Testament about 360. times and in many places is very differently taken The Latine use the word Spiritus in 15. several senses at least By which it doth appear that this part of the Chapter cannot be read by Schollars but with disdain and scorn and especially when he writes T. H. Other significations of Spirt I find nowhere any and where none of these can satisfie the sense of the word in Scripture the place falleth not under humane understanding c as where God is said to be a Spirit G. L. He had said that sometime the word is taken for the disposition or inclination of the mind and then infers these words when he doth not tell us whether these be proper significations usual in common speech as the three former were or they be Metaphorical If he mean that besides the three proper and these two he finds none his observation and so his learning in this kind is very poor But whereas he will not have the place of Scripture where it s used in another sense to fall under our understanding he is absurd For the place where it s said by our Saviour that God is a Spirit may be and is understood though we have no demonstrative or intuitive knowledge of the Deity in it self There is a great difference between a word and the thing signified by the word The word may be perfectly understood though the thing be not and we may know something of the thing by some measure of knowledge though we do not perfectly know it with the most perfect knowledge Christ by these words did teach us something and if he did how can it be said that the place falleth not under our understanding For there is nothing teachable which is not intelligible And by that place we may easily understand that God is a far more perfect and excellent substance or being then any inanimate or irrational body can possibly be The next term to be explained is that of Angel whereof he saith T. H. There is no place in the Old Testament or New from whence we can conclude that Angels are any thing permanent and incorporeal or created or any thing but an extraordinary manifestation of Gods power especially by dream or vision and the Angel Gabriel was nothing but a supernatural phantasm Yet from my feeble understanding was by the plain texts of the New Testament extorted an acknowledgement and belief that there be Angels substantial and permanent G. L. Much to this purpose in this part of the Chapter we may read And in this particular he most wofully perverts several texts of Scripture eludes the plain sense