when it shall be observed that they who are conquered are gained to a liking of the customes and manners of their Conquerors and that mutually their good is beneficial one to the other then it is wisdom in a Conqueror to put them in a parity of condition but at the first subduing any Nation Regni novitas will enforce some severity though perhaps afterwards Tros Tyriusque mihi nullo discrimine agetur they are grown one and ought to be so governed I but saith he that were ignorance of government I say no but great wisdom to put a difference betwixt a forced obedience and that out of duty betwixt them who are of a known and others of a doubtful fidelity But he gives a reason for what he writes for saith he he is absolutely over both alike Let that be granted yet amongst his true and natural subjects he may justly and prudently dispence his favours and displeasures variously according to their differing merits and demerits or other prudential rules amongst which this is one not too far to trust a newly reconciled Enemy and much less an Enemy newly conquered SECT II. Servitude not equally absolute in a civil or setled Government as in despotical The right of servitude antiquated among Christians SEcondly that supposal may be denied that he is equally absolute over both he governs one despotically as servants or captives which are taken in the War and the other civilly and this is Aristotles distinction and received with applause by all latter Writers till we come to Mr. Hobbs the one are governed like slaves the other like subjects or else saith he there is no Soveraignty at all Away with such a hateful speech odious to all Nations No Soveraignty but arbitrary No subjection but slavish or servile Certainly no society of men can abide such language Look amongst Christian Kingdoms and we shall find servitude I think banished every where by the universal consent of all Nations who have received the Doctrine of Christianity Those we call servants indeed are free at least not such servants as he and I have discoursed of yet they are subjects to their Masters and they have dominion over them but not such as a Conqueror hath over a vanquished man nay Kings themselves nor can any other Supreme take away by right an innocent mans life and yet they are Soveraigns and have not absolute power over them SECT III. Mr. Hobbs his inconsequences further censured The absurdity and iniquity of his conclusion in this Paragraph which is yet shewed to be other where asserted by him I But saith he And every man may lawfully protect himself if he can with his own Sword which is the condition of war There was never man writ such disjoynted things How can this follow if a King cannot kill an honest man lawfully then he may protect himself lawfully with his own Sword as if it should be because a Supreme may do ill unlawfully therefore I may do ill lawfully But I am sure he hath said more then once That no mon can so divest himself of his own power and right to defend his own life and happy being in it as that he may not deliver himself if he can by killing or doing any thing to any man Against which Propositions I have already spoke heretofore and shewed how men may and have done it so that that wicked conclusion which for the absurdity of it he would have to discountenance the difference betwixt the Government of a conquered and an instituted Nation though not allowed by me is yet approved by him elsewhere which was a main fault in him SECT IV. This Paragraph reserved to its proper place Scripture honoured even by those who approve it not Master Hobbs his inconcludent deductions from the 20th of Exodus censured HE begins the next Paragraph By this it appears that a great family if it be not part of some Commonwealth is of its self as to the rights of Soveraignty a little Monarchy I will question nothing in this Paragraph at this time but let the Reader bear in mind that there is such a thing for which I shall call Mr. Hobbs to an account hereafter In the following Paragraph he labours to bring Scripture for what he hath taught It is an honour to Scripture that it is like Vertue commended even of those that will not follow it But it may be Mr. Hobbs objects it against us who do confide in it and not produceth it to satisfie himself that his Doctrine is consonant to Scripture I will examine this therefore for surely if the Scripture be for him I am also although to me it appears never so erroneous according to mine own reason He begins Let us now consider what the Scripture teacheth in the same point To Moses the Children of Israel say thus Exod. 20.19 Speak thou to us and we will hear thee but let not God speak to us least we die This is absolute obedience to Moses thus he A strange deduction out of this Text where is no one word of obedience much less of absolute obedience as to a Supreme But I will help what I can Deut. 5.27 there this self-same business being repeated it is added We will hear it and do it There obedience is mentioned implicitly To understand this therefore consider with me that the Children of Israel having the Law delivered to them by God in such a terrible manner in Mount Sinai with Thunder Lightning Trumpets and the like they were terrified and afraid to have such an immediate converse with God they thought it mortal it being never before seen in the world and therefore they entreated Moses to go betwixt God and them and receive Gods Will from him and deliver it them and they would obey Here is nothing of obedience to Moses but to God only they trusted that Moses would relate Gods Laws to them truly which indeed they had great reason to do If the rest be like this I shall have little trouble with it SECT V. The first of Sam. the 8.11 12. explained The difference between the right of the King and the right of a King Kings of several Kingdoms may have several rights in the same Country Divers Kings may have different rights as the same Kings may also at several times The genuine signification of these words cited by Mr. Hobbs FOr the right of Kings saith God himself by the mouth of Samuel 1 Sam. 8.11 12. This shall be the right of the King you will have to raign over you I stop here because I have some things to examine in this particle before I go further First then consider that it is not said this shall be the right of a King that would have made it Jus Regale and being indeffinite would have constituted it to belong to every King but it shall be the right of your King Many things may be the rights of one Countries King which are not of another yea many things may belong to
man the foundation of all his duty from whence it is derived that he owes God his being soul and Body that he should be humble who was taken out of the dust and to dust he must return that he that made him can destroy him and the like which God being pretended to do no where else it is most reasonable to think it is done here CHAP. XXII SECT II. The doctrine of the new Testament and particularly the incarnation of our blessed Saviour and the manner of it not possible to be known without a revelation The truth of the incarnation evicted from the miraculous Life and Actions of our blessed Saviour and the prophecies of the Old Testament and especially of Isaias The Jewes witnesses of the truth of the Books of the Old Testament SO then this being a truth fit for a man to know it being impossible for man to know it without a revelation a man may justly be assured that it was revealed by God and so I will pass to the New Testament where we will consider the conception of the blessed Virgin as related there and so not possible to be recorded but from a divine revelation Men might be assured from the Prophets who writ before of it that there should be such a thing and that it should be about that time but that it should happen now and that this should be the Virgin which should be the mother of our Saviour that none could tell but by revelation no not she her self It is true when she found her self with child she might wonder how that should come about since she knew not man as she answered the Angel who foretold it to her Luke the 1. and the 24. but that it should be so contrived and perfected as it was by the overshadowing of the Highest this she could not have known but by a revelation But I doubt Mr. Hobbs will answer this was not so his wicked wit seems to imagine such a thing I will prove it therefore by the glorious fruit of her womb which shewed it self to arise from such a stock and living and dying as he did he could not be less than descended from such a supernatural generation Well then he was so conceived as is taught and this could not be taught but by divine revelation therefore he who taught it had divine revelation I must not spend time in particulars look upon all the Prophecies in the whole Book of God so many as their time is expired we find them all fufilled the Prophecies made to Abraham of the children of Israels long captivity in Aegypt and their extraction thence and plantation in the land of Canaan of all the great transactions of the highest affairs of the world The erection and destruction of all the great Monarchies which were punctually foretold and accomplished and foretold long before could these be foretold by any other way than by divine revelation Certainly it could not be nor can the wit of man think how it should be done Jaddus the high Priest shewed Alexander his own story foretold by Daniel Let us consider how the Prophets long before prophesied of Christ how the Prophet Isaiah writ like an antedated Evangelist differing only in these words shall and did only in the time Let us consider how not only those great and remarkable passages of his birth his miracles his death his resurrection but even such little things as the piercing of his side the parting of his garment casting lots for his vesture his burial were foretold hundreds of yeares before Let Mr. Hobbs or any other heathen tell me how these could be foretold without divine revelation But perhaps he will say as before these were not true books nor prophecies but fained since Christianity No even the Jewes themselves yet remaining in the world do consent unto them and are preserved by God a glorious witness of these truths who are the greatest enemies of Christianity CHAP. XXII SECT III. The former assertion further proved from the piety of the doctrines taught in the scriptures and excellency of the matter contained in them The power of the word of God and efficacy of Scripture above the reach of Philosophie BUt then consider the doctrines taught here they are so full of religious piety to God so full of such excellent moral conversation betwixt men that the wit of man could not invent them there must needs be divine revelation in them there was never any thing delivered by men meer men without divine revelation that had not imperfections in it he who reads the Philosophers may find it I do not love to rake their Dunghills and shew their filth but the duties taught in this book are so divine and so like God from whence they came that they are able to make a man absolutely good if practised Wherefore as a tree may be known by its fruits as the heart of man by his language so these Books may be known to be Gods by the heavenliness of the matters delivered in them which have such a power of sanctity in them as is able to make such as receive them of a more Godly disposition than other men yea than themselves at other times before they received these doctrines I could treat of a strange Metamorphosis in Saul to Paul who was a persecutor a destroyer and when converted with this doctrine accounted it joy to suffer and be persecuted for this cause As also of King David who to hide the shame of his adultery committed Murther and slept securely in his sin yet when awakened from that stupidity he was in and taught his state by the Prophet Nathan he cares for no shame of this world so God be pleased cares for nothing but the shame of his sin and made his penitence for it to be chaunted out in all ages for all Churches in the 51. Psalm So that there is a strange power and force in the word of God to turn men to godliness which no other hath And the great and mighty effects wrought by this scripture do fully evince it to be divine having divine power annexed to them Thus having shewed that the doctrines contained in scripture are fit for a man to believe they are divine and by divine revelation yea that they could not proceed from a pen which was not guided and assisted by the holy spirit we therefore may have assurance that they were such I shall come next to shew how we may be further assured from the manner of their delivery CHAP. XXII SECT IV. The second Argument from the difference of the Style of the Scriptures from the books of Philosophers The propositions and conclusions in Scripture not so much deduced from reason as asserted from the Majesty of God not disputing or endeavouring to perswade but commanding to do The rewards and punishments proposed in scripture of eternal truth impossible to be propounded or given but by God himself LEt a man look upon all the doctrines of the
one King of a Country which did not belong to another King of the same Country yea to the same King at another time I urge this only against him because he urges this place to prove the right of Kings which it doth not do if truly quoted but only the right of a King of Israel and it may be not that neither but only the right of the next King for it is said of the King that shall reign over you in the singular number not in the plural Nay it is most certain that God by whom Kings reign and from whom they have their Authority may give what Authority he pleaseth to one and not to another the Plenipotency of which Commission I shall more fully shew hereafter Well then let it however be granted that this Text is truly produced yet it proves not his conclusion that this is the right of all Kings And now I must blame Mr. Hobbs who professeth obedience to the Supreme Magistrate and the Laws and Customs of this Country and yet here against the Declaration of the Supreme Magistrate the Laws and Customs of this same Country in the urging of this Text which as he interprets it varies from that translation which is approved by the Supreme Magistrate the Laws and Customs of this Nation and is only read in the vulgar Latin our Translation reads it This will be the manner of the King that shall reign over you There is a great difference betwixt this shall be the right and this will be the manner SECT VI. The former Text further illustrated The force of the Hebrew word compared with other places of Scripture Cajetans interpretation censured The distinction of ordinary and extraordinary right improperly used for the clearing of this Text. The word right taken for practise The 17 of Deuteron 14.16 17 18. verse explained The King to have two Copies of the Law and obliged to keep it Ezek. the 46.18 explained The former conclusion asserted from the whole Discourse THere is a great dispute amongst Criticks in the Hebrew Tongue what is the true sense of the word Mishpot which is rendred by Mr. Hobbs Right and by our Translators manner or custom but certainly it cannot but be yielded that it is used in both senses But our Translators do very often render it as here so Psalm 19.132 as thou usest to do unto those that love thy name But it is not material to alledge more Quotations this Text will enforce this interpretation for in the 18 verse it is said Ye shall cry out in the day because of your King which ye shall have chosen you and the Lord will not hear you in that day Consider here that men do not clamour and cry out upon Justice when it is executed but upon injustice I know there are other Expositions given besides his or mine as that of Cajetan that it is not said the right of the Kingdom which is a Law but of the King as if Kings would esteem this right But this is scandalous to Kings to many of whom I doubt not but Justice and Mercy are as dear as to any men in the world There is another Exposition with a distinction that there is an ordinary and extraordinary right This Text sets down the extraordinary right to which I say I allow the distinction many things may be right and lawful for Kings to do upon extraordinary occasions which would not be just in his ordinary Government But how can a man conceive that these things should relate to extraordinary occasions to make Perfumes or to run before his Chariot to gather in his Harvest as if there should be exigencies of these poor trifles or the honour of a Kings Revenue could not yield such a return as might make every man fit for such an imployment ambitious of his entertainment I think this may suffice for the exposition of this Text to shew that it was spoke of the practise not the right of their Kings but if not look the seventeenth of Deut. at the fourteenth verse where you may see the passage foretold When thou art come into the Land c. and shalt say I will set a King over me like as all the Nations that are about me The very language which these men used ver 15. Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall chuse and so goes on to describe the Laws for their Kings in the following part of that verse and the 16 17 and 18. verses But there is none of these things reckoned there and in the 18 and 19 verses he is commanded to get him a Copy or a double Copy as some would have it of this Book which is Deuteronomy one Copy to lye by him and another to carry about with him as our marginal hath it and is most consonant methinks to the Text which saith He shall read therein all the daies of his life that he may learn to fear the Lord his God to keep all the words of this Law and these statutes to do them So that a King ought to take care to keep the Law of the Land which to them was Deuteronomy And from thence the madness of their Exposition will appear who think that the Law which was spoken of was this Law afterwards spoken of by Samuel But alas that needs no great study either to know or practise this therefore must needs be the sense of it But if this will not serve the turn you may read in the 46 of Ezek. ver 18. some part of the Kings Law delivered clear opposite to one clause delivered here that is That the Prince shall not take of the peoples inheritance by oppression to thrust them out of their possession but he shall give his sons inheritance of his own possession that my people be not scattered every man out of his possession Now this is clean contrary to that which is said He will take your fields and your vineyards and your Olive-yards even the best of them and give them to his servants This certainly is unjust for a Prince to do by Ezekiel and therefore these places must be reconciled which may easily be done by our Translation understanding the word Mishpot for a custom or usage for so Sam. describes what will be done but the Prophet Ezekiel from God commands what is right and just to be done And thus I think Mr. Hobbs hath got little advantage for his conclusion out of the Scripture SECT VII The History of Saul quoted by Mr. Hobbs improved against his Novel Institution and that other conclusion of his That a man may kill any man in right of himself Prayers and tears the weapons of Christians BUt I will try how I can advance this History against divers desperate and horrid Opinions of his First of his electing a King by the people which he makes to be the only way by which he is established in his Throne a thing as I have said before never done
Oxe or Ass from him or defrauded or oppressed any man and at the fourth verse they acquit him So that for men thus to reject the Government of God by such a pious and excellent person as was Samuel for some discontents and rebellious humors which were in their fancies and exchange him for they knew not whom was such an unpardonable fault that God threatned by Samuel that he would not hear their cryes when they clamoured out for these evils which not their folly only but impiety had brought upon them So that methinks there can be no inference deduced here to shew the justness or right of this exorbitant power which he pretends to in this word absolute He hath the power of Judicature but that power is to determine what is right and to whom the Vineyard belongs but not to take it to himself He hath the power of the Militia to fight with the Enemy nay he may by it force and rightly ought to use that power to force men to render to every man their own but he cannot rightly take away any mans estate from him otherwise then the Law directs and he who saith he can do it to others if he felt such unjustness done to himself would quickly learn that Lesson that it is excellent Justice that Artifex necis arte periret sua then he would abhor his own Doctrine This was well fitted for the sequestrations and seisures which were made of mens estates when he wrote this Book for them SECT IX Solomon's Prayer 1 Kings 3.9 explained Master Hobbs his Logick desired in his deductions from this Text. Judges must govern or determine according to Law BUt Mr Hobbs hath Scripture out of Solomon's Prayer 1 Kings 3.9 Give to thy Servant understanding to judge thy people and to discern betwixt good and evil saith he therefore it belongeth to the Soveraign to be Judge and to prescribe the rules of discerning good and evil which Rules are Laws and therefore in him is the Legislative Power I could question his place of Scripture if I were given to wrangle for in terminis he cannot shew it there but there is the sense I let it therefore alone but consider his Logick He saith Because he is to be Judge and to prescribe the Rules of discerning betwixt good and evil which Rules are Laws For my part I think this consequence is so far from a necessary deduction out of the premises as I conceive the contrary is absolutely true because he is Judge he must take those rules which are prescribed him but not make his rule Consider with me I beseech you Reader that every Judge must be a Judge either in a constituted Commonwealth betwixt men who live in that Polity or else where there is no Commonwealth and where men live only according to the dictates of Nature In the first every Judge hath the National Laws of that Country to be his guide and he must judge according to them and not make Laws of his own head to judge the cause is committed to him For the second he hath the Law of Nature to guide him to that which shall appear most equal according to that rule He who draws a line by a rule doth not make the rule the Judge is such his Decrees are regulated by the Laws according to which he decrees but doth not make those Laws So that although I think it true that a Soveraign is the Supreme Judge and that he hath likewise the Legislative power yet not because he is Judge for these two are distinct faculties appertaining to the same person as will appear more fully hereafter SECT X. The impertinencies of the remaining part of this Paragraph censured Matth. 21.2 3. not truly cited by Mr. Hobbs His inferences upon this Text retorted upon him The true intention of these words mistaken by Mr. Hobbs and his argument thence invalid THe rest in that Paragraph is such trash as never was read not fit to foul paper with 't is so impertinent In the latter end of it he comes close to his business thus And that the Kings word is sufficient to take any thing from any Subject when there is need and that the King is Judge of that need for he himself as King of the Jews commanded his Disciples to take the Ass and the Asses Colt to carry him into Jerusalem Read the Text Mat. 21.2 3. The words as he writes them are Go into the Village over against you and you shall find a She-Ass tyed and her Colt with her untye them and bring them to me And if any man ask you what you mean by it say the Lord hath need of them and straightway they will let them go Thus he writes that Text most false in many places But I will consider the matter in hand and stick to his Inferences They will not ask whether his necessity be a sufficient title nor whether he be Judge of that necessity but acquiesce in the will of the Lord. Thus he And I could wish he would acquiesce in the will of the Lord for then he would never have vented so many abominable falshoods as he hath But to my business I first retort this ad hominem be it true or false This argument is not proper from his mouth who page 262. denies that our Saviour had any Kingdom in this world whilst he was in it therefore he did not now send for this Ass by a Kingly right I mean to speak to that in its proper place but now he who denies his Kingdom cannot here justly urge this for a president to Kings I but he will say he spoke that of our Saviours Manhood I reply if he spoke this of him as God it is no president for Kings for undoubtedly God hath reserved cases to himself by which he can and doth dispose of all things in this world how he pleaseth as will be shewed hereafter and not only of things in Kingdoms but of Kingdoms themselves and therefore this instance is no president But then let us consider the fact Our Saviour sent for an Ass and her Colt they were goods belonging to another man and the up-shot of all was when the right owner questioned why they loosed them and they told him it was for the use of the Lord which was the Apostles language concerning Christ he being a person famous for many Miracles and much Piety as that Story will shew the right owner let them go and let them use them and it is most reasonably thought that our Saviour having made use of them in that great Solemnity he was then going about restored them afterwards when it was finished But mark the owner gave way to his use of them he did not take Naboths Vineyard from him without his consent This is a weak way of arguing from an act by the owners consent to prove it lawful against his will if the right owner gives way to another to use his goods there is no fault in it and
not shall be punished as the other blessed and then comes in his Omnipotency if man could resist or impede that that were contradicting his power but these sins only oppose his concourse which inclines but not necessitates a mans nature so that there is Gods voluntas facere fieri his will which we should do which it is impossible for God to oppose and there is his voluntas facere to do himself which it is not possible for man to oppose The first appears in this life the second in the other nor is it any contradiction to the Divine Power which hath so established it and without which it were impossible for his Power to joyn with his Justice in punishing Offenders at the last day for how can a man justly be punished for what was not in his power to do otherwise yea much less can he punish him in Justice who makes him commit that fault which he punisheth which God must do if he with his co-operation in the act determines mans power to that evil which he punisheth and for which condemneth him to Hell Certainly this is the most abominable impudent Doctrine for sinning that ever was read in any Author that ever writ of this Subject and the most derogative from that infinite Essential Goodness that should cause or make men do evil for no more then fire can cool or act against its nature no more can God who is essentially good goodness it self act that which is evil It is in vain for a man to say it is not evil God doing it for it is an evil which God hates and punisheth and therefore must be evil in his esteem I do not now speak of that Language used by some of Gods afflictions working with some men which comes not in this discourse to be disputed of but that God doth work these sins which he punisheth this is abhorrent to the thought of a Religious man And now I must censure Mr. Hobbs not only for ill and false Doctrine but for having such a delight in it as in this place unnecessarily to obtrude it where there was no reason for nor use of it for let any man consider what this hath to do with liberty of the Subject which is the Head he undertook to treat of the liberty of the Subject is neither more or less for his linking of his actions to God Almighty nay if his discourse be true Subjects have as great liberty as Kings for all their actions are alike necessitated by this Chain Here Reader I thought to have ended with his Politicks having as I think digged up his Foundation and then the Building must fall but meeting so many wicked interpretations of Scripture and so many abominable conclusions in Divinity intermixed with his Political discourses I am forced to proceed with some of them lest the Reader should be unhappily seduced but not prosecute them word by word as I have done but skipping from one hill to another leaving the lesser work and Mole-hills to be censured by any man who hath more leisure and spare time and to that purpose remove with me to the next page 109. about the middle where he begins thus CHAP. XX. SECT I. Mr. Hobbs his impious Proposition in this Paragraph discovered and censured Injustice and iniquity the same The Subject not Author of the actions of his Soveraign The Soveraign granting the former Proposition cannot kill an Innocent justly No man hath power to take away his own life justly Neither Subjects nor Kings have right to any thing but from God who gives not power to either to shed Innocent Blood The Law of Nature deserted by Mr. Hobbs to the murther of an Innocent His disapprobation of Scripture censured NEvertheless we are not to understand that by such liberty the Soveraign Power of Life and Death is either abolished or limited I conceive by Soveraign Power he means the power of the Soveraign and that Authority not limited by any Law which being violated he should do unjustly for this sense the sequel of this discourse will apparently justifie and then I say it is a wicked Proposition as will appear by the examination of his reasons which he enters upon in the following words For it hath been already shewn that nothing the Soveraign Representative can do to a Subject on what pretence soever can properly be called injustice or injury Yes he hath shewn it with a nice and learned distinction betwixt Injustice and Iniquity concerning which I may justly say they are hardly two words but not two things as I have shew'd But what doth he mean by a Soveraign Representative here I think he hath delivered that all Soveraigns are Representatives of the people What he can mean by this addition of Representative I know not but he explains himself in the words following Because saith he 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 a Subject of God and bound thereby to observe the Laws of Nature The first part I have spoken to heretofore and shewed that every Subject is not Author of the Soveraigns acts where he saith he hath shown it But now I shall go further and prove that if they were Authors of his acts yet by their Authority he cannot kill an Innocent justly which I do thus The people cannot authorize him to act any thing which they themselves have not just power to do but the people conjunctim or divisim have no just power to take away an innocent mans life therefore they cannot authorize him The major is grounded upon that invincible Axiom No man gives what he hath not therefore if they have not that power they cannot give it The minor will be proved thus Before a Commonwealth be instituted no man hath just power to take away anothers life as is most evident I but they may answer every man hath power over his own which every man may yield to the Soveraign I rejoyn No man hath just power to take away his own life he may give his goods but not his life God is the God of life and hath given no private man Authority to cut off his own life and therefore undoubtedly he cannot give power to another which he hath not himself And if there were no other argument against his popular Constitution of a Supreme this were enough for confutation of it for there must be a power of life and death in a Common-wealth upon the emergency of great iniquities it cannot subsist else And so I pass to the second part of that conclusion which is Otherwise then as he himself is the Subject of God and bound thereby to observe the Laws of Nature There is much folly if not wickedness in these few words First I say neither Kings nor any man hath right to any thing but as they are Gods Subjects The earth is the Lords and all that is in it and to whom he
because thou only art without sin he is a just punisher who hâ—th nothing in himself to be punished he is a just reprehender who hath nothing in himself to be reprehended Here you may see how holy and learned men living near together about one time with St. Ambrose men famous in their generations and to whom the Church of Christ owes exceeding much for the propagation of the Gospel gave their sense of this text of scripture as well as he and St. Augustin was one who honoured St. Ambrose living and dead yet you see varies from him in his judgment in this point Give me leave to shew my sense of these words and then conclude And first I will allow Mr. Hobbs his reading to thee which is not according to our translation which is against thee and certainly by men learned in the Hebrew both amongst the ancient and modern writers with a great content it is acknowledged to be true yet it profits his cause nothing to read it as he doth insomuch that Bellarmine in his Comment upon this Psalm saith To thee only have I sinned he doth not say against thee only he had offended against Vriah against Bathsheba he had scandalized the people but to thee only as Judge and none else can judge and condemn me as he illustrates it So that although Mr. Hobbs varies from his own rule of scripture yet he gets nothing to his cause by it But to proceed in expounding I ask leave and beg pardon of such eminent men from whom I may seem to differ for my part I do not think that David here acts the part of a King or so much as thinks of his great Regality if he did it was to aggravate not to extenuate his sin but of a penitent and in his penitence is a pattern to other men as well as Kings how they should demean themselves even Kings in those duties are reconciling themselves to their King in respect of whom they are poor and mean people and if they should consider themselves Kings they should by this increase their humility considering that he who owes so much to God should be so ungrateful and unmindful of him The Prophet therefore now considering his offence to God cryes out To thee only have I sinned before Nathan the Prophet had visited him and told him of his faults he thought he had sinned only to man and therefore to hide his first sin with Bathsheba he added another of murther by which he thought his shame of the other might be hid from men which was possible but now clean contrary when he is acquainted with the wrath of God for his sin now he cares not for his sin to men so he may be right with God and to that end penned this Psalm to be sung in Churches and to God utters those lamentable complaints that he is besmeared with blood that his bones are broken that he hath need of Gods great and many mercies that his heart is broke yea contrite that he is all unclean and must be washed and washed again that he begs God to purge and make him clean although with hysop and sharp medicines Here is the perfect character of a true penitent many a man is sorry for his sin because it breeds him shame and wordly evil but this doth him no good but King David is grieved for sin because sin because against Gods law which he hath transgressed he cares not what this world thinks of him so God be appeased and reconciled to him and therefore that this may be done he only begs his pardon and thinks only of him To thee only c. do thou acquit me I care for nothing else And surely this is the most certain test of a true repentance when a man grieves that he hath offended God and values nothing but that offence not that Bathsheba was a woman which he injured but that he took the members of God and made them the members of an harlot not that Vriah was a man and that a gallant person but that he was the Image of God which he destroyed those and the like meditations are the issues of true and hearty repentance but yet consider as I have said before these things were sins to God and God is therefore offended with them because they are breaches of his laws concerning man with man in particular you may find this most emphatically expressed by Nathan in the pronouncing Gods sentence against David where the punishment is proportioned to the offence 2 Sam. 12.10 Now therefore because thou hast killed Vriah the Hittite with the sword of the Ammonites as it was expressed in the 9. verse therefore the sword shall never depart from thy house then for his sin with Bathsheba verse 11. and 12. I will take thy wives before thine eyes and give them to thy neighbour and he shall lye with them in the sight of the sun for thou didst it secretly but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun Then because by this deed he had given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme his child by her was adjudged to death as it is in the 14. verse So that it is evident by his punishments that he sinned against men and it is a most vain thing to collect from hence that a King can do no injustice to his subjects for certainly it is injustice in a King to butcher barbarously any man which without danger he may save how much more his own subjects which he is bound to preserve and his vertuous subjects whom he ought to reward I have been long in this Mr. Hobbs hath another instance for the lawfulness of supremes to do any thing without injustice CHAP. XX. SECT V. Mr. Hobbs his instance of the Common-wealth of Athens examined IN the same manner the people of Athens when they banished the most potent of their Common-wealth for ten years thought they committed no injustice The Athenians thought so but doth Mr. Hobbs think so For although he brings this for an argument to prove the arbitrary power which Supremes have over their Subjects lives yet the scorn he puts upon it within few lines which I shall speedily mention shews his contempt of it and no doubt but the Athenians themselves alâ—hough in the doing of it were delighted with such acts of power yet when it was done and the lack of such a worthy person to assist at the helme of the State did make them sensible of the unhappiness of that act they would repent of it and detest it and find it is most unjust and imprudent unjust because distributive justice ought with all caresses and politick blessings to reward vertuous men but to banish them is a heavy punishment due to evil doers and it is imprudent to banish such for by that means the Common-wealth loseth his assistance and perhaps finds that man an unhappy enemy who would have been a stedfast friend He goes on And yet they never
VII Another argument ad hominem Mr. Hobbs his assurance of his being born at Malmsbury not comparable to this of the verity of the holy scriptures Some doubts of the place of Mr. Hobbs his birth from the erring of his doctrines from Christianity The attestation of the Gospel from the sufferings of the Saints and Martyrs The encrease and continuance of it in despite of persecution The Scriptures not possible to be written by bad men in regard their design is to destroy the Kingdom of Satan Good men would not obtrude a Lye upon the world Faith resolved into divine revelation The rest is a preparation to this faith and conclusion of this point LEt Mr. Hobbs tell me what assurance he hath of any thing He saith in the beginning of this Book that he is Thomas Hobbs of Malmsbury I think he is as sure of this as of any thing but I am much surer and so may any man be that this Scripture was writ by divine revelation than he can be of that first for his place that he was of Malmsbury which is a town in Wiltshire where Christianity is professed where men are assured of the Scriptures that they are by divine revelation How should it breed such a monster who would bring all their hopes of heaven their faith in Gods promises to be dubious as if they were not promised But he is Thomas Hobbs how knows he that perhaps his mother told him so and the midwife I know not whether after he came to the years of discretion he ever talked with them but if he did it is but a weak Testimony in respect of ours which was and is affirmed by such divine and incomparable persons as the Apostles and Prophets were His Mother and the Midwife although true persons yet were apt to be deceived and it may be he was a supposititious Child how oft have such things been done when contrariwise these men who have delivered infalible truths many ages before they came to pass cannot be conceived to have any Error I but perhaps he will say he is like his father in his countenance in his speech certainly not so like as these truths are to that incomparable essence which we call God than which nothing more fully expressed these divine perfections unless it was his personal word I but his Christening is registred in the Church Book of Malmsbury a good legal evidence and perhaps he enjoyed his fathers estate by this I know not but certainly there is a possibility of Error in it because the Church Book may be counterfeited and many a man hath intruded into other mens estates by unjust means but our evidence is recorded may I say or ingraven in these volumes which have been attested in every age since the first writing with the Blood of many martyrs which can be affirmed of no Church Book in the world worms and Cankers may eat them and thieves may break through and steal them and counterfeit them but these are subject to no corruption but by the providence of God have been and will be preserved so long as the world stands and endures So I think evidently that it appears that we have as full an assurance that these Scriptures are Divine as men can have of any thing in this world which they receive by hear-say Nay let us go further examine whether we have not a Demonstration from the effect to the cause we know such a man was our friend by his voice when he speaks another by his style as the report is of St. Thomas Moore with Erasmus aut Erasmus aut Diabolus Yea Critiques every where discerne Authors by their Styles may not we think you discern God by these heavenly writings which are more than humane When we hear a man discoursing of high points in Philosophy learnedly we know such an effect cannot proceed from a Country-education at the Cart and Plough it requires another study and industry When the Scripture teacheth us things higher than the natural wit of man can reach to as I have shewed it must needs come from a higher strain than our natural Condition could deliver to us I will conclude with one word The Scriptures must be writ by good or ill men ill men could not do it it teacheth those doctrines which destroy the Devil and his Kingdom all evil if good men writ it they would not lye to say they were inspired by God when they were not they would not deliver such things for assured truths which none could know but God if God did not teach it them Upon these invincible Grounds I think I may say that we have a mighty assurance that these are divine revelations which he wickedly affirms we have no assurance of But it may be objected if the demonstration be so evident why do not all men receive it for the understanding is made after such a manner as the Eye when you shew it colours the Eye must see them so shew by demonstration a truth to the understanding it must needs assent For my part I do not apprehend that man hath liberty in his understanding to accept or refuse truths which are laid open to it neither do I think that which is called liberum arbitrium is only a freedom of the will but a result out of them both however it is not in the understanding alone nor is this belief of ours that these things are revealed only an act of the understanding but of the will which refuseth to heare the voice of the Charmer charme he never so wisely Sometimes a malitious Will will not permit a man to study and think of these arguments which the more he studyeth the more he will approve sometimes when he hath studyed them it will make him seek further and being not delighted with that reason which is proposed it will not be satisfied with it so that there is a submission to these reasons offered which is necessary to our assent to them And certainly that is much by such arguments as shew the happiness men have in being under Gods Government for then men will seek what and wherein he will bless them and when he finds that these Scriptures and these only are rational for a man to think are his own dictates he will willingly submit to them But contrariwise when a proud man shall think that he and he only is faber not fortunae only but of his own happiness and that he need not seek to God for assistance then he slighâ—s all these discourses and listens not to them But still a man may say it seems that resolution of our faith is into this way of arguing I answer noe our faith is resolved into the divine revelations that God hath said this or that this is but a preparation for that foundation when a wise and vertuous man tells me any thing I believe it for the esteem of him and that is my last resolution of that faith because such a man speaks it but
translation observed and censured Reason against former deductions The intire obedience of the Israelites to the dictates of Moses rather from the conference of his divine inspiration as a Prophet than his soveraign power The Authority of scripture depends not upon the declaration of the soveraign The worshippers of Baal not excused from the command of the King of Israel The reasons of Mr. Hobbs his former assertion disproved The commands of the soveraign justly opposed when contrary to the Christian faith Mr. Hobbs his Atheistical conclusions censured BUt he hath another piece of Scripture which you may read Gen 18.18 19. Again where God saith to Abraham In thee shall all Nations of the Earth be blessed for I know thou wilt command thy Children and thy house after thee to keep the way of the Lord and to observe righteousness and judgment It is manifest the obedience of his family who had no revelation depended on their former obligation to obey their Soveraign Thus far Mr. Hobbs I answer 't is true that this obedience of Abrahams family to himself depends upon their filial obedience to him as their Father and his commanding them depends upon his soveraign power over them as their Father But what can it be collected hence that if Abraham had commanded dishonest things i. e. such actions as were against any will of God revealed any other way to them that they should have obeyed him Certainly no nay the contrary is here intimated for therefore God promised to bless him and his posterity because he did know that Abraham would command them vertuous things to keep the way of the Lord. But mark here Mr. Hobbs still varyes from the English lection and that to the worse for it is not what he writes to keep but he will command them and they shall keep the way of the Lord. So that the sense is because God foresaw his fatherly care and their filial duty in these righteous actions he would bless them He prosecutes this conclusion with another Scripture thus At mount Sinai Moses only went up to God the people were forbidden to approach on pain of death yet were they bound to obey all that Moses declared unto them for Gods Law Upon what ground but on this submission of their own Exod. 20. Speak thou to us and we will hear thee but let not God speak to us lest we die By which two places saith he it sufficiently appears that in a Common-wealth a Subject that has no certain and assured revelation particularly to himself concerning the will of God is to obey for such the command of the Common-wealth That is by his Logick the soveraign of the Common-wealth How this conclusion can be drawn out of these two places of Scripture I cannot imagine Why it should not I shall give these reasons First that although these two particular cases were to be understood as he conceits yet they are but particular cases which concerned those only affairs which were under their proper management and there is no one word which points at them to make them presidents for others or to give an universal rule for all others Secondly whereas he saith that in a Common-wealth a Subject should do thus as he sets down in one of his instances to wit that of Abraham there was no Common-wealth setled but only a noble family many things may be proper to a family which are not for a Common-wealth nay indeed the government of the Israelites under Moses was as yet not a pefect established Common-wealth but only in fieri the Common-wealth was in moulding the Laws for the government were in making Then consider in Moses his case for I have writ enough concerning the other the People said they would hear Moses and good reason for it because they discerned that he had conversation with God that Gods terrour was so great that no man durst injure him by doubting his Laws who had such near converse with God as he had when called up to the top of the Mount and therefore might be trusted on his relation And therefore it seems their promise of hearkning to whatsoever Moses should deliver for Gods Law was to him as a Prophet rather than as a King which indeed was in that regard more to be considered And certainly those dictates of the holy Scripture for our practices which are delivered by King David or Solomon have not that great obligation upon us as they were Kings but Prophets nor are the books which are Scripture and commanded to be so received amongst us therefore of divine authourity because Kings declare them to be such but contrariwise Kings declare them to be such because they are such And good Reader consider further that this reason of Mr. Hobbs might have excused all the worshippers of Baal all the idolatries and abominations committed in the reign of Jeroboam and the rest of those wicked Kings over Israel For if the People were to receive that and that only for the word of God which their supremes authorized then they authorizing those and only those commands which were directed to those impieties were so to be accepted and obeyed unless they had particular revelation which in general the common people never had and then how could God justly punish them for violating those Laws which he had given them as he did often when their Kings exacted otherwayes But he gives reason for what he hath delivered for saith he if men were at liberty to take for Gods commandements their own dreams and fancies or the dreams and fancies of private men scarce two men would agree upon what is Gods commandements and yet in respect of them every man would despise the commandement of the Common wealth Alas poor man what a dream and fancy hath he vainly uttered this is like to what he affirmed before that we have no assurance of revelations unless we had particular revelations our selves And what I opposed to that will serve for this Were all those Councils all those Fathers all the consent of the Christian Church nothing but dreams all the blood of holy Martyrs nothing but fancies yea the blood of Christ whereby he hath subdued all the Kings of this Christian World nothing but dreams and fancyes which yet are those Medium's by which men oppose Kings and ought to do it when they command contrary to our Christian Faith Certainly Mr. Hobos said right when he affirmed That private men must not oppose their dreams or fancies to the Laws of the Land wherein they live But under that Notion he doth amiss when he terms our assent to the revealed vvill of God clearly and intelligently apprehended a dream or fancy But because he terms it the Lavv of the Common-vvealth vvhich hath some sense according to his impossible principles viz. That the supreme represents the vvhole I vvill tell him it is a phrase of speech never used by any Author before for a Common-vvealth consists in the ordination of all the members
judge whether this or that act which he is about to undertake be according to that rule or no. And perhaps he may in many cases find work enough for all the wit he hath to regulate himself according to that rule and although he calls this the poyson of a Common-wealth yet I dare boldly say it is that bread which doth most wholesomly nourish support and maintain a Common-wealth viz. that every man should consider and judge what is legal and fit for him to do Let us go on with him CHAP. XXIII SECT III. Of the rule of Actions The Law of Nature the measure of humane Actions in opposition to the Civil Laws where the case is contradistinct Instances of Civil Laws commanding unjust things If the Civil Law command any thing against the Divine Law or the principles of Faith and Reason Mr. Hobbs his arrogancy in venting principles contrary to the received opinion of the whole World noted and censured The case stated and determined Good Men obedient to bad Laws not in acting according to them but by suffering the penalties inflicted by them BVt saith he otherwise it is manifest that the measure of good and evil actions is the Civil Law and the Judge the Legislator who is alwaies representative of the Common-wealth Here are two Propositions I shall handle them apart they are both indiscreet and very impertinent to the Question The first is that the Civil Law is the measure of our Actions the measure is indefinite without any limitation what not the Law of Nature shall not that be a measure How shall a man be able to commit Treason then se defendendo against the Civil Law which is one of his popular Aphorisms delivered in many places of this Book for if the Civil Law be the measure of his actions he must not violate that for the pretence of the Law of Nature I urge this ad hominem as an invincible argument against his wicked doctrine but see it overthrown out of most received principles It is possible that the Civil Laws may be wicked and dishonest and so against the Law of God as even in this Nation they have made sacrilegious Laws shall not I judge in my self whether it be fit for me to act according to these Laws The Law made in Queen Maries days which shed so much innocent blood it was fit for every man in that time to suffer rather than to conspire with them And therefore he must be judge himself what is vertuous for him to do and that Law is not a rule to guide him safely by Let this suffice for the first proposition The second is And the Judge is the legislator who is alwaies representative of the Common-wealth What an impossible Judge for such doubts is here delivered Make the legislator what you will King or Senate or what you please The question to be determined may be whether it is fit for Titius at this hour or instant to act according to this Civil law concerning which the scruple ariseth whether it be not against the Divine law the duty is instant now required It is not possible for this man to obtain leave to enquire of the legislator or if he could is it not probable that the legislator may not be at leisure to answer such doubts It cannot be therefore that the legislator can be a proper Judge of such questions Titius alone must do it himself neither indeed is it possible for any legislator to foresee all such particular scruples which may arise out of general rules and therefore there is a necessity for every man to be judge of good and evil concerning his own particular actions what he should do But he reduceth great mishaps and ill consequences which follow upon this doctrine which must be examined From this false doctrine saith he men are disposed to debate with themselves and dispute the commands of the Common-wealth And why not good Reader There is no man that hath reason with him when he studyeth a Law-book or indeed any other besides the holy Scripture but he considers whether that law or discourse be agreeing to the principles of Faith and Reason whether it be consonant with equity if a man have not his judgement free to himself how comes is about that Mr. Hobbs hopes to prevail with his discourse against all the laws in the Christian World but that he himself thinks there is a freedome of judgement left amongst men to determine by their reason what is good or evil But then he adds And afterwards to obey or disobey them as in their private judgment they shall think fit whereby the Common-wealth is distracted and weakned Certainly every man living will obey or disobey as he thinks fit and this is done by vertuous and good men without distracting or weakning the Common-wealth For if a vertuous man find the Civil law contradicting Gods law either in Nature or Scripture he cannot think it good moraliter for him to act according to its direction But his opposing of an established law shall be with submission to the penalty not contending martially against it for the accommodation of this present contented being which is his doctrine and by this means the Common-wealth will suffer no distraction but rather confirmation and establishment when a mans private evil shall be patiently endured rather than the peace of a kingdom shall be disquieted I speak no more of this because the sence is much the same with that doctrine which he censured next and condemns CHAP. XXIII SECT IV. Mr. Hobbs his proposition everted Conscience defined and distinguished Of conclusions secondarily or remotely deduced from the first principles No conscience properly and strictly erroneous but being such according to the vulgar acception of the phrase however obliges The case put upon the misinterpretation of Scripture supposed to prohibite swearing though for the confirmation of a truth and the error asserted to be obliging Two objections answered and the proposition fully cleared our Saviours command of not swearing at all examined and elucidated Of promissory or assertory Oaths The paragraph and question concluded ANother Doctrine repugnant to Civil Society is That whatsoever a man doth against his Conscience is sin and it dependeth on the presumption of making himself Judge of good and evil Certainly the proposition is true whatsoever a man doth against his Conscience is sin for Conscience includes in its Name and Nature Science so that there can be no Conscience without there be a knowledg of the condition and circumstances to which his Conscience is applyed I would be loth to involve my self into many intricate Questions But intreat the Reader to consider that Conscience is the conclusion of a practical Syllogisme in which the Major is either the Act of a principal law of Nature or some general rule equivalent to it To understand this observe that there are two innate qualities in man which the Philosophers call Habitus Principiorum habits of principles which do
are twelve years Penance and if in this time he relapsed he was to begin again and as it is expressed in other cases not until his death to receive the Communion and if he recover to be where he was when he did receive it because that out of Christian piety the Eucharist was given him for his viaticum as it is called to strengthen him in his long Journy he was to go after all this consider good Reader what a miserable shift Mr. Hobs was put to when he took this Canon for to countenance such a horrid conclusion that it is fit in obedience to man to deny Christ when this Canon most sharply punisheth that horrid Sin and he that will read but the next Canon which is the 12. shall find the like severity used to them who having at first left the Military girdle stoutly would afterwards put it on the story was thus the Emperors for a reward of their gallantry would give deserving Souldiers a girdle and by it many priviledges But if they were Christians and would not renounce their Faith this girdle was taken from them and with it all priviledges divers after they had refused it upon these accursed terms being over allured by the pleasures and honours of the world would desire it again and then this Councel passeth the like judgment upon those as the former so that all kinds of denying Christ was most hateful to those Fathers and sentenced as a most grievous sin having a most severe pennance injoyned it but hear Mr. Hobs again SECT III. Peters Denial of Christ Examined IT were a Sin saith he in an Apostle or Disciple who had undertaken to Preach the Gospel against Christs Enemies and in Peter a great fault but of infirmity and easily pardon'd by Christ where good Mr. Hobs was the infirmity evident in Peter more then any other person sure you have no Scripture ground for it he was forewarned by our Saviour and so armed against it yet saith he it was easily forgiven by our Saviour Good God what easiness do we find it was not without Repentance and how sharp that was we cannot tell the word of God notifies that he wept bitterly and how powerful those tears wrought upon our Saviour we know so that it was hardly spoke of him and more then he could know to say it was easily and worse in his conclusion when he said that horrid sin might be committed without a fault and that it was lawful to do it I am sure that severe sentence which the Councel of Nice lay upon it and the bitter tears of St. Peter are no arguments for it and the whole course of Divinity delivered by our Saviour and Apostles makes against it and the constant practise of holy and religious men for our Saviour Luk. 9.23 If any man will come after me he must deny himself and take up the Cross and follow me Mark you it is deny himself not Christ it is take up his Cross not cast it away and reject it his Cross that is all affliction which is upon him as in this case he must either Sin or bear it thus it is laid upon him as likewise there are other cases but this is one and a main one Again Mat. 33. He who denies me before men him will I deny before my Father who is in Heaven What more peâ—tinent and close against his conclusion and you may perceive that as we demean our selves towards Christ here he will so demean himself towards us hereafter if we suffer for him we shall raign with him if we forsake him to save this life we shall have no share in his life or death hereafter and surely if a man might lawfully deny Christ it was a strange folly yea madness in all those glorious Martyrs who suffered such torments rather then they would deny their Saviour I have spoke of this before in this very Treatise and I see nothing opposed to any thing there which was brought against his or for my conclusion this might have been therefore spared SECT IV. A Digression to Mr. Hobs. BUt now Mr. Hobs I again bespeak you leave off the Justification of such horrid Errors as this consider if you intend to act according to this Doctrine you can have no part in Christ he will reject you at the last day consider again that you have taught and by that teaching have tempted others to be of that Error to love and prefer this temporal life before that eternal An Atheistical practice which men may easily be induced to entertain and practise when there is little reason produced for it and consider with your self that although this is one of the greatest sins a man can commit yet according to that ever honoured Councel in the Canon cited by you there is room for you in the Church here and in Heaven hereafter if you prove penitent Repent therefore of this your wickedness that God may according to his Sacred Covenant have Mercy upon you Judge your self that you be not judged of the Lord and make amends for this publick Scandal you have given to the Church of Christ which I think since the first Conversion never had any so publickly professed this Doctrine before Leviathan do it therefore in some publick Treatise and that in English whereby there may be amends to those who have been seduced by your Doctrines and so Farewell This is all which concerns me in this Appendix of yours at this time therefore I meddle with nothing else AN Alphabetical Table Of the Principle CONTENTS In which C. denotes the Chapter and S. the Section A THe promises to Abraham and his seed Cap. 22. Sect. 16. Page 178. Why his Family was obliged to obey Gods Commmands C. 22. S. 17. P. 181. Whence are Actions just or unjust C. 8. S. 2. P. 24. not from Consent or Dissent C. 8. S. 2. ibid. Mixed Actions what they are C. 19. S. 6. 114. External and Internal Acts subject to Gods command C. 22. S. 14. 175. Agag spared C. 20. S. 2. 130. Subjects not freed from their Allegiance C. 5. S. 4. P. 15. Of the Amazons Common-wealth C. 16. S. 57. p. 70. 72. St. Ambroses contest with Theodosius C. 20. S. 4. 134. Apostles their gift of Tongues Miraculous C. 22. S. 10. 168. Their Learning Miraculous Cap 22. S. 11. 169. Appetite over-rules the VVill C. 19. S. 6. 115. Aristides Banished C. 20. S. 5. 141. No taking Armes against the King C. 16. 8. 7. 72. Assurance of revelations C. 22. 8 1. 148. What is Assurance C. 22. 8. 1. 149 how many ways it may be had C. 22. S. 1. idem that of faith greater then of Sciences C. 22. S. 1. 150. what we have of Christian Religion C. 22. S. 1. idem Athenians used Ostracism C. 20. S. 5. 140. He who acts by anothers Authority may do injury to him by whose authority he Acts C. 8. S. 1. 23. B The worshippers of Baal not excused by the command of
18. sect 7. 92. Prayers and Tears the Christians remedy cap. 16. sect 7. 72. Preaching the Kings power about it cap. 10. sect 2. 32. Preservation what it is cap. 16. sect 11. 77. Generation more excellent then it cap. 16. sect 11. 78. Prince v. King supreme Soveraign may erre cap. 4. sect 2. 10. Printing The Kings power about it cap. 10. sect 2. 32. Promises in unlawful things oblige not cap 15. sect 3. 4. 60. 61. Whether upon fear oblige cap. 15. sect 4. 61 Prophecy different from faith cap. 23. sect 6. 29. Propriety what it is cap. 11. sect 3. 43. How introduced cap. 11. sect 2. 40. Not necessary to Peace cap. 11. sect 3. 42. It may be boâ—h in Peace and â—ar ibid. Not depending upon the Soveraign Power cap. 11. sect 3. 4 43 Men in war have not a propriety to their Enemies Country before it be Conquer'd cap 10. sect 2. 32. Whence the propriety of the Soveraign cap 11. sect 4. 43. Whether this conduce to publick peace cap. 23. sect 8. 9. 17. 214. Protection of the Soveraign doth not give propriety cap. 23. sect 9. 216. R Reason sometimes disobeyed cap. 19. sect 6. 115. Rebellion no small injustice cap 5 sect 2 13. Rebells allways pretend oppression cap. 16. sect 7. 72. Religion Princes power in matters of Religion cap. 10. sect 1 30. The assurance of Christian Religion cap. 22. sect 1. 2. 3. 151. 88. from the manner of Deliverance cap. 22. sect 2. 152. The Doctrines delivered cap. 22. sect 3. 154. The different Style cap. 22. sect 4. 155. The Punishment and Rewards proposed ibid. The sanctity of the persons who delivered it cap. 22. sect 5. 6. 156. The sufferings of the Saints cap. 22. sect 7. 159. Revelations The assurance of them cap. 22. sect 1. 148. What things not to be known but by revelation cap 22. sect 1. 2. 3. 148. 88. Right Not derived from the consent of the people cap. 4. sect 3. 11. He who hath right to the End how to the means cap. 9. sect 2. 29. Romulus preserved by Faustulus cap. 16. sect 10. 76. S Sacrifice obedience better then it cap. 20. sect 2. 129. Samuel rejected cap. 18. sect 5 c 8. Sanctity inspired and acquired cap 23. sect 6. 209. Sanhedrim ceased cap. 18. sect 12. 101. Saul chosen cap. 18. sect c. 88 Spareth Agag cap. 20. sect 2. 230. Scribes and Pharisees not the supreme magistrates cap 18. sect 2. 85. Scripture its Authority not depending upon the Soveraign cap. 22. sect 17. 18. 181. 185. See What the word signifies cap. 19. sect 10. 119. Servants when one is a Servant cap. 17. sect 2. 82. their condition that differing in peace from what they suffer in War according to Mr Hobs cap. 18. sect 8. 93. Servitude banished from â—mongst Christians cap 18 s 2 82. Sin None necessitated to it cap. 19. sect 1. 2. 107 108. Small numbers joyned together may live peaceably cap. 1. p. 1. Sodom Its destructiâ—n cap. 8. sect 4. 26. Soveraign v. King supreme He is not the person of the People cap. 2 sect 2. cap. 5 sect 1. 2. p. 3. 12. 13. He may doe unjustly cap. 8. sect 4. 26. His power about deciding Controversies cap. 12. sect 1. 44. Hath right to the Malitia cap. 12. sect 2. 45. To chose Counsellors and Officers ibid. Yet not always Officers ibid. Hath power to Punish and Reward and confer Honours cap. 12. sect 4. 46. Not the representative of the people cap. 13. sect 1 cap. 14. sect 1. 2. cap. 23. sect 15. 16. 47. 56. 57 227. 230. Obliged by their own Promises cap 13. sect 3. 50. Why they are Chosen cap. 15. sect 2. 59 His Rights in an instituted and acquired dominion not the same c. 15. s 5. c. 16. s 12. c. 17. s 1. 62. 79. 81. No such soveraignty by institution as Mr. Hobs phancies cap. 18. sect 1 8. 4. Whether the Soveraignty be equally absolute in an instituted and acquired Dominion cap 17. sect 2.82 Not lawful to resist them when they command against ones own interest cap. 20. sect 7. 1 3. Their commands may be opposed when contrary to the Christian faith cap. 22. sect 17. 181. He cannot make Law whatsoever is against the Law of Nature cap. 22. sect 18. 185. How he is subject to Laws Divine c. 23. s 7. 212. How Subject to the Civil Laws ibid. The partition of soveraignty not destructive to it cap. 23. sect 9. 216 Only one Soveraign in England cap. 23. sect 16. 230 Speech is free cap 19 sect 4. 111. Spirits more cap. 19. sect 109. Subjects not Authors of their Governors Actions c. 2 s 17. c. 4 s 1. c. 15. s 1. c. 20. s 2. 3. 8. 58. 126. The cannot be free from the Allegiance and why cap. 5. sect 4. 15. Not submit themselves without any contract on the Governours part cap. 5. sect 4. cap. 11. sect 15. 39. Not bound to own all the Actions of a Supreme cap. 7. sect 1. cap. 8. sect 1. 21. 23. All men born Subjects cap. 14. sect 1. 56. Difference between the Subjects of an instituted and conquered Nation cap. 18 sect 84. Supremes All do not consent to give power unto them cap 4. sect 1. cap. 16. sect 5. 8. 69. Not Covenant with all in Government cap. 5. sect 4. 5. Not take their Government upon Covenant cap 6 s 1. 17. The Subject not bound to own all his Actions cap. 7 sect 1. cap. 8. sect 1. 21. 23. Not lawful to resist him in ones own defence cap. 20. sect 6 cap. 21. 142. 146. Sword hath no power but from the Covenant cap. 6. s 3. 20. That it can give power is dangerous to Princes ibid. Thoughts are free cap. 19. sect 2. 108. Not lyable to humane Laws cap. 23. sect 5.25 Truth whether it is to be regulated by Peace cap. 10. sect 4. 5. 6. 33. 34. In matters of doctrine it is only to be considered c. 10. s 4. 34. Peaceable Doctrines only true ibid Peace and the fruit of it cap. 10. sect 5. 34. No universal Truths are now cap â—0 sect 7. 35. Tumults Remisness of Government an occasion of them cap. 19. sect 9. 37. Tyranny Whether it and Monarchy be the same form of Government cap. 13. sect 2. 48. Tyrants of two sorts cap. 23. sect 11. 220. V Unbelief 'T is a breach of Gods Law c. 22. s 16. 230. Men justly Condemned for it ibid. It s Punishmen cap. 22. sect 13. 172. Understanding taken two ways c. 19. sect 5. 112. Voluntas facere fieri cap. 19. sect 12. 123. Vows rash sinful not obliging cap. 20. sect 2. 128. Uriah Murdered cap. 20. sect 3. 4. 131. 133. W War whâ—t it is properly cap. 16. sect 4. 67. Whence arise Civil VVars c. 18. s 3. 14. 15. 103. 105. 106. Water how it is said to be free c. â—9 s 7. 1â—6 Ways how they are free cap. 19. sect 2. 108. Wife subject to the