<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2010-02-21</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Zev Berger</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Checklist:
x Add TEMPHEAD, change DATE, validate
Add DIV TYPEs, validate
Review structure, use BODY or rarely GROUP
xCheck PB placement and completeness, ensure sequence of N=""
xProof title page(s)
Check HEAD TRAILER ARGUMENT EPIGRAPH OPENER CLOSER SIGNED SALUTE BYLINE
Check ^, oe, abq, italic I / J, _Initals, space between &amp;c.
Check # @ -- UNCLEAR LB FIGURE
Check q; startq endq Q
Correct illegibles from proofsheet
Check illegible page, para, line, span, word, dollar signs
Final validate

Corrected [  ] illegible groups out of [  ].
Converted [94] illegible groups to GAP DESC="illegible".
DONE</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="B04263">
<STC T="W">L3454A</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">53981682</BIBNO>
<VID>180280</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1">
<P>A SECOND PART OF OBSERVATIONS, CENSVRES, AND CONFVTATIONS OF DIVERS ERROURS IN Mr. <HI>HOBBS</HI> his LEVIATHAN: Beginning at the &s;eventeenth Chap|ter of that <HI>BOOK.</HI></P>
<P>By <HI>William Lucy,</HI> Bi&s;hop of S. <HI>Davids.</HI></P>
<P><HI>LONDON:</HI> Printed by <HI>S. G.</HI> and <HI>B. G.</HI> for <HI>Edward Man</HI> at the <HI>White Swan</HI> in S. <HI>Pauls</HI> Church-yard, 1673.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="illustration">
<PB REF="2">
<P><FIGURE>
<HEAD><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">CUT DISPENSATOR<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> MYSTERIORUM DE<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"></HEAD>
</FIGURE></P>
<PB REF="2">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<PB REF="3" MS="y">
<PB REF="3">
<HEAD>To the Reader.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>READER,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>BEfore you go further into this Treati&s;e, I think it fit to premoni&s;h you of three things. Fir&s;t, How it is writ. Secondly, Why by me. Third|ly, Why now put out: Concerning the fir&s;t, expect no other but to read the &s;tronge&s;t Di&s;cour&s;e in Politiques, betwixt <HI>Mr. Hobbs</HI> and me, that ever was writ; for the Art of Polity (being more properly &s;ignified by the name of Prudence) is always, by tho&s;e who writ of it, from <HI>Plato</HI> and <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> downward, until you come to the very la&s;t, is naturally powder'd with &s;enten|ces, and interlarded with Hi&s;tories; for it being not a Science who&s;e demon&s;trations come from ne|ce&s;&s;ary cau&s;es, where <HI>po&s;ita cau&s;a</HI> mo&s;t certainly fol|lows the effect, or grant the effect, you mu&s;t own the cau&s;e from whence it came; but a prudence, which di&s;po&s;eth men to a wi&s;e conformity, not by the force of a nece&s;&s;ary efficacy, but by the per&s;wa&s;ions which fear and love induce to, which are not nece&s;&s;ary, but arbitrary; men in the manage of &s;uch affairs do mo&s;t di&s;creetly, when they produce the &s;entences of wi&s;e men who have gone before, and by great expe|rience, found tho&s;e &s;entences effectual in &s;uch occa&s;i|ons: and becau&s;e there is nothing new under the Sun, therefore Hi&s;tories of our Fore-fathers, in like condi|tions, are mo&s;t excellent Guides for the prudent di|po&s;ure of our lives, who indeed do but repeat what they have done: but <HI>Mr. Hobbs,</HI> pre&s;uming upon the greatne&s;s of his own wit; which indeed is great, (and
<PB REF="4">
it is a thou&s;and pities he be&s;tow'd it &s;o ill) &s;corns to tread in beaten paths, and thinks by the &s;trength of his own fancies to make his feet leave &s;uch an impre&s;&s;ion, as all others &s;hall follow him, not he them. I must follow him, for who&s;oever is to be confuted, mu&s;t have it done out of his own Princi|ples, and therefore I fall upon him with only down|right rea&s;ons; therefore if at any time my Pen hath dropt a &s;entence, or a &s;tory unawares, which was op|po&s;ite to the bu&s;ine&s;s, (which I believe is very &s;eldom) I though it not worth the mending, but let it pa&s;s: And &s;o having &s;hew'd the Reader why I writ &s;o un|politically of Politiques, I pa&s;s to the &s;e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ond Adver|ti&s;ement.</P>
<P>The &s;econd Premonition is a que&s;tion why I &s;hould write of this piece, and my An&s;wer is &s;hort, having &s;poke to the former part of his <HI>Leviathan,</HI> it was proper for me not to &s;tep over this, but take him in order as he writes: But a man may object, and &s;ome have objected that were acquainted with my under|takings, that this is not &s;o proper f<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">r a Bi&s;hop (who&s;e time &s;hould be taken up with his Profe&s;&s;ion, which is Divinity) to meddle with &s;uch State affairs. I an&s;wer, that <HI>Mr. Hobbs</HI> his writings are &s;o inter|lined with &s;o much Heterodox (&s;hall I &s;ay) or Heretical and Athei&s;tical Divinity, that it befits none &s;o well as a Divine t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> meddle with them. And again, I &s;aid, that although there is a Generation that think we &s;hould be Fools in any thing el&s;e, yet let them know, that if &s;o, we mu&s;t be Fools in that likewi&s;e, as well as other things: for <HI>Theologia</HI> Diuinity, is not only <HI>Scientia,</HI> Knowledge, but as ma|ny of the School-men, <HI>Mr. Hobbs</HI> h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">s good friends,
<PB REF="4">
&s;peak, it is <HI>Sapientia,</HI> we may render it in Engli&s;h <HI>Wi&s;dom,</HI> which is the highe&s;t knowledge, who&s;e principles are the highe&s;t and fir&s;t Rules which habi|tually are imprinted in man, and who&s;e conclu&s;ions are the premi&s;es of other inferiour Sciences: And they &s;ay moreover, that this which is called <HI>Schola|&s;tica Theologia,</HI> School Divinity, differs from Na|tural only in this, that it adds one principle to the other, which is the Faith in the revealed Will of God, which I am forced to fight for in this Treati&s;e with <HI>Mr Hobbs:</HI> And becau&s;e this is the nature of this great Wi&s;dom of Divinity, it may pre&s;cribe the Rules to all Sciences and Prudencies, and all con|ditions of men, from the King to the Cobler, how they may live and demean them&s;elves vertuou&s;ly: But be&s;ides this, let tho&s;e men con&s;ider, that there is one piece of a Divines &s;tudy (without which he will be lame and very deficient) which mu&s;t needs teach him a great deal more of this Prudence, then I have need to u&s;e in this Di&s;cour&s;e, unle&s;s he be a very dull man, which is Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Story, wherein he &s;hall find &s;uch acts and &s;ubtilties practi&s;ed by Hereticks and Schi&s;maticks, (whom I have always ob&s;erved to be more crafty, though not wi&s;er then the Orthodox part) &s;uch applications to Emperours, to Empere&s;&s;es, to Favourites at Court, &s;uch cloaking evil intentions with pious pretences, &s;uch artificial &s;landering the per&s;ons of their Adver&s;aries, that he cannot but know the polity, yea the ba&s;e crafts of men, and knowing them to be &s;uch, may the better learn to avoid tho&s;e &s;nares which have catched men heretofore, and will (if not prevented) do &s;o again; yea &s;hall find that many times the wi&s;dom of learned and pious Bi&s;hops
<PB REF="5">
have been the prop and &s;tay of both the Empires, <HI>Ea&s;t</HI> and <HI>We&s;t;</HI> and which is more, even in the practick peace of Polity, you &s;hall find Bi&s;hops exe|cute them in the mo&s;t excellent manner for wi&s;dom and courage, that ever any men did: I write not this to invite men of that condition to muddle them|&s;elves with the trivial affairs of this world, no, as S. <HI>Paul</HI> to the <HI>Philippians 3.20. Our conver&s;ation is in heaven.</HI> The word which we render Conver&s;a|tion, is in the Original <GAP DESC="foreign">, which is excellent|ly noted by <HI>Beza,</HI> that it is that kind of Conver&s;ati|on which agrees to the Polity, of &s;uch as are Citizens of the heavenly <HI>Hieru&s;alem:</HI> So that although the Apo&s;tle aff<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">rms this of all men who a&s;pire to Chri&s;tian perfection, that &s;uch men &s;hould live and conver&s;e in that Polity, which conduceth to the e&s;tabli&s;hment of that &s;piritual &s;ociety, which are parts of that Kingdom, yet in a more e&s;pecial manner, it agrees to them who are exalted to that high dignity in that &s;ociety, that the Polity of their abilities &s;hould be applied to the advance of that Kingdom; and in or|der to that, when the benefit or ill of a &s;ublunary King<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">om or Commonwealth &s;hall conduce to that Kingdom in heaven, it will become &s;uch men to in|terpo&s;e their coun&s;els in a way mo&s;t proper for them to imploy them&s;elves in: But my intent in writing this is to &s;hew, that a poor old man, &s;itting in his Study, and principally applying that &s;tudy to Divi|nity, may ea&s;ily by that &s;tudy give advice and ad|monition to greater doubts then are in his Politiques, which indeed are gro&s;s mi&s;takes, from the fir&s;t corner &s;tone he laid in the Foundation, to the top-tile in the Roof.</P>
<P><PB REF="5">But then it may further be enquired, why I put out the&s;e Papers now, and not before: My An&s;wer is, That about three years pa&s;t, when I came up to the Parliament, I brought up a rough draught of either all, or mo&s;t of the&s;e &s;heets, thinking at lei|&s;ure time, in the intervals of bu&s;ine&s;s, I might &s;mooth them over, but then I was informed that he was about &s;uch a work him&s;elf, to c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">rrect his own Er|rours, which I &s;hould have been mo&s;t glad to have &s;een. O <HI>Mr Hobbs,</HI> if this comes to your hands, give me leave to tell y<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">u that would be a glorious work, and let me &s;ay to you as the Philo&s;opher did to him, who blu&s;hed coming out of a Tavern, <HI>Blu&s;h not to come out, but going in: Humanum e&s;t er|rare,</HI> but <HI>per&s;everare:</HI> Nay, I may &s;ay it is the mo&s;t glorious work of a Christian to repent, every man may erre, but none but a pious man can repent: I would to God you would do it, and do but con&s;ider how you oppo&s;e in your Opinions the whole Catholique Church in many things, which never Chri&s;tian man did before you: You write as if your <HI>Leviathan</HI> were the B<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ok in which the <HI>Ro&s;iecru&s;ians</HI> in their <HI>Fama</HI> &s;peak of, which &s;hould be able to in&s;truct men &s;ufficiently in all things, both <HI>Theological</HI> and <HI>Phi|lo&s;ophical,</HI> were all the books in the world lo&s;t be|&s;ides, and a <HI>Pythagorean ip&s;e dixit</HI> might &s;uf|fice for your Scholar: But good Sir, think that there have been wi&s;e men in Philo&s;ophy, in Policy, in Di|vinity, before your book was writ, yea before you were born, or thought of doing this great work your &s;elf, and &s;ave me the labour of tiring my old de|crepid Age with &s;uch unhappy cnotentions, which el&s;e, at &s;uch lei&s;ures as I can &s;natch from my greater
<PB REF="6">
duties, I &s;hall be writing to &s;ome other mi&s;conceipts of yours.</P>
<P>Reader, I intreat you to forgive this diver&s;ion to <HI>Mr. Hobbs,</HI> and further only know, that I have ta|ken care that his words &s;hould be put down &s;trictly in a diver&s;e Letter; and I de&s;ire this may be print|ed in <HI>Quarto,</HI> to be joyn'd (by them who have the other) to my fir&s;t Piece, and then I have done, who am</P>
<CLOSER><DATELINE><HI>From my Hou&s;e at</HI> Brecnock <DATE><HI>March 12. 1673.</HI></DATE></DATELINE>
<SIGNED>Your Brother in Je&s;us Chri&s;t <HI>Will: St. David.</HI></SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="imprimatur">
<OPENER><DATELINE><DATE>Maii 16. 1671.</DATE></DATELINE></OPENER>
<P>Imprimatur i&s;te Tractatus a Reverendo Confratre no&s;tro <HI>Gulielmo</HI> Domino Epi&s;c. Maneven&s;i elucubratus</P>
<BIBL><HI>Humfr. London</HI></BIBL>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 N="2" TYPE="text">
<PB N="1" REF="6">
<HEAD>A SECOND PART OF Ob&s;ervations, Cen&s;ures, and Confutations OF DIVERS ERRORS IN Mr. Hobbs HIS LEVIATHAN. Beginning at the &s;eventeenth Chap|ter of that Book.</HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. 1.</HI> The Introduction to the whole Di&s;cour&s;e.</HEAD>
<P>I Have briefly touched the chief heads of his fir&s;t Part. And am now arrived at his &s;econd, part, which is entituled of Common-wealths, and this part be|gins at the &s;eventeenth Chapter of the whole Book &s;uper&s;cribed <HI>of the cau&s;es, generation and definition of a Common-wealth.</HI></P>
<P>He begins with the final cau&s;e mo&s;t rightly, which is <HI>cau|&s;a cau&s;arum,</HI> and &s;ets the whole at work. And I find no
<PB N="2" REF="7">
fault with what he writes concerning that.</P>
<P><HI>Secondly,</HI> I approve what he &s;aith at the bottom of the 85. <HI>page, That &s;mall numbers joyned together cannot give them &s;ecurity to live peaceably.</HI> Small is a Relative, &s;mall in re&s;pect of their Neighbours, of who&s;e injury they may ju&s;tly be af|fraid, unle&s;s they are &s;upported with Natural, or Artificial For|tifications, or their number may be equalled by the weight of the internal vertue, or gallantry of the Inhabitants; &s;ome way or other it mu&s;t be made up.</P>
<P><HI>Thirdly,</HI> I approve what he &s;aith, <HI>pag.</HI> 86. <HI>That be the Peo|ple never &s;o numerous</HI> (I may add or &s;trong) <HI>yet if their acti|ons are directed by their own particular Judgments and particular appetites, they can expect thereby no Defence, nor Protection.</HI> His Rea&s;ons likewi&s;e I approve.</P>
<P><HI>Fourthly,</HI> I cen&s;ure not his Conclu&s;ion in the &s;ame page; That the Government for their Good, mu&s;t not be for one Life or Battel, but Perpetual.</P>
<P><HI>Fifthly,</HI> He makes a very Ingenious Di&s;cour&s;e upon the difference betwixt tho&s;e &s;ociable Creatures, as Bees, and Ants, (which <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> calls Political) and hath very hand&s;om ap|plications concerning them, to the middle of the 87. <HI>page;</HI> but then I mu&s;t begin to examine him with le&s;s approbati|on: In the Margent there is noted, the generation of a Com|mon-Wealth, and it begins thus.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. II.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>I.</HI> This Generation cen&s;ured, fir&s;t from that Word <HI>only,</HI> which cannot be true.</HEAD>
<P>THE only way to Erect &s;uch a common Power, as may be able to defend them from the Inva&s;ion of Foreigners, and the Injuries of one another; and thereby to &s;ecure them in &s;uch &s;ort, as that by their own Indu&s;try, and by the fruits of the Earth they may nouri&s;h them&s;elves and live contentedly, is to confer all their Power and &s;trength upon one man, or upon one A&s;&s;embly of men,
<PB N="3" REF="7">
that may reduce all their wills by plurality of voices unto one will, which is as much as to &s;ay to appoint one man or A&s;&s;embly of men to bear their per&s;on, and every one to own and acknowledg him&s;elf to be Author of what&s;oever he that &s;o beareth their per&s;on, &s;hall act or cau&s;e to be acted in the&s;e things, which concern the common peace, and &s;afety, and therein to &s;ubmit their wills every one to his will and their Judgment to his Judgment. <HI>Thus far he, A bold and &s;trange a&s;&s;ertion in that &s;evere Language;</HI> (the on<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ly way) <HI>what? (Mr.</HI> Hobbs) <HI>no other? Certainly there have been many Common-wealths in the World which have lived peace|ably and quietly, and enjoyed the fruits of their Labours, and have abounded with all the comforts of their a&s;&s;ociation; And yet I dare &s;peak it with confidence there was never any thus generated, that is to appoint one man or A&s;&s;embly to bear their Per&s;on, and to allow them&s;elves to be Authors of his Actions, to &s;ubmit their Wills to his Will, and their Judg|ments to his Judgment.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>II.</HI> A Supream cannot receive his Authority from the Peo|ple.</HEAD>
<P N="1">1. COn&s;ider here (for fear I may forget it hereafter) that the King or Supreme, by him, is but the <HI>Per&s;on</HI> (as he mo&s;t improperly &s;tyles him) and they (the Multitude) the Au|thors of what he doth; &s;o that he acts only by their Authori|ty (as you may &s;ee tho&s;e words expounded in the 16. <HI>Chap.</HI> pag. 81. and 82.) &s;o that by him the People give the Supreme Authority, which is a mighty diminution to all Supreme <HI>Au|thority,</HI> and indeed an Incroachment upon the Praerogative of God, <HI>by whom (and whom alone) Kings reign, and Princes bear rule;</HI> &s;o that as we rightly &s;ay, that all Authority in a Kingdom is derived from the King, who is the Fountain of all Authority he makes a circle in it, and &s;aith, the head of this Fountain is derived from the People.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<PB N="4" REF="8">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>III.</HI> It is impo&s;&s;ible they &s;hould do it.</HEAD>
<P>BUT let us examine the po&s;&s;ibilities of it, <HI>Nihil dat quod non habet,</HI> either <HI>formaliter, eminenter</HI> or <HI>Virtualiter.</HI> No|thing can give what it hath not Formally, Eminently, or Vir|tually; Certainly neither of the&s;e can be affirmed of the Peo|ple, if they have it any of the&s;e ways it mu&s;t be <HI>Conjunctim</HI> or <HI>divi&s;im,</HI> either as &s;evered or conjoyned; either as di&s;tinct, or united, but neither of the&s;e: if &s;evered, then either every man had this Power, or a few, or one alone; the fir&s;t branch of this Divi&s;ion will abide the chief Di&s;pute with him, becau&s;e he hath &s;aid before, That every man hath right to every thing, to all things, to all riches, per&s;ons, wives, lives, what you will before they are covenanted into a body, this hath been confuted heretofore, yet this very occa&s;ion will be able to &s;hew the ab&s;urdity of it further.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>IV.</HI> The Multitude cannot make a <HI>Leviathan,</HI> becau&s;e he had all their rights before.</HEAD>
<P>FOr which let us lay a Foundation, &s;uppo&s;e this Kingdom were un&s;etled, and yet now endeavouring to be &s;etled, and all the People being free and and without Covenant, have right to all the things in the world, the&s;e are met together to chu&s;e a <HI>Leviathan</HI> (as he terms him) for &s;etling their beings mo&s;t &s;ecurely. In this Election what did they give him? you will &s;ay the Authority over them all, that is nothing; he had that before by the Law of Nature: I but he will &s;ay he hath upon this Election their Rights; Their Rights are no more than what he had before; he had by nature right to &s;lay, take, make u&s;e of any thing conducing to his contentment; though they were a hundred Millions, they can give him no
<PB N="5" REF="8">
more than what he hath even by Nature. I but he will reply he had Right before, but now he hath Power; I an&s;wer, the Que&s;tion here is not about Power, but Right; Power may be in Rebels, U&s;urpers, but not Right, that is only in the law|ful Soveraign; but &s;uppo&s;e we &s;hould examine his Power by the&s;e preceeding directions: I doubt we &s;hall find it mo&s;t weak and uncon&s;tant.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>V.</HI> Their Power is mo&s;t uncertain.</HEAD>
<P>FOR if from the People they will vary with their un|&s;etled re&s;olutions; for they who made the fir&s;t, being once taught that the Right of making Kings is in them, will ea&s;i|ly be per&s;waded that the unmaking is in their hands likewi&s;e, and rea&s;&s;ume that Power again: Take that mo&s;t abundant in&s;tance which that unhappy time, we lately lived in, affords us, when Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> was fir&s;t undertaken by me, when this Doctrine of his was infu&s;ed into the Kingdom, they altered and changed the Government four or five times in a moment. A very &s;hort &s;pace of time, and none of tho&s;e <HI>Leviathans</HI> lacked the a&s;&s;ents of the People, who at the lea&s;t pretended with the highe&s;t prote&s;tations, that men could make, that they would live and dye with them, in the maintenance of their Rights; and yet in one &s;ix weeks they made likewi&s;e &s;uch another pro|te&s;tation to the next U&s;urpers. Here you may di&s;cern how weak a Foundation this popular Covenant yields to his <HI>Leviathan,</HI> nor need he boa&s;t more of the &s;trength, than the Right of his Authority, for certainly any buzze put into the Peoples head of mi&s;government (which no Government can be free from in the execution) will put Seditious Spirits into them; and men who love to fi&s;h in troubled Waters may with ea&s;e rai&s;e the&s;e Rumors: &s;o that it &s;eems to me, to appear that &s;uch a tottering and uncon&s;tant foundation as the Peoples univer&s;al Covenant, &s;hould not be the &s;upport of &s;uch a mighty &s;tructure, as is a <HI>Leviathan,</HI> which &s;hould be perpetual.</P>
<P><PB N="6" REF="9">What I have &s;aid of the whole, may more abundantly be affirmed of any part, becau&s;e they will be as uncon&s;tant as the whole, or more.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>VI.</HI> The People cannot give Power conjunctim.</HEAD>
<P>AND for what was interpo&s;ed of the People Conjunctim, is impo&s;&s;ible (according to his Principles); for there can be no Conjunction before this Covenant, they are accor|ding to his Doctrine at War one with another until that; And it is a &s;trange thing to imagine that &s;o many &s;everal heads contending one with another about Superiority, and the in|gro&s;&s;ing the World to their particular Intere&s;ts, &s;hould con|center with one mind, to the exaltation of the &s;ame Per&s;on, or Per&s;ons to whom they would &s;ubmit them&s;elves, and their conditions by a total de&s;ertion of them both. Nay indeed a man cannot do it, for it being <HI>Jus naturale</HI> a natural Right, as he him&s;elf hath expre&s;&s;ed before, <HI>Chap.</HI> 14. pag. (65) and (66) (to which I have &s;poke already &s;omething) he cannot lay down his Natural Right, until he lay down his Nature: and therefore indeed he cannot, by this Doctrine, give away his Right to be King, to any other: but if he can deve&s;t him&s;elf of his Nature, yet he in expre&s;s termes, &s;aith, <HI>That a man cannot give over his Right to re&s;i&s;t by force, wounds, and impri&s;onments with which he cannot live contentedly:</HI> and may not the &s;ame be &s;aid of a Kingdom? perhaps that man cannot live content|edly without being King; &s;urely then it is not probable to think that men will &s;o put off their <HI>Jura naturalia;</HI> neither indeed can they do it by his Polity.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="7" TYPE="section">
<PB N="7" REF="9">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>VII.</HI> The manner of the Re&s;ignation makes it impo&s;&s;ible.</HEAD>
<P>BUT then con&s;ider the Re&s;ignation it &s;elf; it is far more unrea&s;onable to think that rea&s;onable men &s;hould do it. Con&s;ider the particulars; To own all <HI>Leviathans</HI> actions as if every particular of the People were Author of it, <HI>To &s;ubmit their Judgments to his Judgment, their Wills to his Will.</HI> I thought it had been obedience enough for Subjects to &s;ubmit their per&s;ons to his Government, but to own all his actions which may be wicked was not to be exacted from any Subject; yea, if we will allow his Doctrine, delivered before, it is wor&s;e; for then we mu&s;t be Authors of his acti|ons; he but our per&s;on imployed in them (as he &s;peaks pag. (82) and therefore not his own. I but &s;aith he, <HI>in order to their peace.</HI> I cannot a&s;&s;ent to that, for many Supreams have done horrid things in order to the publique Peace, as Mur|ders, Sacriledges, oppre&s;&s;ions, to which although my per|&s;on may &s;ubmit, yet neither &s;hall my Judgment approve, nor my will con&s;ent; for although when he doth wickedly, I will not do &s;o too, and Rebel; yet neither will I by con&s;ent to them ju&s;tifie his Acts by con&s;piring in his &s;in: his Vertues &s;hall not &s;ave me, and, I am confident, his vices can|not damn me, which yet they would, if I a&s;&s;ented to them. I go on with him; <HI>This is</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>more than con|&s;ent or Concord, it is a real &V;nion of them all in one and the &s;ame per&s;on, made by Covenant of every man with every man in &s;uch manner, as if every man &s;hould &s;ay to every man, I authorize and give up my Right of Governing my &s;elf to this man, or a&s;&s;embly of men on that Condition, that thou give up thy Right to him, and Authori&s;e all his Actions in like manner:</HI>) If this be the only way to live in Peace, I chu&s;e War, which is the hatefulle&s;t thing in the World, but Sin. But this la&s;t Phra&s;e of Authorizing all his Actions whom I cannot rule nor controul, nay per|haps not come at to Petition, is &s;uch a for&s;aking of Humanity,
<PB N="8" REF="10">
and contempt of the glorious means of Salvation, as no man, with a face of Piety, dare affirm to be fit, I &s;hall handle the&s;e things more fully &s;hortly.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. III.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>I.</HI> This cannot be the only way to e&s;tabli&s;h a Govern|ment.</HEAD>
<P><HI>THIS done</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>the multitude &s;o united in one Per|&s;on is called a Common-wealth, in Latine Civitas.</HI> (Thus he.)</P>
<P>But if this only make a Common-wealth, or <HI>Civitas,</HI> there was never any in the World, nor ever will be, as &s;hall be &s;hew|ed more largely hereafter. More true is that which follows, <HI>This is the Generation of that great Leviathan:</HI> I mean his Book; for to vent this extremly wicked folly he wrote this Book; and except in this Book, a Common-wealth was ne|ver called <HI>Leviathan:</HI> a name from which never man expect|ed good, he proceeds; <HI>(or rather to &s;peak more Reverently) of that mortal God to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and &s;afety.</HI> I an&s;wer we owe him nothing; there was never &s;uch a Power Erected: I &s;hall omit what follows in that Chapter, and come to his <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> 8. <HI>Chapter</HI> which is page 88.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. IV.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>I.</HI> His definition of a Common-wealth di&s;proved, fir&s;t becau&s;e not practicable.</HEAD>
<P>HE begins with a definition of a Common-wealth by In&s;titution thus, <HI>A Common-wealth is then &s;aid to be in|&s;tituted, when a multitude of men do agree, and Covenant, eve|ry
<PB N="9" REF="10">
one, with every one, that to what&s;oever man or a&s;&s;embly of men, &s;hall be given by the greater part the Right to pre&s;ent the Per&s;on of them all</HI> (That is to &s;ay, to be their Repre&s;entative;) <HI>every one, as well he that voted for it, as he that voted again&s;t it, &s;hall Authorize all the Actions and Judgments, of that man, or a&s;&s;em|bly of men in the &s;ame manner, as if they were his own, to the end, to live peaceably among&s;t them&s;elves, and be protected again&s;t other men.</HI></P>
<P>This is but a Dream of his, there was never &s;uch a thing, nor is it practicable; this Book was writ in <HI>Engli&s;h,</HI> and there|fore proper for <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> men: &s;uppo&s;e then we were in the fir&s;t State, without a Soveraignty, we are none of the greate&s;t Common-wealths in the World, yet is it po&s;&s;ible that here in this Kingdom there &s;hould convene &s;uch Multitudes of men, &s;uch an Univer&s;ality as by him is required to make this Cove|nant, which he labours to prove in his &s;econd part <HI>De Corpore Politi.</HI> Cap. 3. <HI>Numb.</HI> 2. becau&s;e &s;aith he, there, <HI>Nor can an action be Attributed to the Multitude, unle&s;s every mans hand, and eve|ry mans will (not &s;o much as one excepted) have concurred thereto.</HI> It &s;eems he would have it in writing, that he requires every mans hand to be put to it. And &s;o likewi&s;e <HI>Num.</HI> 3. <HI>The fir&s;t thing therefore they are to do is expre&s;ly every man to con&s;ent to do &s;omething;</HI> by which &s;omething he under&s;tands this pro|ject of <HI>Leviathan,</HI> &s;o that it is evident he means every parti|cular, <HI>&s;ingula generum,</HI> which is an impo&s;ible fiction; the very meeting is impo&s;&s;ible. And then that all the&s;e who meet with &s;o many &s;elf-ends; and particular Intere&s;ts, and &s;o many weak capacities &s;hould con&s;ent in any thing is mo&s;t in|credible. I will give him all the Scope I can, he may &s;ay that they may meet, as they do to elect Knights for the Parliament, they may meet in Shires and choo&s;e Repre&s;entatives which may act for them; I could ask who mu&s;t divide tho&s;e Shires? that mu&s;t be done by a Supreme. Then con&s;ider, if that &s;hould be granted, they mu&s;t choo&s;e little <HI>Leviathans</HI> fir&s;t, which mu&s;t repre&s;ent tho&s;e their particular Shires, before the great one is cho&s;en: And then, con&s;ider this hath a great unfitne&s;s, if not an impo&s;&s;ibility with it, which was fore-&s;een by our State, and therefore only &s;uch men who had forty &s;hillings free-hold
<PB N="10" REF="11">
were adjudged fit to have voices in the&s;e Elections: which heretofore was a very con&s;iderable E&s;tate; and yet I believe &s;carce ever half of tho&s;e met at any Election. But then let us look about and we &s;hall find much the greater company without the li&s;ts of that condition, be&s;ides Women and Chil|dren, which have as great Intere&s;ts in the Common-wealth as others. So that this fancy of his, was not only not practi&s;ed, but not practicable in &s;uch a Kingdom as this of ours; When men write Romances they &s;hould write things po&s;&s;ible to be, and then they are u&s;eful to the Reader, for they are of &s;uch things which a mans life may meet with, at &s;ome time or other; but impo&s;&s;ible fictions are &s;uch as can be profitable to no man, and therefore it was a vain thing for him to deliver &s;uch a con|ceipt, and not vain only but ill, to deliver it in &s;uch a peremp|tory Rule as to make it &s;eem the only way of In&s;tituting a Soveraign.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>II. Mr. Hobbs</HI> his definition incon&s;i&s;tent with Rea&s;on</HEAD>
<P>BUT let us proceed, and we &s;hall find it appear by every word more incon&s;i&s;tent with rea&s;on. Can a man think that men, &s;uch numbers, would ever con&s;ent &s;o fully to for&s;ake them&s;elves and their own rea&s;on and wills, as to &s;ubmit them|&s;elves either to man or men in &s;uch an ample manner as to e&s;teem his Princes Judgment or his Will, for his own. In that great height of Infallibillity to which the <HI>Pope</HI> in many mens Judgments is attained, they put the <HI>Pope</HI> in <HI>Cathedr&acirc;</HI> when they &s;ay he is Infallible, and afterwards di&s;pute what that <HI>Cathedra</HI> is: But out of this <HI>Cathedra</HI> he may err in his Judg|ment, and they mu&s;t not approve of that, he may &s;in with his will and they mu&s;t not con&s;ent to that. But Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> confines his <HI>Leviathan</HI> to no Chair, but ab&s;olutly pronounceth him free from Error both in Judgment and Will. Nay that is not all, but we mu&s;t allow, yea authorize his Errors in both; and this is the Foundation upon which all his Politiques are built;
<PB N="11" REF="11">
by which let a man endeavour all vertue and Religion in his own per&s;on, yet he may perpetrate all the horrid villanies in the World in anothers per&s;on, who&s;e actions he is bound to Authorize, and then, by them, and for them peri&s;h everla&s;t|ingly, which I am per&s;waded not only no Chri&s;tian, but no <HI>Turk, Mahometan, Indian,</HI> the mo&s;t barbarous per&s;ons in <HI>America,</HI> or any unknown Country can be induced to do, and yet this by him is made the ground-work of all Politique Government.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>III.</HI> Right not derived by this &s;uppo&s;ed In&s;titution from the Con&s;ent of the People.</HEAD>
<P>HE proceeds (from this <HI>In&s;titution of a Common-wealth are derived all the rights and faculties of him or them on whom Soveraign Power is conferred by the con&s;ent of the People A&s;&s;embled</HI>).</P>
<P>To this I have an&s;wered that there was never any &s;uch thing, and therefore no right, or faculty can be derived from hence, nor indeed ever will be: <HI>Ex nihilo nihil fit,</HI> that which hath no being, cannot cau&s;e any thing. Nay, I may &s;ay further, that there was never any Power conferred by the People (of which I expect an opportunity to &s;peak more fully hereafter) for although we may find Common-wealths altered and &s;et up by the Rebellious force, and violence of great numbers of the people, yet tho&s;e who got the Soveraignty at &s;uch times, had it not by any &s;uch In&s;titution, as is here de&s;crib|ed by the peoples authori&s;ing that Per&s;on to the&s;e Actions he is exalted to; but from the Peoples &s;ub&s;erviency obtained by his wit or fraud to his great Ambition. Here I might put an end to his Politiques with a little enlargement upon this Subject, for the Foundation being de&s;troyed the building mu&s;t fall. But I will touch upon his Inferences, which will make this Foundation appear more weak.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="12" REF="12">
<HEAD>CHAP. V.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>I. Mr. Hobbs</HI> his fir&s;t Inferrence affirmed, the Sove|raign ab&s;urdly termed the per&s;on of the People..</HEAD>
<P>HE fir&s;t infers that <HI>(becau&s;e they Covenant, it is to be under|&s;tood that they are not bound by a former Covenant to any thing repugnant thereunto)</HI> This mu&s;t be mo&s;t true, not of this Covenant only, but all other Covenants. No man can alie|nate any E&s;tate twice without his leave to whom he aliena|ted it fir&s;t; and &s;o where one has di&s;po&s;ed his allegiance to one, he cannot take it away and di&s;po&s;e it to another afterward. I like the conclu&s;ion that follows al&s;o thus. (<HI>And con&s;equent|ly they that have already in&s;tituted a Common-wealth being there|by bound by Covenant to own the Actions and Judgments of one, cannot lawfully make a new Covenant among&s;t them&s;elves, to be obedient to any other, in any thing what&s;oever, without his per|mi&s;&s;ion. And therefore they who are Subject to a Monarchy, cannot without his leave ca&s;t off Monarchy, and return to the con|fu&s;ion of a di&s;united multitude; nor transfer their Per&s;on from him, that beareth it, to another man, or A&s;&s;embly of men.</HI> This hath truth with it, out of the grounds formerly &s;poke of. But this &s;en&s;ele&s;s name of calling their Soveraign, <HI>their per&s;on,</HI> or to found the Allegience to their Soveraign upon their Cove|nant, which never was nor could be, is to make it extreamly weak; and his rea&s;on is mo&s;t illogical and without force, (for &s;aith he) <HI>They are bound every man to every man, to own, and be reputed Author of all, that he that already is their Soveraign, &s;hall do, and judge fit to be done: &s;o that one man di&s;&s;enting, all the re&s;t &s;hould break their Covenant made to that one man which is inju&s;tice</HI>) I do not under&s;tand the con&s;equence of this Argu|ment, That if one man di&s;&s;ent all the re&s;t &s;hould break the Covenant made to that man, for his di&s;&s;enting may break his Covenant, but why it &s;hould make them break their Cove|nant is not vi&s;&s;ible to me.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<PB N="13" REF="12">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>II.</HI> His expre&s;&s;ion, of giving the Sovereignty to him that bears their per&s;on, further cen&s;ured.</HEAD>
<P>HIS following di&s;cour&s;e is not more rea&s;onable than this <HI>(And they have al&s;o every man given the Soveraignty to him that heareth their per&s;on; And therefore if they de&s;po&s;e him, they take from him that which is his own, and &s;o again it is Inju&s;tice.)</HI> That phra&s;e, <HI>(Given him the Soveraignty who bears their per&s;on)</HI> is not rational, for according to his own Doctrine, it is the &s;ame thing to be Soveraign, and <HI>bear their per&s;on;</HI> if he had &s;poke logically according to his doctrine, his phra&s;e &s;hould be <HI>who is their per&s;on,</HI> for &s;o he makes the Soveraign to be the per&s;on of the Common-wealth, not to bear it, which is ano|ther thing. But then mark you what a &s;light thing he makes Rebellion only a little Inju&s;tice, for &s;o that word <HI>Inju&s;tice</HI> may extend it &s;elf, to any the lea&s;t Inju&s;tice, <HI>He takes that from him that was his;</HI> a poor piece of bu&s;ine&s;s every little Theft doth &s;o.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>III.</HI> The irrationality of <HI>Mr. Hobbs</HI> his arguing further di&s;covered. Covenants may be made immediate|ly with God.</HEAD>
<P>HE adds another rea&s;on very weakly; <HI>Be&s;ides</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>If he that attempteth to depo&s;e his Soveraign be killed or puni&s;hed by him for &s;uch attempts, he is author of his own pu|ni&s;hment, as being by the In&s;titution, Author of all his Soveraign &s;hall do. And becau&s;e it is Inju&s;tice for a man to do any thing for which he may be puni&s;hed by his own Authority, he is al&s;o upon that title unju&s;t</HI>). Certainly (Reader) you may wonder at the &s;trange unrea&s;onablene&s;s of this Arguing. This proves
<PB N="14" REF="13">
by his &s;uppo&s;ed In&s;titution no faultine&s;s in this Trea&s;on; for &s;uppo&s;e a Soveraign &s;hall puni&s;h a Subject for &s;peaking truth, he doth it according to his in&s;titution by the Authority given by that Subject, and that Subject is Author (according to his Doctrine) of killing him&s;elf for Truth, as well as for Trea&s;on, becau&s;e he is Author of all his Actions, and there is as much inju&s;tice in the one as in the other; e&s;pecially con&s;idering ano|ther Inference, which he makes, and will be di&s;cour&s;ed on hereafter; <HI>That a Supream can do no Inju&s;tice.</HI> But he adds not another argument, but an an&s;wer to another Objection. I will &s;peak to that, his words are <HI>(And whereas &s;ome men have pretended for their di&s;obedience to their Soveraign, a new Covenant, not made with men, but God; this is al&s;o unju&s;t: for there is no Covenant with God, but by mediation of &s;ome body that repre&s;enteth God's Per&s;on, which none d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">th, but God's Lieute|nant, who hath the Soveraignty under God. But this pretence of Covenant with God, is &s;o evident a lye, even in the pretenders own Con&s;ciences, that it is not only an act of an unju&s;t, but al&s;o of a vile, and unmanly di&s;po&s;ition)</HI> Thus He. This I yield unto &s;o far, that it is &s;inful and wicked to engage in any Covenant with God again&s;t his Soveraign, but his means of obtaining it, I deny. He &s;carce ever &s;peaks or names God, but with an Er|ror: in particular here; what a fal&s;e affirmation is this to &s;ay, <HI>That there is no Covenant with God, but by mediation of &s;ome body who repre&s;enteth Gods per&s;on, which none doth but Gods Lievtenant who hath the Soveraignty under God.</HI> Certainly a man may make Covenant with God, betwixt God and his own Soul, in private, in his Chamber; before men, in Com|pany; divers are recorded in Scripture, and pious men often u&s;e it, and practice it accordingly, and when the&s;e Covenants are holy and devout God ble&s;&s;eth them, and tho&s;e per&s;ons are obliged to tho&s;e duties. But it is true in the ca&s;e in which he in&s;tanceth all &s;uch Covenants are wicked in the making, and mo&s;t abominable in the performance; for it is a Covenant with God in him&s;elf, to de&s;troy him in his deputy; a Covenant with God in Heaven, to oppo&s;e him on Earth; the iniquity lyeth not in this, That the Soveraign is the peoples Per&s;on: for then the height of the &s;in lyes in this, that the people are
<PB N="15" REF="13">
affronted; but in this other way, God; in his way it is but an injury to &s;uch as them&s;elves; but in this it is to our politique Fa|ther, to whom under God we owe all our obedience; and is the fir&s;t command of the Second Table with promi&s;e in this World. Of this Nature are tho&s;e contracts betwixt man and woman, concerning Marriage, tho&s;e promi&s;ing Oathes which men make one with another, which oblige the contractors in a &s;trong tye; for breach of which they &s;hall an&s;wer at the la&s;t day. And now, I go on with him; this which follows, and much of that which immediately preceded is <HI>pag.</HI> (89).</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>IV. Mr. Hobbs</HI> his Second Inference examined, and cen|&s;ured. The Soveraign obliged to protect the Peo|ple from Injuries, and Inva&s;ions. His rea&s;ons, to at|te&s;t this Inferrence, refuted.</HEAD>
<P>HIS Second Inference is <HI>becau&s;e the right of bearing the per&s;on of them all, is given to him they make their Sove|raign, by Covenant, only of one to another, and not of him to any of them; There can happen no breach of Covenant on the part of the S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">veraign, and con&s;equently none of his Subjects, by any pre|tence of forfeiture is freed from his Subjection.</HI> His conclu&s;ion is again true in the material part, but his inference is faulty; for his conclu&s;ion I am per&s;waded, that none of his Subjects can be freed from their Allegiance to him by any act of his, unle&s;s dereliction of his Government, and that may abide a Di&s;pute too. But to rai&s;e this conclu&s;ion out of that Ground, becau&s;e he made no Covenant with them is exceeding weak. <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> There is the &s;ame rea&s;on, by his Doctrine, betwixt him and the Subject; for the Subjects (in the very Paragraph which was but now tran&s;cribed,) make their Covenant one to ano|ther, and not to the Soveraign, &s;o that there mu&s;t be the &s;ame rea&s;on out of the Nature of the Covenant, that the Subject &s;hould not forfeit his Right to him, as he to the Subject, for the Covenant being only made one to another, the breach of
<PB N="14" REF="14">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="15" REF="14">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="16" REF="15">
that Covenant is only one with another: but I am bold to affirm it an impo&s;&s;ible ca&s;e, as he imagines it, that there mu&s;t be mutual approbations betwixt both, and all. For, certainly it cannot be imagined, that &s;uch a generality of men, as mu&s;t convene to do &s;uch an Act, &s;hould &s;ubmit to &s;uch a total dere|liction of them&s;elves, without &s;ome promi&s;e, or Covenant on his part; that he will protect them from injuries at home, and Inva&s;ions from abroad; but he being exalted above all other Earthly Powers is &s;ubject only to the King of Kings, which is God, who will Judge him: but the Subjects are examinable, re&s;pon&s;ible, and condemnable by him. But he labours to in|fringe this rea&s;on in his following di&s;cour&s;e thus, <HI>That he who is made Soveraign makes no Covenant with his Subjects before hand, is manife&s;t; becau&s;e either he mu&s;t make it with the whole Multitude as one party to the Covenant, or he mu&s;t make a &s;everal Covenant with every man; with the whole as one party, it is im|po&s;&s;ible; becau&s;e as yet they are not one per&s;on</HI>). I will not put down his rea&s;on again&s;t his &s;econd branch, becau&s;e I &s;hall not need to di&s;pute again&s;t that, having &s;hewed the po&s;&s;ibility of the fir&s;t. But I will begin with his divi&s;ion, and deny that it is nece&s;&s;ary that the Covenant &s;hould be made with the whole as one party, or with every particular &s;everally; for there is a Medium participationis, which is more rea&s;onable than either; for without doubt the Fathers of Families were Natural Governours from the beginning of the World, and they had by the Law of Nature Ab&s;olute Government over their Families, the&s;e when they find them&s;elves not able in lit|tle di&s;tinct bodies to defend them&s;elves, may treat among&s;t them&s;elves how by an Union they may make them&s;elves &s;trong, again&s;t forreign and dome&s;tique dangers, and to that end erect a Supream over them&s;elves; and this certainly hath a greater &s;hew of Rea&s;on, then any of his thoughts, that every per&s;on who hath no Judgment nor Authority &s;hould be introduced to make a Covenant for &s;o high concernments. Therefore that divi&s;ion was not good which did not comprehend the <HI>totum di|vi&s;um.</HI> Then for his Argument <HI>that he could not Covenant with the whole as one per&s;on, becau&s;e as yet they were not a per|&s;on.</HI> I an&s;wer, fir&s;t that they neither are, nor in truth will
<PB N="17" REF="15">
ever be <HI>one per&s;on,</HI> but becau&s;e by his unimaginable conceipt they are after their Covenant repre&s;ented &s;o by him, I will an&s;wer to him&s;elf; That fir&s;t this Company meet together, then they con&s;ult upon that great work of choo&s;ing a Soveraign, the bu&s;ine&s;s is concluded upon by both parties, Soveraign and People, fir&s;t they engage for their Patrs; then he may Covenant for his, and this is no otherwi&s;e then is apparent in all contracts, one mu&s;t &s;peak fir&s;t, and after another, &s;o in marriage fir&s;t one &s;peaks and then the other; and in all bar|gains, which yet are conditional until the &s;econd word con|firms the contract. Nor is it po&s;&s;ible, as I have &s;aid, to think that men would &s;o deliver them&s;elves to anothers will, from whom they have no promi&s;e or the lea&s;t verbal engagement to govern them ju&s;tly and prudently. What he &s;peaks again&s;t his Covenant with the &s;everal per&s;ons, I let go, thinking it impo&s;&s;ible</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. VI.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>I.</HI> The difference between the Soveraign's making a Co|venant, and taking his Authority upon a Covenant; A Soveraign may Covenant to Govern ju&s;tly, and yet not forfeit his Soveraignty, if he breaks that Co|venant</HEAD>
<P>AND I pa&s;s to another Argument by which he would prove, <HI>That a Soveraign can make no Covenant,</HI> which begins towards the bottom of his 89. <HI>pag.</HI> thus <HI>(be&s;ides if any one or more of them pretend a breach of the Covenant made by the Soveraign at his In&s;titution, and others or one other of his Sub|jects or him&s;elf alone pretend there was no &s;uch breach, there is in this ca&s;e no Judge to decide the Controver&s;ie.)</HI> Fir&s;t, I blame him here for putting no difference betwixt Covenanting in taking his Authority, and taking it upon Covenant. The fir&s;t may be, and, without que&s;tion, mu&s;t be, in any In&s;titution of Go|vernment: the &s;econd cannot be di&s;creetly done by any; for it would leave a mighty gap to let in Trea&s;ons. Ob&s;erve it
<PB N="18" REF="16">
in all contracts, <HI>Titius</HI> lets Land to <HI>Sempronius,</HI> he hath di|ver&s;e Covenants for to ob&s;erve, which he may implead <HI>Sem|pronius</HI> for, and yet never a one to forfeit his E&s;tate; come more clo&s;ly. The Subject in this In&s;titution of his Contracts is to perform all obedience, yet although he offend in many things, there be few &s;uch as exempt him from the ju&s;t protecti|on of the King, from further injuries then that Legally ex|acts, how much more mu&s;t it needs be that the King &s;hould lo&s;e the total obedience of the Subject, though he &s;hould break his Covenant, and unle&s;s &s;uch a Clau&s;e were put into his Covenant, there was no pretence of rea&s;on for it; and it were as much again&s;t Rea&s;on, to put &s;uch a Clau&s;e into his Cove|nant. I have delivered my opinion of this before. The King of Heaven will Judge him &s;everely for his breach of Covenant, to whom he mu&s;t be left. That which follows is true, <HI>If there &s;hould be &s;uch a Covenant, and no Judge to determine, it would re|turn to the Sword again, and every man recovereth the right of Pro|tecting him&s;elf by his own &s;hrength contrary to the de&s;ign of the In&s;titution]</HI> This is true, but I do not approve what follows, <HI>It is therefore in vain to grant Soveraignty by precedent Covenant]</HI> to grant a Covenant in the In&s;titution of Soveraignty is mo&s;t right, to wit, that he will Govern his People Legally and Ju&s;t|ly or the like, without doing of which no per&s;on is fit to be Soveraign; but to Covenant, to lo&s;e his Soveraignty if he do otherwi&s;e, which he &s;eems to under&s;tand generally by this word <HI>Covenant,</HI> is ab&s;olutely naught and unfit, becau&s;e it mu&s;t needs produce Confu&s;ions and Di&s;tractions in the Government, for the People upon any hard&s;hip they &s;uffer, though never &s;o ju&s;t, will repine again&s;t their Superiours, and blame them, and upon any &s;urmi&s;e of faultine&s;s in them, would be ready upon &s;uch pretence to de&s;ire, and endeavour a Change of Government be it Monarchical or Ari&s;tocratical.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<PB N="19" REF="16">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>II.</HI> The Impiety of Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his a&s;&s;ertion, that Cove|nants have no force but from the Vindicative Power of the Sword, Di&s;covered.</HEAD>
<P>THen what follows is wicked, in my Judgment <HI>[The opinion that any Monarch receiveth his Power by Covenant, that is, upon Condition, proceedeth from want of under&s;tanding this ea&s;ie truth, That Covenants being but words and breath have no force to oblige, contain or protect any man, but what it hath from the Publick Sword, that is from the united hands of that man or a&s;&s;embly of men that hath the Soveraignty and who&s;e actions are avowed by them all, and performed by the &s;trength of them all, in him united,]</HI> This &s;peech hath &s;ome &s;emblance of truth with it, if he had confuted the World into Athei&s;me, who think there is no God, noe reward or puni&s;hment hereafter; and per|haps it might find &s;ome entertainment among&s;t men given over to ba&s;e &s;en&s;uality, fordid worldly people, who have no &s;en&s;e of honour or vertue, becau&s;e &s;uch men value no contract, which con&s;i&s;ts not with their unhappy Condition, but with men which believe there is a God, who governs heaven and earth, and will judge all one day (which &s;ure the generality of men do) with men that have felt any &s;ting of Con&s;cience, and have felt the happine&s;s of <HI>nil con&s;cire tibi,</HI> this breath of theirs hath &s;uch power with God, that in things of &s;uch high na|ture as this is, what they covenant on earth is confirmed in heaven, and is &s;o e&s;teemed by them; and becau&s;e it is &s;o e|&s;teemed, millions of men do and have thought it better for them to for&s;ake all worldly felicity, then to violate &s;uch Co|venants, and by pre&s;erving them, Kings and their Kingdoms have lived in peace and pro&s;perity, but by the breach of them came to ruine and de&s;truction: &s;o that this which he calls but breath, at the &s;ame in&s;tant that it comes out of the mouth of man, it is engraved in their hearts, and recorded in Gods Eternal Regi&s;try in heaven.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="20" REF="17">
<HEAD>CHAP. VI.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>III.</HI> The Sword hath no power but from the Covenant (ac|cording to Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his Doctrine) it may com|pel, but is not properly the obliging cau&s;e of obedi|ence.</HEAD>
<P>VVHat is added, That <HI>the breath of the Covenant is an ill foundation of Monarchy, and hath no power of obliging but from the publick Sword.]</HI> I did wonder why he did u&s;e &s;uch various and &s;uch emphatical expre&s;&s;ions again&s;t the Authority, which is derived from a Covenant; for this u|nited force of the publick Sword, according to his Doctrine, mu&s;t be derived from that Covenant, which by him is made the &s;ole foundation of Government: And if a Covenant (which by him is but breath) hath no obliging power, nei|ther can the publick Sword which is derived from that Cove|nant have any; if he in&s;tead of other Verbs which he u&s;ed there, had interpreted this one of <HI>Compel,</HI> that this Cove|nant without the publick Sword had no power to compel any man to obedience, it might have received &s;ome credit; be|cau&s;e when we lo&s;e the&s;e vertues of fidelity and obedience, it is only the publick Sword which by force can make them &s;ubmit; but yet that which the Sword can ju&s;tly compel any unto, mu&s;t be by the obliging vertue of the Covenant. But whereas he placeth the obliging power in the Sword, he gives all right of intere&s;t to it, then which nothing can be more de&s;tructive to Monarchy: Let Kings know that their Swords may ru&s;t, or loo&s;e their edge, and then he who hath the keene&s;t Sword may plead the be&s;t right. This encouraged the late Rebels, who having got a longer Sword then the King, upon that Title, pre&s;erved their U&s;urpation to the utmo&s;t they could. And the wickedne&s;s is very apparent, for by his Doctrine who&s;oever can force his Superiority, may ju&s;tifie his exerci&s;e in it, which is the greate&s;t encouragement Rebellion can de&s;ire: But perhaps that phra&s;e <HI>(The Publick Sword)</HI>
<PB N="21" REF="17">
may bear him out in it, for by this he under&s;tands the Nati|onal Power in that Man, or A&s;&s;embly of men, which hath the Soveraignty, all who&s;e actions are acknowledged by them all. What a foolery is this? Was there ever any Rebellion in which the Rebels did not deny to approve the actions of the Supreme they rebel again&s;t? And &s;uppo&s;e that impo&s;&s;ible Fi|ction of the univer&s;al meeting and a&s;&s;ent to that Covenant, yet when the &s;ame per&s;ons renounce, who made that Cove|nant, how can the Sword authorize his actions, which pre|tend his power from the breath of this Covenant? which yet being but <HI>a Breath</HI> (as Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> terms it) is long &s;ince gone and peri&s;hed, and a new Breach &s;tarted up in its place: The right of the Sword is given by the breath of the Covenant, with promi&s;e to own his actions; that Breath is gone; they breath contrarily and revoke it, if any man can get the Sword, he will make them blow &s;uch an other Breath upon his Sword, as they did upon the fir&s;t Supreme. The truth is, Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> makes the power of Government to con&s;i&s;t imme|diately in the Sword; but that founded upon a Breath, which is blown away with any little cro&s;s wind; and certainly this makes a mo&s;t unhappy in&s;titution and &s;ettlement of any right. That which follows in the top of the ninetieth page, I let pa&s;s, as not material to any thing preceding or following after, and I pa&s;s to his third Inference, which begins thus.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. VII.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>I.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his third Inference examined; No man to be de&s;troyed for his di&s;&s;ent to the unju&s;t actions of others. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his Political <HI>Inqui&s;ition</HI> more &s;evere then that for <HI>Religion.</HI></HEAD>
<P>THirdly, becau&s;e <HI>the major part hath by con&s;enting voices declared a Soveraign, he that di&s;&s;ented mu&s;t now con&s;ent with the re&s;t, that is, be contented to own all the actions he &s;hall do, or el&s;e ju&s;tly be de&s;troyed by the re&s;t.</HI> This is a very &s;ad con|dition, either he mu&s;t own all the actions his Soveraign doth,
<PB N="22" REF="18">
or ju&s;tly be de&s;troyed; I believe never Murder was &s;o ju&s;tified upon &s;uch terms before; own all his actions? No Chri&s;tian, no hone&s;t man will do it; his Soveraign may be Antichri&s;ti|an, a <HI>Hobbi&s;t,</HI> who&s;e actions no Chri&s;tian man can avouch; he may act fooli&s;hly, which no wi&s;e man can authorize; he may act wickedly, which no hone&s;t man can con&s;ent unto, <HI>(or el&s;e ju&s;tly be de&s;troyed by his fellow Subjects)</HI> which he un|der&s;tands by that word <HI>(the re&s;t)</HI> de&s;truction is the greate&s;t mi&s;chief can come to a man, and is never inflicted but for &s;ome mighty crime, which I do not find this man charged with, but only a di&s;&s;enting or prote&s;ting again&s;t the general Vote; a thing often done in Parliaments, and yet no &s;uch Sentence pa&s;&s;eth upon the Di&s;&s;enter, nor were it ju&s;t to do it; men are not bound to be all of one mind: Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> would make his Inqui&s;ition for Politiques more &s;evere then any In|qui&s;ition for Religion: But he hath rea&s;on for what he writes (for, &s;aith he) <HI>If he voluntarily entred into the Congregation of them that were a&s;&s;embled, he &s;ufficiently thereby declared his will (and therefore tacitly covenanted to &s;tand to what the major part &s;hould ordain.)</HI> I thought by what went before he mu&s;t have declared his a&s;&s;ent; but now it &s;eems it is enough if he be among&s;t them; but what if he be not among&s;t them, (as I have &s;hewed it is impo&s;&s;ible all &s;hould) what condition is that man in? He proceeds with his proofs, <HI>And therefore if he refu&s;e to &s;tand thereto, or make prote&s;tation again&s;t any their Decrees, he does contrary to his Covenant, and therefore unju&s;tly.</HI>) Suppo&s;e all this, Shall a man be de&s;troyed for every breach of Covenant, or every unju&s;tice? Certainly Mr. <HI>Hobbs,</HI> if he were a Law-maker would out-do <HI>Draco,</HI> or the bloudie&s;t that ever acted in that kind: This is a fooli&s;h con&s;equence, that becau&s;e he did unju&s;tly he &s;hould ju&s;tly be de&s;troyed. He goes on <HI>(And whether he be of the Congregation or not, and whether his con|&s;ent be asked or not, he mu&s;t either &s;ubmit to their Decrees, or he left to the condition of war he was in before, wherein he might without inju&s;tice be de&s;troyed by any man what&s;oever.)</HI> The mad|ne&s;s of this condition of war before this Covenant I have &s;poke to heretofore, but that he may ju&s;tly be de&s;troyed by any with whom he will not joyn in the Covenant is wicked:
<PB N="23" REF="18">
We have in <HI>England,</HI> I believe, abundance of &s;trangers of For|reign Nations, which neither have nor will enter into &s;uch a Covenant, may they be ju&s;tly killed? Nay, among&s;t tho&s;e millions which are the Kings Subjects; there was never man entred this or the like Covenant; may we ju&s;tly kill one ano|ther? Nay, I think, few would make &s;uch a Covenant; may all the&s;e be knocked on the head thus? This hath &s;uch a force of inju&s;tice, that men with humanity about them cannot con|&s;ent unto. I leave this therefore and come to his 4th Inference.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. VIII.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>I.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his fourth Inference cen&s;ured and refuted from his own conclu&s;ions. He that impowers ano|ther to do ju&s;tly, though he make him Pleni-poten|tiary, is not guilty of his unju&s;t actions; his fir&s;t rea&s;on refuted.</HEAD>
<P><HI>FOurthly (Becau&s;e every Subject is by this In&s;titution Author of all the actions and judgments of the Soveraign in&s;titu|ted: it follows that what&s;oever he doth, it can be no injury to any of his Subjects, nor ought he by any of them be accu&s;ed of inju&s;tice.) Accu&s;ed,</HI> What doth he mean by that? to be con|victed, arraigned, condemned? This certainly he cannot, becau&s;e the power of Judgment &s;uppo&s;eth Superiority, which cannot be over the Soveraign in his own Kingdom. But let us ob&s;erve the con&s;equence of this Argument out of the&s;e im|po&s;&s;ible premi&s;es, that becau&s;e by his fancy of the In&s;titution every &s;ubject is Author of all his actions, he can do no inju|ry to any of them; certainly this doth not follow by his own Doctrine; for put the ca&s;e, that the Supreme doth authorize a Judge to hear and determine &s;uch cau&s;es, doth the Supreme only do inju&s;tice in it, when the Royal Authority gives power to the Judge, who acts unju&s;tly by that Authority, which was given him by the Supreme, or the Judge likewi&s;e who abu|&s;eth that Authority? I believe no man will affirm it; or if he
<PB N="24" REF="19">
do, he mu&s;t de&s;troy Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his conclu&s;ion, which makes the Kings acting by the Authority of the peoples grant, not to of|fend in him&s;elf; for (which is his rea&s;on before &s;poke to) if the Author do &s;olely perform, not the Actor or the per&s;on who immediately operates, which he delivered before, the King not the Judge doth unju&s;tly, when by his Authority the Judge decrees wickedly: But he proceeds with another rea&s;on, (for &s;aith he) <HI>He that doth any thing by Authority from another, doth therein no injury to him by who&s;e Authority he acts.</HI> This is not true generally, a Judge judgeth by the Authority of the Supreme, but if he Judge unju&s;tly (yea, judgeth a cau&s;e again&s;t the King perhaps unju&s;tly) he then doth the King an injury by his own Authority. Again, a Ge|neral with Plenipotency to kill, &s;lay, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> from the King, he turns now his Army to the Kings de&s;truction perhaps, doth not he then do the King an injury by his own power?</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>II.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his &s;econd rea&s;on invalid from the fal&s;ity of his &s;uppo&s;ition. Con&s;ent or di&s;&s;ent gives not the &s;tamp of <HI>Ju&s;tice</HI> or <HI>Inju&s;tice.</HI> He that gives power to do any act, may complain of ill Execution of that power.</HEAD>
<P>HE goes on. <HI>(But by this In&s;titution of a Commonwealth, every particular man is Author of what the Soveraign doth, and con&s;equently he that complaineth of injury from his Soveraign, complaineth of that whereof he him&s;elf is Author, and therefore ought not accu&s;e any man but him&s;elf, nor him&s;elf of injury, becau&s;e to do an injury to him&s;elf is impo&s;&s;ible.)</HI> It is fir&s;t ob&s;erveab<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">e here, (which runs throughout the whole Politiques) that it is built totally upon that foundation which neither is, nor is probable to be in any, but is impo&s;|&s;ible to be in a great Commonwealth, and therefore mu&s;t needs fall of it &s;elf: But &s;uppo&s;ing that impo&s;&s;ibility, let us con&s;ider his inference, every man is Author of what the So|veraign
<PB N="25" REF="19">
doth; the rea&s;on of that is before expre&s;&s;ed, be|cau&s;e he covenants to avow his actions: Now if he do avow them, it follows not, that therefore they &s;hall be ju&s;t; ma|ny a man owns that act which is unju&s;t, his owning of it makes it neither ju&s;t, nor unju&s;t: The&s;e are qualities inherent in the act, not adherent to others Opinions, or acceptance, or di&s;acceptance of them: I but (&s;aith he) <HI>Con&s;equently he that complaineth of injury from his Soveraign, complaineth of that whereof he him&s;elf is Author.]</HI> I return, that he may do that, and complain that he him&s;elf hath done ami&s;s, men do, and it is vertuou&s;ly done of him who doth it, but much rather of that which he acts by anothers hand; that which may be good in the In&s;titution, may be &s;poiled and hurt in the Execu|tion; and although they did in&s;titute him with &s;uch a power, yet his mannagement of it may be ill and unju&s;t, and that they may complain of.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>III.</HI> A man may do an injury to him&s;elf. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his di|&s;tinction between <HI>Iniquity,</HI> and <HI>Inju&s;tice,</HI> or Inju|ry, di&s;proved and cen&s;ured.</HEAD>
<P>UPon this ground will appear the faultine&s;s of what fol|lows, which is <HI>[And therefore ought not to accu&s;e, any man but him&s;elf, no nor him&s;elf of injury, becau&s;e to do injury to a mans &s;elf is impo&s;&s;ible.]</HI> To the fir&s;t piece I have &s;hewed, that though he were Author of <HI>Leviathans</HI> Power, yet his evil u&s;age of that power may be complained of. To the &s;e|cond, I think a man may injure him&s;elf, when a rich man through niggardline&s;s &s;hall deny his belly or his back tho&s;e ex|pences which were nece&s;&s;ary for the &s;upport of his health, he deals unju&s;tly with him&s;elf; when another fooli&s;hly de&s;perate &s;hall adventure his life upon idle and frivolous occa&s;ions, he deals unju&s;tly with him&s;elf, by hazarding &s;o Noble a Creature upon &s;o ba&s;e and unworthy a prize: The&s;e things, and multi|tudes of more, are unju&s;t dealing towards a mans &s;elf: But he
<PB N="26" REF="20">
hath a nice di&s;tinction at the bottom of this Paragraph; <HI>It is true, that they that have Soveraign Power may commit Iniquity, but not inju&s;tice or injury in the proper &s;ignification.]</HI> I would he had expounded the proper &s;ignification: At the fir&s;t I was a|mazed at this di&s;tinction, and did doubt there was &s;ome great and excellent Notion in it, but duly con&s;idering the words, I find they were airy, and do &s;ignifie no more diffe|rence, then if I had affirmed Mr. <HI>Hobbs,</HI> or the Writer of <HI>Leviathan,</HI> &s;aid this, or that, meerly nominal: For what is iniquity but unequal dealings? which in him who is bound to deal equally in di&s;tribution, or commutation, is <HI>inju&s;tice;</HI> and indeed inju&s;tice is nothing el&s;e; and <HI>injury,</HI> what is that? but not ju&s;t, or right; and I am &s;ure inju&s;tice is nothing el&s;e: But where &s;ome Law directs this or that, he doth otherwi&s;e: This is the proper and genuine-&s;en&s;e of the words, and unle&s;s he had &s;hewed us &s;ome more proper u&s;e of them, there is no rea&s;on why we &s;hould be forced from this common acceptati|on. Here now I might ju&s;tly break off from further di&s;cour&s;e of this bu&s;ine&s;s, having an&s;wered what he objects; but be|cau&s;e I would give &s;ome &s;atisfaction to the Reader in this Conclu&s;ion, I &s;hall a little in&s;i&s;t further, and &s;hew, that <HI>Le|viathans,</HI> or Supremes, may do unju&s;tly.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>IV.</HI> A Soveraign may do inju&s;tice by him&s;elf, and by his Mini&s;ters impowred, and not puni&s;hed by him.</HEAD>
<P>IT will be a &s;trong foundation for this di&s;cour&s;e to produce the Actions of the King of Kings, God him&s;elf, which I may do in the eighteenth of <HI>Gene&s;is;</HI> ye may ob&s;erve there, that God was plea&s;ed to reveal to <HI>Abraham</HI> his intended de|&s;truction of <HI>Sodom; Abraham</HI> after he had undertaken to plead for them, in the twenty fourth ver&s;e, puts the Que&s;tion, Peradventure there will be fifty righteous within the City, wilt thou al&s;o de&s;troy, and not &s;pare the City for the fifty righteous that are therein? Then in the twenty fifth ver&s;e, <HI>That be far
<PB N="27" REF="20">
from thee to do after this manner, to &s;lay the righteous with the wicked, and that the righteous &s;hall be as the wicked, that be far from thee; &s;hall not the Judge of all the Earth do right?</HI> In which you may ob&s;erve, that <HI>Abraham</HI> in a bold manner did dare to intimate, that God him&s;elf &s;hould have done a|mi&s;s, not right, but unju&s;tly, in puni&s;hing the righteous with the wicked; and &s;hall we be afraid to &s;ay that <HI>Leviathan</HI> can do unju&s;tly, when they &s;hall &s;lay the righteous as the wick|ed, which many of them have done? If we con&s;ider all the Species, and &s;everal &s;orts of inju&s;tice, we &s;hall find that they may, and have perpetrated them: They have broke the equi|ty of <HI>di&s;tributive Ju&s;tice,</HI> in preferring ba&s;e and unworthy people, and neglecting, yea puni&s;hing vertuous men; for <HI>Commutative Ju&s;tice,</HI> they have taken again&s;t Law and Equity other mens E&s;tates, they have neglected to pay their due debts, and what can be more unju&s;t then tho&s;e? they may therefore do unju&s;tly, nay what is more, by how much their power is greater, by &s;o much they are enabled to do more in|ju&s;tice; and I may add, other mens inju&s;tice may prove theirs, not only out of his vain principles, becau&s;e all Judges in his Dominion act by his Authority, even in tho&s;e Cau&s;es where they judge wickedly: But becau&s;e he is the Supreme, and &s;hould take care for his inferiour Officers that they do their duties, which if he knows they do not, and yet neglect to correct them for amendment, they will prove his wicked|ne&s;s. We know the Judgment upon old <HI>Eli,</HI> who was a ver|tuous and good man in him&s;elf, and the <HI>Leviathan</HI> of that Nation then, yet the Judgment of God was upon him for not u&s;ing &s;evere Ju&s;tice to his Sons, when he knew their faults; as you may ob&s;erve in 1 <HI>Sam.</HI> 2.27. So that it is ap|parent, that they may do inju&s;tice more then others; and in|deed if he cannot be unju&s;t, neither can he be ju&s;t, for contra|ries are belonging to the &s;ame &s;ubject; he who cannot be vi|cious, cannot be vertuous, and contrary acts in any man will by degrees eat out any vice or vertue, nor can men call it ver|tue in any who cannot do ill. But I think there is now enough &s;aid to this, I will pa&s;s to his fifth Inference, which is this.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="9" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="28" REF="21">
<HEAD>CHAP. IX.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>I.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his fifth Inference. The Propo&s;ition a&s;|&s;erted. The rea&s;on of this Inference weak, and invalid.</HEAD>
<P><HI>FIfthly, and con&s;equently to that which was &s;aid la&s;t, No man that hath Soveraign Power can ju&s;tly be put to death, or otherwi&s;e in any manner by his Subjects be puni&s;hed.]</HI> This conclu&s;ion is mo&s;t true, becau&s;e he is Supreme; and to put to death, or puni&s;h, are acts only of Supremacy: But his rea&s;on, and the only means which he u&s;eth to obtain this excellent conclu&s;ion, is &s;o fal&s;e, that unle&s;s it &s;hould be confuted, we may think &s;o excellent a truth had a weak &s;upport; his rea|&s;on follows <HI>[For &s;eeing every Subject is Author of the actions of his Soveraign, he puni&s;heth another for the actions committed by him&s;elf.]</HI> I have oft &s;poke of this; by this con&s;equence a King cannot puni&s;h a wicked Judge, a rebellious General, and the like, as I have often &s;aid before: And if the Supreme &s;hould urge to the&s;e in&s;tances, that this Judge, or this General, acted implicitly again&s;t the Authority granted by the Supreme, the &s;ame an&s;wer may be returned to him from his Subjects when he doth that which is contrary to their good or peace; &s;o that although this conclu&s;ion is mo&s;t nece&s;&s;ary to the e&s;tabli&s;h|ment of peace and happine&s;s in any Kingdom, yet when it is urged only by &s;uch fallacious Inferences, it makes the Rea|ders imagine, that the greate&s;t and mo&s;t weighty things in Po|lity are dubious.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<PB N="29" REF="21">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>II.</HI> He that hath right to the end, hath not right to all the means to attain that end, but only to &s;uch mediums as are ju&s;t and legal.</HEAD>
<P>HE infers pre&s;ently upon the bottom of this conclu&s;ion, <HI>And becau&s;e the end of this In&s;titution is the peace and de|fence of them all; and who&s;oever has right to the end, has right to the means, it belongeth of right to him. What&s;oever man, or A&s;&s;embly, that hath the Soveraignty to be Judge of the means of peace, and defence, to do what&s;oever he &s;hall think nece&s;&s;ary to be done.]</HI> I &s;pare putting down every word: For an&s;wer here|unto, know, That as I have oft ob&s;erved he exceedingly often abu&s;eth this general Rule; he who hath right to the end, hath right to &s;ome means, but not to all: A man hath right to his hou&s;e, in anothers po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, right to get it peaceably by Law, and not by force: A Supreme, or under him his Judge, hath right to puni&s;h Felons, but he hath no right to butcher any man without a legal Tryal, no though the fact were &s;een by him; &s;o that he hath right to all legal means to obtain this end, but not any other: Let us change the per&s;on, and this will appear mo&s;t manife&s;tly, every man hath right to the peace and good of the whole Kingdom, without which he cannot live contentedly, and happily, and he ought to u&s;e his endea|vour for the obtaining and pre&s;erving it, but it mu&s;t have this little addition of <HI>lawful means;</HI> if he have right to procure it by illegal means, it will open a gap, and give countenance to all Rebellion; for there was never any Rebellion which had not that &s;pecious pretence of the peace and good of the Publick, which otherwi&s;e could not be obtained; and there|fore although he who hath right to the end, hath right to &s;ome means of obtaining it, yet not to all: And this I am confident may fully &s;atisfie the following part of that Para|graph.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="10" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="30" REF="22">
<HEAD>CHAP. X.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>I.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his &s;ixth Inference examined and cen&s;u|red. The Soveraigns Commands, in point of Reli|gion, &s;ubmitted to the Commands of God.</HEAD>
<P>NOw I am come to the 91 page, where he proceeds: <HI>[Sixthly, it is annexed to the Soveraignty to be Judge of what Opinions and Doctrines are aver&s;e, and what are condu|cing to peace, and con&s;equently on what occa&s;ions, how far, and what men are to be tru&s;ted withall in &s;peaking to multitudes of people, and who &s;hall examine the Doctrines of all Books before they be publi&s;hed.]</HI> The drift of all this Inference is to place the Government of <HI>Religious Doctrine</HI> in e&s;tabli&s;hment of Doctrine in Religion, whether by preaching, or printing, to be in the Soveraign. I &s;hall have opportunity to enlarge upon this conclu&s;ion hereafter, when I &s;hall meddle with his Divi|nity, but will not let it pa&s;s now, but &s;peak a little to make way for that. Con&s;ider then fir&s;t, that a hundred thou&s;and men meet together to in&s;titute a Soveraign (for out of his for|mer In&s;titution of a Commonwealth he deduceth the&s;e Infe|rences) the&s;e men are either of one Religion, or divers; (for Religion all people have) if of one Religion, it is not po&s;&s;ible for men to think, that they &s;hould be &s;o carele&s;s of the great|e&s;t and deare&s;t concernment in the world, as to throw it away to anothers di&s;po&s;e, without any Covenant or promi&s;e to pre|&s;erve it for them. Let us in our thoughts run over the uni|ver&s;al world, and con&s;ider the various judgments in Religion, Chri&s;tians, Jews, Mahumetans, and the &s;everal &s;orts of Gen|tili&s;mes, with their &s;everal Subdivi&s;ions, we &s;hall find none that hold &s;o mean a price upon their Wor&s;hip of God, as to part with it upon &s;uch ridiculous terms, as to &s;ubject them|&s;elves &s;o totally to a <HI>Leviathan,</HI> as not to have any engage|ment for their duty towards their God; and mo&s;t of them would rather put them&s;elves upon their protection by his Pro|vidence,
<PB N="31" REF="22">
then to offer up his good plea&s;ure a Sacrifice to their worldly pre&s;ervation, by an arm of fle&s;h. But if they are of divers Religions (which is a mo&s;t dangerous Enemy to the peace of any Kingdom) they certainly will either agree for an ab&s;olute tolleration, or el&s;e one being countenanced (which mo&s;t &s;urely mu&s;t be the Supreme Religion) the re&s;t may enjoy their own upon certain conditions, and then he deals unju&s;tly when he violates that condition, when he &s;hall command o|ther Opinions to be broached, or them, to be puni&s;hed other|ways then was agreed upon before. But let the Reader con&s;i|der here are divers actions intermixed, &s;ome of which the Soveraign may act in his own per&s;on, and &s;ome which he mu&s;t act by Commi&s;&s;ions: Of the fir&s;t &s;ort are limitation of popular Orators; his meaning is our Preachers, who are the Publick Speakers to the People, of whom it is affirmed, that he mu&s;t j<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">dge on what occa&s;ions, how far, and what men are to be tru&s;ted withall in &s;peaking to multitudes of people, that this cannot exact an ab&s;olute obedience, and that the Sove|raign may offend in all the&s;e, will be evident, if we lay the Scene among <HI>Turks,</HI> and the <HI>Moguls,</HI> commanding not to preach Chri&s;t; and it be granted, that they puni&s;h all them who do &s;o, will Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> &s;ay this is ju&s;t? It may be he will; but I am &s;ure the Apo&s;tles were of another mind, when (<HI>Acts</HI> 4.18.) they were commanded not to preach in the Name of the Lord Je&s;us; they an&s;wered (in the nineteenth ver&s;e) <HI>Whether it be right in the &s;ight of God to hearken unto you more then unto God, judge ye.</HI> The an&s;wer was of invin|cible force, implying thus much, That ye, be ye what you will, <HI>Leviathan,</HI> or what can be imagined to have Com|manding Authority, ye are Gods Deputies; if when God Commands any thing, you give a cro&s;s Command, judge which &s;hould be obeyed? If when the King in expre&s;s terms commands one thing, and his Lieutenant commands another, which &s;hould be obeyed? The ca&s;e is &s;o betwixt the greate&s;t King, Soveraign, or <HI>Leviathan</HI> in this world, and God; <HI>judge ye then:</HI> They could reply nothing to this an&s;wer of the Apo|&s;tles, none did endeavour to do it, but immediately went to Club-Law, Threats and Menaces, and let them go; &s;o that it
<PB N="32" REF="23">
is clearly evident, that Soveraigns in &s;uch Commands may do unju&s;tly, and are not to be obeyed in their unju&s;t Commands by vertuous men, who may, and mu&s;t &s;uffer obediently, though they ought not to act obediently. I mu&s;t add no more at this time, hereafter will be a greater opportunity.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>II.</HI> Books ju&s;tly examined before publi&s;hed. Such a Com|mi&s;&s;ion wanting when Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his Book was printed. His rea&s;on of this Propo&s;ition a&s;&s;erted.</HEAD>
<P>IN the &s;econd &s;ort of Acts, he is in the right; they ought and have Authority to grant Commi&s;&s;ions to &s;ome who &s;hall <HI>examine the Doctrine in all Books before they are publi&s;hed.]</HI> This is mo&s;t rea&s;onable, for el&s;e Libels, &s;candalous to the Reli|gion, and pre&s;ent Government, would fly abroad, to the di|&s;turbance of the Kingdom; and it is impo&s;&s;ible for the Su|preme to do it him&s;elf; and certainly had there been &s;uch a Commi&s;&s;ion here in <HI>England</HI> when this Book was to be print|ed, it would never have been allowed, no not in any well|governed Nation in the World. His rea&s;on for this is very &s;trong likewi&s;e, for the actions of men proceed from their Opinions: And &s;urely, although he hath only inforced this in order to peace, yet it is evident, that the practicks of any vertue are be&s;t regulated by the Opinions of wi&s;e men, as all the actions of a mans life.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>III.</HI> Bi&s;hops the mo&s;t competent Judges of Books (e&s;pecial|ly in Divinity) &s;o al&s;o of Doctrines and Publick Orators, or Preachers to the people.</HEAD>
<P>THis therefore hath u&s;ually been allotted to &s;uch men, who&s;e Function requires the Study of &s;uch things from
<PB N="33" REF="23">
them, I mean Bi&s;hops, the <HI>Reverence</HI> of who&s;e judgments, and the honour of who&s;e per&s;ons, may gain a &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to their determinations. This I &s;peak for Preaching, for Books in Divinity; others have their proper &s;pheres to move in ac|cording to their Profe&s;&s;ions. He proceeds.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>IV.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his A&s;&s;ertion affirmed; his expre&s;&s;ions of <HI>regulating Doctrines</HI> by <HI>Peace</HI> cen&s;ured; &s;ome kind of Peace among Devils.</HEAD>
<P><HI>ANd although in matter of Doctrine nothing ought to be re|garded but the truth, yet this is not repugnant to the re|gulating the &s;ame by peace; for Doctrine repugnant to peace, can be no more true, then Peace and Concord can be again&s;t the Law of Nature.]</HI> I am of his mind, that in matter of Doctrine, the truth, and only truth is to be con&s;idered; and I am confident, that truth and peace will certainly meet together. But methinks that is not hand&s;omely &s;poke, when he &s;aith, that Doctrine &s;hould be regulated by peace, without doubt peace is an excellent Box to pre&s;erve truth when it is &s;etled; it is a Child, a Daughter, and fruit of truth, for true Doctrine brings peace where&s;oever it is; but it cannot &s;o regulate a Doctrine, as to enforce this conclu&s;ion, That <HI>becau&s;e the&s;e men live in peace among&s;t one another, therefore they have the truth of Doctrine pre&s;erved among&s;t them:</HI> For there may be a peace among&s;t men who are Rebels, nay among&s;t the Devils them&s;elves (for ought I know) I am &s;ure it appears to be the force of our Saviours argument, when they &s;aid, <HI>He ca&s;teth out Devils through Beelzebub the Prince of Devils,</HI> that <HI>a Kingdom divided again&s;t it &s;elf cannot &s;tand:</HI> Therefore their King|dom, being a la&s;ting Kingdom, mu&s;t have peace in it. But yet it is a more probable argument, that becau&s;e truth naturally tends to peace, therefore where is peace and quiet, it is rea|&s;onable to think there is truth.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<PB N="34" REF="24">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>V.</HI> The former conclu&s;ions repugnant to Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his Doctrine; Peace not con&s;onant to the Law of Na|ture, according to his a&s;&s;ertion; the true rea&s;on of the former conclu&s;ion.</HEAD>
<P>BUt the Argument by which he proves it did not become his mouth or pen; for &s;aith he <HI>[Doctrine repugnant to peace can be no more true, then peace and concord can be again&s;t the Law of Nature.]</HI> This I &s;ay did not become him, for he hath delivered it for a Maxime in Politicks, <HI>That by the Law of Nature every man only con&s;iders him&s;elf, and is at war with all the world be&s;ides, and hath right to do what he will with it.]</HI> But peace and concord are artificial things introduced by the wit of man for his greater &s;ecurity: So that if truth and peace agree no better, then peace, and the Law of Nature, as he hath &s;tated it, it is little or not at all. But the truth is, that truth of Doctrine bring all peace, peace with God, by &s;ub|jecting our wills to his Sacred Revelations in the regulation of our actions; peace with men by that ble&s;&s;ed Doctrine of Charity, by which we are commanded, as much as in us lies, to have peace with all men, peace in our own &s;ouls, by &s;ubdu|ing tho&s;e carnal, &s;en&s;ual, rebellious affections which are in man, to the obedience to rea&s;on. So that without doubt truth doth naturally produce peace, but is not therefore regu|lated by it.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>VI.</HI> The former expre&s;sion of <HI>regulating all Doctrines by peace</HI> further examined and cen&s;ured: Divine Truths and Doctrines not regulated by peace. In Politicks this expre&s;sion not improper.</HEAD>
<P>THat properly <HI>regulates</HI> another, which directs and &s;hews the way by which that other &s;hould walk, or el&s;e is the
<PB N="35" REF="24">
Rule by which it &s;hould be drawn: So we &s;ay, he is re|gulated by this Law, who is directed and commanded by it, to do this or that: And this hath the &s;ame &s;ignification in moral as in natural things. A Square which the Carpenter u|&s;eth for the direction of his work, regulates that work, and the &s;ame doth a Law; but that in the indagation of any Di|vine Truth, as of Divine Attributes, the nature of Faith, of Prayer, and the like, that a man &s;hould &s;quare it out by peace, or that he &s;hould regulate them by it, is a &s;trange a&s;|&s;ertion: Nay it is &s;o in Mathematical truths, and Phy&s;ical al&s;o. If a man &s;hould enquire, whether the Sun be bigger than the earth, mu&s;t he regulate his examination by the rule of peace? Or if he enquire in Nature, whether a fir&s;t matter or Atomes be the foundation, the principle of the World, out of which it is made? mu&s;t this be compared and guided by the con&s;ent it hath with peace? It is true, had he confined his <HI>truths</HI> to politick <HI>truths,</HI> it might have good acceptance, be|cau&s;e the end of Politicks is the governing man in peace and happine&s;s; but he is &s;o far from that, as he points principally at Divine truths (as will appear) in the pro&s;ecution, of which it cannot be a rule, much le&s;s a &s;ole and only rule, as he &s;eems to make it.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>VII.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his expre&s;sion of new truths cen&s;ured: Truth always the &s;ame; the object of Truth &s;ome|times ob&s;cure: <HI>New Truths,</HI> and <HI>new Lights,</HI> phra&s;es equally affected.</HEAD>
<P><HI>IT is true, that in a Commonwealth whereby the negligence and unskilfulne&s;s of Governors and Teachers, fal&s;e Doctrines are by time generally received, the contrary truths may be generally offen&s;ive; yet the mo&s;t &s;udden and rough bu&s;ling in of a truth that can be, does never break the peace, but only &s;ometimes a|wake the war.]</HI> I think with him, that it is through the neg|ligence and unskilfulne&s;s of Governors and Teachers, that fal&s;e Doctrines are received: But I do not approve that phra&s;e
<PB N="36" REF="25">
of a <HI>New Truth,</HI> there is no &s;uch thing, but of particulars, that this fire burns is new, but that fire will burn combu&s;tib<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">e matter, when applyed to it, is an eternal truth, of which &s;orts of truth he &s;eems to write. This kind of &s;peech &s;eems to concur with that lately affected language of new lights, when there is no new light, but always Divine Graces light|ed Spiritual, and Humane Intellect Natural Truths: The truths are the &s;ame, and the lights the &s;ame by which we di&s;|cern them, but the objects may lye in darkne&s;s, and not be di&s;cerned, till their proper light be brought to them.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="8" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>VIII.</HI> His A&s;&s;ertion of the bu&s;ling in of truth awakes the War, examined, and &s;hewed to be repugnant to his former Conclu&s;ions.</HEAD>
<P>THe next phra&s;e to be con&s;idered is, <HI>This bu&s;ling in of Truth d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">th not break the Peace, but awake the War.]</HI> It &s;eems then when men live in peace, they are at war, but only lye a&s;leep, when I &s;hould think that the unquiet di&s;po&s;ition of war could never let it &s;leep, and the quiet &s;weet di&s;po&s;iti|on of peace makes it look like &s;leep: But he gives rea&s;on for it (for &s;aith he) <HI>Tho&s;e men who are &s;o remi&s;ly governed, that they dare take up Arms to defend or introduce an Opinion, are &s;till in War, and their condition not Peace, but a ce&s;&s;ation of Arms for fear of one another, and they live as it were in the Precincts of Battel continually.]</HI> This was wittily expre&s;&s;ed by him; but he did not remember, that the <HI>Covenant</HI> in the in&s;titution put them in a &s;tate of peace, when now he placeth peace only in the mannagement of that Government, which if it be, there's another rea&s;on from hence to be added to what went before, that the Supreme ought to Covenant with his Sub|jects concerning his Government, which is ob&s;tinately denied by him.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="9" TYPE="section">
<PB N="37" REF="25">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>IX.</HI> Doctrines among Chri&s;tians not to be introduced by force. Ce&s;&s;ation of Arms not the height of Peace. Remi&s;ne&s;s, in matter of Opinion, not the only cau&s;e of Mutiny or Rebellion.</HEAD>
<P><HI>COn&s;ider tho&s;e that are &s;o remi&s;ly governed, as they dare take up Arms to defend or introduce an Opinion.]</HI> This &s;hould not concern Chri&s;tians, who&s;e Opinions and Doctrines mu&s;t not be introduced by Arms of Steel and force, but of rea&s;on and &s;ufferings; and as our Great Ma&s;ter, our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, planted it with his death, &s;o mu&s;t we cheri&s;h and water it with our own, not others blood: It is not to be &s;owed or reaped by Swords, but &s;ufferings, and the rea&s;on of tho&s;e &s;uf|ferings. But be it of what opinion it will, this Argument doth not become him, becau&s;e he makes war to be the natural &s;tate of all mankind, which if it be, it will return, unle&s;s you take the very nature away in which it is rooted, otherwi&s;e it only &s;uppre&s;&s;es the outward acts of violence or war, but not extingui&s;heth the being of it. Again, he makes his peace obtained by the Covenant in the Soveraigns In&s;titution, to be nothing el&s;e but a ce&s;&s;ation of Arms, for fear men &s;hould not el&s;e enjoy their conveniencies or well being. Now then, if this be the height of any peace, they who are governed thus remi&s;ly, as he &s;peaks, are in as good a &s;tate of peace as any others are. I grant that remi&s;ne&s;s of Government, is an oc|ca&s;ion that loo&s;e people are incited to fo&s;ter di&s;contents, and malicious people encouraged to take up Arms. But this may be imputed to all remi&s;ne&s;s, as well as that of Opinions, and ought not to be bounded by it.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="10" TYPE="section">
<PB N="38" REF="26">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>X.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his fallacies in arguing di&s;covered. To be Judge, and to con&s;titute Judges, are di&s;tinct; the latter more advantagious to the Commonwealth, in point of Doctrines.</HEAD>
<P>HE thinking that this is clear, deduceth further thus; <HI>It belongs therefore to him that hath the Soveraign Power to be Judge, or con&s;titute Judges of Opinions and Doctrines, as a thing nece&s;&s;ary to peace, thereby to prevent di&s;cord and civil wars.]</HI> Ob&s;erve here, Reader, is a fallacy that runs throughout his whole Book, which I have often marked before, and now mu&s;t again, which is, that he makes his conclu&s;ion deduced out of his di&s;cour&s;e, another from that which he pro|po&s;ed. His Conclu&s;ion propo&s;ed is this; <HI>Sixthly, it is annexed to the Soveraignty to be Judge of what Opinions are aver&s;e, and what conduce to peace.]</HI> Ob&s;erve it is in his own per&s;on, now it is to be Judge, or con&s;titute Judges. There is a great diffe|rence betwixt the performance of this act in his own per&s;on, and by Officers. It is not probable, that a man or men taken up with &s;o many and great thoughts of politick affairs, can have lei&s;ure to get abilities for &s;uch a purpo&s;e, or if he had, can he attend them? Therefore as I &s;aid before, &s;o I &s;ay a|gain, he ought to imploy in that great bu&s;ine&s;s, men fitted by their proper Studies and endeavours to &s;uch a de&s;ign. We will go on.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="11" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="39" REF="26">
<HEAD>CHAP. XI.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>I.</HI> The impo&s;sibility of the former imagined In&s;titution of a <HI>Leviathan</HI> further di&s;covered, from the pow|er given him by Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> in the propriety of E|&s;tates, attained before the In&s;titution.</HEAD>
<P>SEventhly, (&s;aith he) <HI>To the Soveraignty is annexed the whole power of pre&s;cribing the Rules, whereby every man knows what good he may enjoy, and what actions he may do without being mole&s;ted by his fellow Subjects; and this is it men call Propriety.]</HI> To under&s;tand this we mu&s;t return back, and con&s;ider, that this is &s;poke of a Commonwealth con&s;ti|tuted, after his impo&s;&s;ible imagination, by a multitude of peo|ple, of which there was never any pre&s;ident, nor is ever likely to be: The impo&s;&s;ibility of which will yet appear more manife&s;t, by the examination of this Paragraph. To that purpo&s;e let us conceive a multitude of people met together upon &s;uch a de&s;ign, as he propo&s;eth, of chu&s;ing a <HI>Leviathan;</HI> all the&s;e people either had e&s;tates, or had none, but only their beings in the world; or el&s;e &s;ome had e&s;tates, &s;ome had none. To think that in &s;uch a multitude no man &s;hould have any thing of his own, were mo&s;t unrea&s;onable. And again, to ima|gine that there were no nece&s;&s;itous men among&s;t &s;uch a num|ber of men, were ridiculous, it mu&s;t needs therefore be, that &s;ome had e&s;tates, and &s;ome none. Let us then proceed accord|ing to his own Rule, that the prime and principal Law of Na|ture is for every man to look to him&s;elf, and his own accom|modations; and for that rea&s;on it is (and the &s;ole rea&s;on by him alledged) why men incorporate into a Body Politick. This being &s;uppo&s;ed (as it is by him) can any man think that &s;uch men who had e&s;tates, would make them&s;elves in an equal condition with tho&s;e who had none, and leave them at the di&s;po&s;al of a <HI>Leviathan</HI> when he is con&s;tituted, whereby they
<PB N="40" REF="27">
&s;hould be levelled with them who had no e&s;tate; or rather in the con&s;titution of their Commonwealth, provide to have them &s;ecured by &s;ome Covenant or other, that they might not be wor&s;e afterwards, then they were when they covenanted for it, yea loo&s;e that which perhaps with great pains and in|du&s;try they had acquired, which if they do in their con&s;titu|ting a Commonwealth, the Soveraign hath not right to di|&s;po&s;e, and give cro&s;s Rules to that Covenant afterwards, he having formerly a&s;&s;ented to that Covenant. For if we con&s;i|der his Politicks, we &s;hall find the only end, why men imbo|dy them&s;elves into a Commonwealth, to be the &s;ecuring them&s;elves to live comfortably, enjoying their own without mole&s;tation, or to that purpo&s;e. Think then how it is po&s;&s;i|ble for a man with &s;uch thoughts about him, in that way to throw him&s;elf, and all he hath, clearly to anothers di&s;po&s;al, without any condition or Covenant. For although all things under the Sun are &s;ubject to change, and the &s;tronge&s;t En|tails find means to be fru&s;trated, yet providence, and careful men, in &s;uch a con&s;titution of &s;o high a Nature, would fore|&s;ee that po&s;&s;ibility, and have &s;ome foreca&s;t, how and by what ways that &s;hould be done, which indeed mu&s;t needs make the multitude of the people unfit men for &s;uch a work, who have not wi&s;dome to fore&s;ee or provide for &s;uch accidents.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>II.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his &s;uppo&s;ition of men met together with|out a propriety, examined. The impo&s;sibility of this Fiction, according to his own grounds, from the contradictions which follow upon it.</HEAD>
<P>BUt he &s;eems to go another way, and &s;ettles this building of his Commonwealth upon the foundation of a &s;ort of men which have no propriety in any thing, or &s;uppo&s;e a hundred thou&s;and (a le&s;s number will &s;carce make a good Ci|ty) all the&s;e having no intere&s;t in the world, be&s;ides their being (which is as unimaginable as any of the re&s;t) which
<PB N="41" REF="27">
yet is affirmed by him in the following words <HI>[For before Con&s;titution of Soveraign Power, as hath already been &s;hewed, all men had right to all things, which nece&s;&s;arily cau&s;eth war, and therefore this propriety being nece&s;&s;ary to peace, and depending on Soveraign Power, is the act of that Power in order to peace.]</HI> This is a &s;trange corceit, that men in war have right to their Enemies Country before they have conquered it, and when they have conquered it, &s;hall have right to very little: both which by him are mo&s;t true. For before the chu&s;ing a Sove|raign they are at war with all the world, and have a right to all the world, yet when they have conquered any piece, it mu&s;t be in the Soveraigns power to give them propriety only in what he plea&s;eth. I know he may object to this, that he &s;aith, the Supreme may give Rules, that is, make &s;uch Laws by which men may know what is their propriety, but not that he &s;hall give the propriety. But for an&s;wer to this, let him know, that the Legi&s;lative Power can take away, and alter them, as well as make them; and then it amounts to as much, as if he had given the propriety its &s;elf, for he can do it when he will. And let us con&s;ider, that tho&s;e men who by nature have right to all the world, yet by this indu&s;triou&s;ly uniting them&s;elves into a Commonwealth, gain but this, that whereas before they had right to every thing, now they have right only to this little pittance which is allotted them.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>III.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his illogical deductions. Propriety in the &s;tate of War. What propriety is; it may be without peace, as peace may be without propriety.</HEAD>
<P>HE proceeds <HI>[And therefore this Propriety being nece&s;&s;ary to Peace, and depending on Soveraign Power, is an act of that Power in order to the Publick Peace.]</HI> Surely there is no manner of Logical con&s;equences in this, <HI>therefore</HI> of his; for let us con&s;ider to what this <HI>therefore</HI> relates, can it look forwards to all mens rights to come? and becau&s;e of that,
<PB N="42" REF="28">
therefore propriety &s;hould be an act of the Soveraign? The&s;e have no conjunction one with another, no, nor becau&s;e they are in war one with another; for Nations that are in war one with another, have right of &s;ome; and people that have right to many things, may have right likewi&s;e to what they have of &s;ome: So that this <HI>therefore</HI> hath nothing before to build it &s;elf upon; and indeed, in Logick, it &s;hould have been deduced out of the premi&s;es. But let us &s;ee if there be any thing in this new &s;entence that can countenance this Pro|po&s;ition, <HI>That propriety is an act of the Soveraign.</HI> The fir&s;t words that may &s;eem to make for it, will be the&s;e (That Propriety being nece&s;&s;ary to peace) <HI>therefore Propriety is an act of Soveraignty.]</HI> This follows not. Fir&s;t, becau&s;e Pro|priety may be where there is war, therefore it cannot be ne|ce&s;&s;ary to peace, I take Propriety for a <HI>peculiar right and title which a man hath to any goods.</HI>) This a man may have at that in&s;tant when he hath war with another. And again, he may live in peace in this Kingdom, both with his Neighbour, and all the re&s;t of the Nation, and have propriety in nothing, but his being in the world: So that if peace can be without pro|priety, and propriety without peace, it cannot truly be &s;aid that propriety is nece&s;&s;ary to peace. And then that Propo&s;i|tion which is the foundation of an argument failing, the Ar|gument likewi&s;e falls to the ground.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>IV.</HI> Propriety not depending only upon Soveraign power. The propriety of the Soveraign independent. His con&s;equence again redargued. Propriety the Act of Law.</HEAD>
<P>THe &s;econd words which may give any &s;emblance of an Argument (if any) are <HI>depending upon Soveraign power]</HI> and &s;uch a Soveraign power as he makes his to be, there is none in the world but men have propriety without it, there|fore no nece&s;&s;ary dependance upon this, without which it
<PB N="43" REF="28">
can be, and is. Again con&s;ider, the Soveraign him&s;elf hath a propriety of his own, and his propriety hath no depen|dance upon any: but then con&s;ider that if it be &s;o, and he will have it under&s;tood of Subjects only, or that the Sove|raign hath his propriety by right of his Soveraignty, becau&s;e there is a Soveraign con&s;tituted; and that the propriety of all others hath a dependance upon this Soveraign power; yet it doth not follow, that that propriety is an act of Soveraign|ty. It may well be &s;uppo&s;ed, that propriety may be &s;etled by Contract before the con&s;titution of the Commonwealth, and then the Soveraign only looks and takes care for the right ob|&s;ervation of tho&s;e Laws, which were con&s;ented unto con|cerning propriety; and propriety is the Act of tho&s;e Laws, and he the Protector and pre&s;erver of them: So that this con|&s;equence is not deduced out of any thing which is &s;et down by him. And the&s;e few words which are added are of no force <HI>(in order to the publick peace)</HI> for although he may direct, yea inforce them to the publick peace, yet propriety it &s;elf is an act of tho&s;e Laws which &s;ettles it, not of him which go|verns.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>V.</HI> Many things good or evil in their own Nature, and therefore not alterable by Humane Laws.</HEAD>
<P>HE goes on; <HI>The&s;e Rules of Propriety (or</HI> meum <HI>and</HI> tu|um) <HI>and of good, evil, lawful, and unlawful, in the actions of Subjects, are the Civil Laws, that is to &s;ay, the Law of each Commonwealth in particular.]</HI> The Rules of Propriety, that is, of the particular e&s;tate, are without que&s;tion the Laws of each particular Commonwealth; but for good or evil, there are many things &s;o framed in their own Nature, that it lies not in the power of Humane Laws to make &s;uch things good or evil, contrary to their beings, as to love, fear, and wor&s;hip God, no Humane Law can make it evil; or to hate or de&s;pi&s;e him, no Humane Law can make it good. And &s;o
<PB N="44" REF="29">
for lawful and unlawful things, which either by the Law of God in our hearts, or that communicated to us in his holy Book; the&s;e are Laws be&s;ides the Civil Law of the Nation, which the Civil Law cannot alter, or make good or evil, o|therwi&s;e then that goodne&s;s or illne&s;s which they received from the Law Divine. That which follows in that Para|graph, is nothing but an Expo&s;ition of Civil Law; how it is under&s;tood by him, which I conceive not to be material to his de&s;ign, or mine, and therefore I let it alone, and come to a new Inference.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="12" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XII.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>I.</HI> The Soveraign obliged to take care for the deci&s;ion of Controver&s;ies, and accomptable to God as for his own, &s;o al&s;o for his Officers neglect.</HEAD>
<P>EIghthly (&s;aith he) <HI>Is annexed to the Soveraign the Rights of Controver&s;ies, which may ari&s;e concerning Law, either Civil or Natural, or concerning Fact; for without the deci&s;ion of Controver&s;ies, there is no protection of one Subject from the injuries of another.]</HI> That is true which he &s;peaks, &s;o that he under&s;tands by it not a natural immediate Agent, but a mo|ral political act by his Deputies and inferiour Officers, as Judges; and then it is not only a right which he may, but a duty which he ought to do. And I may go further then Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> here, and &s;ay, that he &s;hall be re&s;pon&s;ible to the great King of Kings, for not taking care that tho&s;e his Offi|cers do his duty of Ju&s;tice in deciding cau&s;es. <HI>Jethro, Mo&s;es</HI> Father-in-law gave him good coun&s;el, not to take that bur|then (impo&s;&s;ible for his &s;houlders to bear) upon him&s;elf a|lone, but divide it to others, and keep weighty cau&s;es only to him&s;elf.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<PB N="45" REF="29">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>II.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> ninth Inference affirmed, Soveraigns in ordinary emergencies to u&s;e ordinary means. <HI>Salus Populi Suprema Lex.</HI></HEAD>
<P><HI>NInthly, &amp;c.</HI> (&s;aith he) (truly Reader I am tired with tran|&s;cribing his words di&s;tinctly.) The drift of this ninth Inference is to &s;ay, That the Soveraign hath right to the Mi|litia of his Kingdom, and &s;o of all means to maintain his Army: and he &s;aith right, without this, all others are no|thing. The Subjects cannot be protected either from forreign or dome&s;tick injuries. This is true, but yet he hath right on|ly to u&s;e right means for this. I &s;peak not of ca&s;es of nece&s;&s;i|ty, <HI>Salus Reipublicae e&s;t &s;ummae Lex,</HI> but in the ordinary man|nage of affairs, he mu&s;t re&s;erve him&s;elf que&s;tionle&s;s to the ordinary ways.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>III.</HI> The choice of Councellors, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> in the Soveraign: Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his rea&s;on of this Conclu&s;ion refuted.</HEAD>
<P>FOr his tenth Inference, which is his right of chu&s;ing Councellors, Officers of his Army, and the like, I agree with him; but not for his oft confuted rea&s;on, becau&s;e he hath right to the end, he mu&s;t have right to the means; for he can|not have right to get his right ends by crooked means, but be|cau&s;e he is Supreme, and is the Fountain of all Power in his Realm. But yet there are in many Kingdomes great Offices belonging to Families, as Generals, Chamberlains, and the like; and tho&s;e cannot ju&s;tly be laid a&s;ide out of tho&s;e places that they are born to, and have by Inheritances, without great and ju&s;t cau&s;e of di&s;inheriting be produced.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<PB N="46" REF="30">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>IV.</HI> The eleventh Inference affirmed, where there is no Law, there is no tran&s;gre&s;sion, and con&s;equently no puni&s;hment.</HEAD>
<P>HIs eleventh is mo&s;t true, <HI>That to the S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">veraign is com|mitted the power of puni&s;hing, and rewarding according to Law, or if there be no Law</HI> (I fear to joyn with him here) <HI>to puni&s;h where is no Law, according as he &s;hall judge meet to conduce to the deterring of men from doing di&s;&s;ervice to the Commonwealth.]</HI> This I like not, &s;in is the tran&s;gre&s;&s;ion of a Law; where no Law, no &s;in, therefore no puni&s;hment.</P>
<P>His la&s;t Inference is after a long preamble, <HI>That it belongs to the Soveraign Power to give Titles of Honour.]</HI> I agree with him in this clau&s;e; but ob&s;erve that his twelfth, eleventh, tenth, ninth Inferences, are all page 92.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>V.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his Objection and An&s;wer approved. Kings more incommodated then Subjects from the bur|then of their Crimes, and their account to the King of Kings.</HEAD>
<P>I Have thus briefly touched upon the&s;e particular Inferences, which he calls the right of a Soveraign; and having cen|&s;ured them, any man may ea&s;ily look through that which follows in that <HI>Cap.</HI> but in the latter end of that <HI>Cap.</HI> page 94. he &s;eems to an&s;wer an Objection: <HI>[A man may here object, that the condition of Subjects is very mi&s;erable, as being obnoxi|ous to the lu&s;ts, or other irregular pa&s;&s;ions of him or them who have &s;o unlimited a power in their hands; and commonly they who live under a Monarch, think it the fault of Monarchy,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>not con|&s;idering (&s;aith he) that the e&s;tate of man can never be without
<PB N="47" REF="30">
&s;ome incommodity or other.]</HI> I think he &s;peaks truth in almo&s;t all this whole Paragraph; but as a Chri&s;tian man who is a&s;|&s;ured there is a God, a Heaven, and Hell; I may &s;ay that as all Subjects mu&s;t, whil&s;t they are in this world, have incom|modities; &s;o Kings have many more, their Crowns are made of Thorns, and their Scepters too heavy almo&s;t for men to bear, becau&s;e they have a mighty accompt to make up to their King, the King of Kings, of the good or evil in their Go|vernment, with which words I end this <HI>Cap.</HI> and come to his next, which is <HI>Cap.</HI> 19. entituled thus, <HI>Of the &s;everal kinds of Commonwealth by In&s;titution, and of Succe&s;&s;ion to the Soveraign Power.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="13" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XIII.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>I.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his expre&s;sion of Repre&s;entative not pro|per, and diminutive of Soveraignty. Two Que&s;ti|ons rai&s;ed about the divi&s;ions of Commonwealths, left to the judgment of others.</HEAD>
<P>HE begins this <HI>Cap.</HI> with an Expo&s;ition of that ancient divi&s;ion of a Commonwealth into <HI>Monarchical, Ari|&s;tocratical,</HI> and <HI>Democratical,</HI> which he affirms to be the only <HI>forms by which any Commonwealth is governed;</HI> and in the bot|tom of this 94 page, he proves it thus <HI>[For the Repre&s;enta|tive mu&s;t needs be one man, or more; and if more, then it is ei|ther the A&s;&s;embly of all, or but of a part. When the Repre&s;enta|tive is one man, then it is a Monarchy; when an A&s;&s;embly of all that will come together, then it is a Democracy, or popular Com|monwealth; when an A&s;&s;embly of a part only, then it is Ari&s;to|cracy: Other kinds of Commonwealths there can be none, for ei|ther one, or more, or all mu&s;t have the Soveraign Power, which I have &s;hewed to be indivi&s;ible.]</HI> I will not here contend again&s;t that word Repre&s;entative, which I have oft already &s;poke again&s;t, and cannot be a fit word to expre&s;s a Soveraign, for it makes him to be but an Image or Creature of the people,
<PB N="48" REF="31">
who&s;e Supreme he is. But for that divi&s;ion of a Common|wealth, which he propo&s;eth, although it is &s;o honoured by the univer&s;ality of Writers in Politicks, that it were not mode|&s;ty in any particular man to deny it, yet give me leave to put a Que&s;tion (I will not be peremptory in it) <HI>Why, &s;ince a Commonwealth is the whole Body Politick, and con&s;i&s;ts in the whole Regiment, from the King to the Cottager,</HI> why there may not be thought of &s;ome divi&s;ion in re&s;pect of &s;ubordina|tion, as well as in re&s;pect of the Supreme. But I will leave the an&s;wer to &s;ome younger head, who may have lei&s;ure to examine it, and rai&s;e another Que&s;tion: Since the divi&s;ion is made only out of the quantity or number which con&s;titute a Supreme, why may not &s;ome things be thought upon con|cerning the quality of it, which may give a new and another illu&s;tration to that condition of a Supreme? For although this term of the quality of a Supreme is not u&s;ually expre&s;&s;ed in the notion of the thing, yet the matter and &s;en&s;e of that word is often delivered by them, as Tyranny for Monarchy; by the fir&s;t of which, they under&s;tand a Monarch governing without Law, &s;o Oligarchy for Ari&s;tocracy, as Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> ex|pre&s;&s;eth in the following words, page 95.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>II.</HI> Tyranny and Monarchy different forms of Govern|ment. Mi&s;calling alters not the nature of the thing. Oeconomical Government con&s;i&s;tent with Anarchy.</HEAD>
<P><HI>THere be other names of Government in the Hi&s;tories and Books of Policy, as Tyranny, and Oligarchy; but they are not the names of other forms of Government, but of the &s;ame forms mi&s;liked.]</HI> Indeed in the fir&s;t, they are divers forms to govern by Laws, or without Laws, differing forms, differing in the very e&s;&s;ential acts of Government. In the &s;econd you may find a great difference in the per&s;ons, the one being en|abled to his place by his vertue, the other by riches only, or &s;uch like accommodations. But let us con&s;ider what he adds
<PB N="49" REF="31">
(for &s;aith he) <HI>They who are di&s;contented under Monarchy, call it Tyranny, and they who are di&s;plea&s;ed with Ari&s;tocracy, call it Oligarchy; they who find them&s;elves grieved under a Democracy, call it Anarchy (which &s;ignifies a want of Government) and yet I think no man believes a want of Government to be any new kind of Government.]</HI> I believe what he &s;aith hath truth, they will mi&s;call them &s;o; but yet this proves not, that the&s;e mi&s;callings are not founded upon a truth, A vertuous man is branded with calumny, and yet for all that a vertuous man and a vici|ous man differ, although the vertuous man be abu&s;ed; &s;o dif|fer the&s;e Governments one from another. What he &s;peaks of Democracy and Anarchy was ingenious, but unapplicable to any the other. And although in the &s;trictne&s;s of that word A|narchy, it is not po&s;&s;ible to allow any Government, yet if it be applied to Political Government, it may notwith&s;tanding (granting it there) con&s;i&s;t with Oeconomical Government. And when a Democracy is grown loo&s;e, that the Authority in relation to the whole Commonwealth is lo&s;t, yet Govern|ment may be found in Families. What he adds is not of great moment, when he &s;aith, <HI>Nor by the &s;ame rea&s;on ought they to believe, that the Government is of one kind when they like it, and another when they di&s;like it, or are oppre&s;&s;ed by the Governours.]</HI> Where is the parity of rea&s;on betwixt any thing that went before, and this, to produce that &s;aying of his <HI>(for the &s;ame rea&s;on?)</HI> and there is no rea&s;on for this, that the liking, or di&s;liking, which are extremely outward things, to the e&s;&s;ence of any thing, &s;hould produce a difference in the thing it &s;elf.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<PB N="50" REF="32">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>III.</HI> The Authors Opinion of this divi&s;ion. The denomina|tion of mixed bodies (as in natural, &s;o in political) <HI>&agrave; principalion.</HI> The &s;trange mixture of the Go|vernment of <HI>Lacedaemon.</HI> The Monarchy of <HI>Darius</HI> mixed with Ari&s;tocracy.</HEAD>
<P>ANd now Reader, having pa&s;&s;ed &s;ome Notes, I will proceed to &s;et down my own judgment and Opinion of this &s;o much honoured divi&s;ion, which although out of the Reverence I bear to the con&s;ent of &s;o many learned men in it, I dare not deny that it is a good divi&s;ion; yet methinks in political &s;tories I can ob&s;erve, that take the&s;e in their pure and &s;imple natures, there's &s;carce one of them purely &s;uch, in any one Country of the whole world; and therefore I may &s;ay of them, as Philo&s;ophers &s;ay of the Elements, they are the matter of which this great Globe of this &s;ublunary world is compo&s;ed; and yet not found di&s;tinct in their pure nature, in any creature in the world, but are denominated &s;uch <HI>&agrave; principalion;</HI> as when heat is in any great degree, then it is called fire; when cold and moi&s;ture are inten&s;e, it is then water; or el&s;e (as the Mathematicians &s;peak) <HI>Saturn</HI> is Lord of this Hou&s;e, becau&s;e he is predominant; yet the power of his influence is more or le&s;s, according to the a&s;&s;i|&s;tance or detriment he receives from other Planets. So when one is chief or Lord of the Hou&s;e, either a Monarchical chief, or Ari&s;tocratical, yea I may add a Democratical or popular Government, it is denominated from that which is princi|ple, although one or both the other may be joyned in the influence, and concur in the Government over the whole. I think this appears mo&s;t true to any man who hath peru&s;ed &s;to|ries; nay they are &s;o conjoyned and mixed one with the o|ther &s;ometimes, that it is exceeding hard to &s;ay which is the predominant, and di&s;putes among&s;t learned men are rai&s;ed, what name to give &s;ome Supremes. You may find a common
<PB N="51" REF="32">
in&s;tance in <HI>Lacedaemon,</HI> where there was a King, a Senate, and in many things the people came in for their &s;hares, learned men know not which to call it. Look if you plea&s;e upon Monarchy; there is none I think &s;o ab&s;olute in the world, to which all he &s;peaks may be applied; (I mean all tho&s;e marks of Soveraignty which have been before touched upon) I will give the Reader one in&s;tance in one of the greate&s;t Mo|narchs that ever was, or is in the world, I mean <HI>Darius</HI> in the &s;ixth of <HI>Daniel,</HI> you &s;hall find at the &s;eventh ver&s;e, that all the Pre&s;idents of the Kingdom, the Governors, and the Princes, the Councellors, and the Captains, con&s;ulted toge|ther to e&s;tabli&s;h a Royal Statute, and to make a firm Decree, that who&s;oever &s;hall ask a Petition of any God or man for thirty daies, &s;ave of <HI>Darius</HI> him&s;elf, &s;hould be ca&s;t into the Lyons Den. I will not de&s;cant upon the Decree, being the mo&s;t abominably wicked that po&s;&s;ibly could be made by a man who did acknowledge a God as <HI>Darius</HI> did: For how could he think that God would ble&s;s him, acting &s;o cro&s;ly again&s;t his Honour, as to forbid prayers to him? Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> indeed might have concurred with him, that thinks no prayers have preva|lence with God, but that all things are governed by immuta|ble nece&s;&s;ity. But <HI>Darius</HI> could not be of that mind, who forethought that God could, and would deliver him: Neither could <HI>Daniel</HI> be of that mind, who would not leave praying for all the terrors of the world. Well, the Decree is out, ac|cording to the Laws of the <HI>Medes</HI> and <HI>Per&s;ians,</HI> which is unal|terable; when the Law was out, and <HI>Daniel</HI> found to be a tran&s;gre&s;&s;or again&s;t it, we &s;hall find in the thirteenth ver&s;e, that the&s;e Princes pre&s;ented the crime to the King, and requi|red Ju&s;tice again&s;t him; in the fourteenth ver&s;e the King is &s;aid to labour until night to deliver <HI>Daniel,</HI> and was di&s;plea|&s;ed with him&s;elf. Surely before he was aware he had con&s;ent|ed to &s;uch a Law as was mi&s;chievous to a per&s;on of that great integrity and excellency, as <HI>Daniel</HI> was; and this Law which he had made, mu&s;t be Author of &s;o great a Crime, as to &s;hed not only Innocent, but vertuous blood; and therefore he la|boured until Sun-&s;et with tho&s;e men who joyned with him in the making that Law to deliver <HI>Daniel:</HI> But they, in the fif|teenth
<PB N="52" REF="33">
ver&s;e, being fierce again&s;t <HI>Daniel,</HI> urged the immutabi|lity of the Decree, that it was a Law confirmed by him ac|cording to the Laws of the <HI>Medes</HI> and <HI>Per&s;ians,</HI> which may not be altered; and indeed the argument is of great force: For if Laws made by any Supreme may be violated before they are repealed, what &s;ecurity can any Subject have of any thing he enjoys? And &s;urely in keeping and pre&s;erving the Laws they have made, they do imitate their great Ma&s;ter the King of Kings, and Supreme of Supremes, from whom they have all their Authority, and by whom they reign, who although by his infinite power he can do what he plea&s;eth, yet out of his infinite goodne&s;s he cannot deny him&s;elf, or alter the word which is gone out of his mouth, <HI>falli non pote&s;t, mentiri non pote&s;t;</HI> &s;o that all his Words, and Covenants, and Promi&s;es, are Yea and Amen. Such &s;hould Supremes be; &s;uch was <HI>Da|rius</HI> that ju&s;t King; no doubt but he could have &s;ent a party of Souldiers, and have taken <HI>Daniel</HI> out of their power; but having made the Law, which bound him to the execution, he would perform it, although it were never &s;o contrary and a|ver&s;e to his di&s;po&s;ition. From all which you may di&s;cern, that this great Potentate had his power limited by a Law which he could not ju&s;tly violate. Now look upon him, and &s;ee him in the following part of his &s;tory, of a mo&s;t ab&s;olute and unli|mited power, where it was not re&s;trained by Law. In the latter end of that <HI>Cap.</HI> you may ob&s;erve, that when the King had perceived that God had delivered <HI>Daniel</HI> from the Lyons, and he had taken him out of the Den. At the 24 ver&s;e the King commanded, and they brought tho&s;e men who had ac|cu&s;ed <HI>Daniel,</HI> and ca&s;t them, and their Wives, and Children, into the Lyons Den, that is, the Pre&s;idents and the Princes, which was the greate&s;t act of power exerci&s;ed upon the great|e&s;t per&s;ons which were in that greate&s;t Kingdom, and all this meerly arbitrary.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<PB N="53" REF="33">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>IV.</HI> The re&s;ult of the former example. No Government <HI>de facto</HI> purely Monarchical; and therefore not &s;u&s;|ceptible of all the properties of Monarchical Go|vernment required by Mr. <HI>Hobbs. Darius</HI> bound to the execution of tho&s;e Laws which him&s;elf had made.</HEAD>
<P>MY Collection here is, That there is no Supreme upon earth, which hath no commixion of any the other principles in all tho&s;e particular rights, which Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> re|quires as properties of Supremacy; for the Legi&s;lative is one, and the controul of the Execution is another. Here you &s;ee at the making of this Decree, there was Ari&s;tocracy mixed with Monarchy by the Princes, for they petitioned the King to make this Law, but the King gave life to it with his <HI>Fiat.</HI> That this was &s;o appears, becau&s;e if <HI>Darius</HI> alone had done, and they had had no intere&s;t in this Legi&s;lation, he who had made it, might have recalled it of him&s;elf, when he di&s;covered the mi&s;chief which it produced; but it is &s;aid that he &s;trove and laboured to have &s;aved him, but tho&s;e Princes (who it &s;eems had &s;ome influence in making the Law) re&s;i&s;ted, and would not give way to it: Then mark the &s;econd particle, which is next of moment in the Law it &s;elf; that is the execution, he could not be &s;pared from that. And although in many poli|ties, the Supreme may, and hath power to di&s;pence with the execution of &s;evere Ju&s;tice, yet it &s;eems this great King had his hand tyed in re&s;pect of that, and could not ju&s;tly do it, when upon their Petition he had e&s;tabli&s;hed that Law. Let no man cen&s;ure this conclu&s;ion until he hath read the whole, for it is not proper for me to prevent my method in any fol|lowing di&s;cour&s;e, to &s;atisfie every doubt which may interpo&s;e in the mean time, but to pre&s;erve every particular until I come to its proper place.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<PB N="54" REF="34">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>V.</HI> The general rea&s;ons of the precedent conclu&s;ions. That Government be&s;t which is &s;uited to the di&s;po&s;ition of the people. Some people fit only for &s;ubjection.</HEAD>
<P>BUt to conceive a general rea&s;on for what I &s;peak, con&s;i|der with me, that the people mu&s;t be governed as be&s;t &s;uits with their condition, for the multitude without doubt would be too hard for any Supreme, if they knew how ad|vantagiou&s;ly to di&s;po&s;e of them&s;elves: And it is an ea&s;ie thing with ambiguous language to &s;ow di&s;contents among&s;t the multitude again&s;t any pre&s;ent Government; and therefore all Politicians, be&s;ides Mr. <HI>Hobbs,</HI> do &s;hew that &s;ome Nati|ons are fit to be ruled with a &s;evere hand, &s;ome with a more remi&s;s one, &s;ome fit for Monarchy, &s;ome for Democracy. The Fa&s;tern Nations be&s;t agree with tho&s;e Monarchies un|der which they live, which are the mo&s;t ab&s;olute in the world, but other Countries would not endure that Yoak. It is a mo&s;t ancient ob&s;ervation in this difference of Countries, that &s;ome are &s;o dull (I dare not name them for fear of of|fending, though others have done it) as they are only fit to obey, not to govern.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>VI.</HI> The former conclu&s;ion further a&s;&s;erted. The <HI>Ephori</HI> among&s;t the <HI>Lacedaemonians</HI> fir&s;t introduced by <HI>Theopompus.</HI></HEAD>
<P>BUt for this conclu&s;ion let it &s;uffice what <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> writes of <HI>Theopompus,</HI> and out of him other later Writers, that he being King of the <HI>Lacedemonians</HI> fir&s;t &s;et up the <HI>Ephori</HI> there; his Wife upbraided him with it, that he &s;hould leave his Kingdom with le&s;s power to his Succe&s;&s;ors, then he had
<PB N="55" REF="34">
received it from his Ance&s;tors, he an&s;wered, that he &s;hould leave it more la&s;ting. Perhaps he was deceived in it; but yet it meant this truth, that the people being &s;weetned with the imagination that they have &s;ome intere&s;t in the Govern|ment, they will put their necks more willingly under the Yoak. The &s;tory is told in the fifth of his Politicks, <HI>Cap.</HI> 11. which &s;hew that it may be, and may be profitable to receive this commixion,</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>VII.</HI> No Government ab&s;olutely pure. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his Po|liticks calculated for <HI>Utopia.</HI></HEAD>
<P>BUt then go further and examine the flouri&s;hing Com|monwealths of the whole world, and you &s;hall find them &s;o mixed, nay that mixture &s;o equally poi&s;ed, that it will be hard to find the predominant from which it may re|ceive its name, as was the cau&s;e of the <HI>Lacedemonians</HI> di|&s;puted among&s;t divers Authors, whether Monarchical, Ari|&s;tocratical, or Democratical, and none &s;o ab&s;olutely pure, as that we may &s;ay this Element is without commixion, that Planet hath alone influence; and this he &s;eems him&s;elf to grant in his 98. page, concerning the practi&s;es in the world, although he writes now an <HI>&V;topia,</HI> a pattern which he would have all to follow. He goes on, page 95.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="14" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="56" REF="35">
<HEAD>CHAP. XIV.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>I.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his conclu&s;ions deduced from Principles founded in the Air. Ab&s;olute liberty not actually to be found in any people. Several petite Common|wealths rai&s;ed out of the Ruines of the Roman Em|pire. None of the&s;e without mixture, nor durable. His expo&s;ition of <HI>Repre&s;entative</HI> again redargued, as an ill foundation of Government, Religion, and Propriety. The formerly mentioned Commonwealths pre&s;erved by Laws.</HEAD>
<P><HI>IT is manife&s;t</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>that men who are in ab&s;olute liberty, may, if they plea&s;e, give Authority to one man to repre&s;ent them every one, as well, &amp;c.</HI> The fir&s;t ob&s;ervation which I make here, is an unhappy practi&s;e which he u&s;eth in this place, and often in this Book, which is to &s;uppo&s;e things hard to be found in practicks, and by that fallacy to lay a founda|tion in the Air, and then rai&s;e an imaginary &s;tructure upon it. This &s;uppo&s;al of his, that men are in an ab&s;olute liberty, is very rarely to be found; for all men that are in the world, as &s;oon as they are born, are Subjects, unle&s;s we may con|ceive a man born King of that Country he is in. I would fain find out &s;uch a po&s;&s;ibility, where &s;uch a number of men fit to make a Commonwealth may be at liberty; and I have found out one where it hath been practi&s;ed, I mean that of the Roman Empire, when it was broken and ruined, many people for fear were driven away to &s;hift for them&s;elves, or perhaps over&s;een, or neglected by the Conquerors. The&s;e men, one or other, being thus left to them&s;elves, their law|ful Emperour, and his Po&s;terity, to whom they &s;hould obey, being de&s;troyed, or altogether unable to give them any &s;up|port, the&s;e men are left to &s;hift for them&s;elves: A Govern|ment they mu&s;t have, or grow wild; they con&s;pire in that,
<PB N="57" REF="35">
and then &s;et up many Commonwealths in <HI>Italy,</HI> and tho&s;e adjacent parts. But give me leave to tell Mr. <HI>Hobbs,</HI> that he &s;hall hardly find in any of them exi&s;ting any pure element of Politie without commixion. And I &s;hall tell him more, that the&s;e Commonwealths having no &s;upport, but that weak foundation of the peoples Con&s;titution, were upon all occa|&s;ions of tumults (which were very often) diverted from their fir&s;t &s;ettlement, and had new ways of Government e&s;ta|bli&s;ht in their place. I will tell him further, that no Supreme in all the&s;e was ever called a Repre&s;entative, or a <HI>Leviathan:</HI> And therefore Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> did much ami&s;s to lay this as a foundation for all that light &s;tuff which follows, yea of his whole Book, and of all Commonwealths, which can only be founded upon &s;uch an extraordinary occa&s;ion, neither then in &s;uch an ab&s;olute manner as he &s;uppo&s;eth: For never did a|ny of the&s;e &s;ubmit their Religion, their E&s;tates or Lives, as he would injoyn, but had them pre&s;erved by Laws.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>II.</HI> The Barbarous Murder of King <HI>Charles</HI> the Fir&s;t, the direct i&s;&s;ue of this Doctrine of Mr. <HI>Hobbs, viz.</HI> That the Soveraign is but the Repre&s;entative of the People.</HEAD>
<P>THat which follows immediately about our Repre&s;enta|tive in the Hou&s;e of Commons, I let pa&s;s, until I come to the middle of that page and paragraph, toward the latter end, which he begins thus: <HI>[I know not how this &s;o manife&s;t a truth &s;hould of late be &s;o little ob&s;erved, that in a Monarchy, he that had the Soveraignty from a de&s;cent of</HI> 600 <HI>years, was a|lone called Soveraign, had the title of Maje&s;ty from every one of his Subjects, and was unque&s;tionably taken by them for their King</HI> (I can add to him, was acknowledged &s;o by all the World) <HI>was notwith&s;tanding never con&s;idered as their Repre&s;en|tative.]</HI> He &s;aith, <HI>he knows not how;</HI> I will tell him, becau&s;e a King in no Language, nor in any Country, is taken for a
<PB N="58" REF="36">
Repre&s;entative: And further, that all tho&s;e injuries which are done to him (for he means King <HI>Charles</HI> the Fir&s;t) had their pretence from this horrid Doctrine of his, that Kings had their power from the people: And if he will, that they made him their Repre&s;entative, and not liking his Repre&s;en|tation, they depo&s;ed him, and would be repre&s;ented by one more like them&s;elves. In the latter end of that paragraph, he gives mo&s;t dangerous coun&s;el to him who had the pre&s;ent Go|vernment in his power (to in&s;truct him in the nature of that Office.) But God be prai&s;ed the danger of that intendment is over, and I let it pa&s;s. In the following part of that <HI>Cap.</HI> he very excellently well di&s;cour&s;eth of tho&s;e three Elements of Government, and mo&s;t rationally gives the &s;uperiority to Monarchy. Then he enters into a di&s;cour&s;e of electing Kings, and Temporary Powers, as Dictators in Ari&s;tocracy, and both Ari&s;tocracy and Democracy, which I let pa&s;s as not &s;o mi&s;chievous as other things. And now I come to his 20. <HI>Cap.</HI> page 101. at the bottom, which is thus enti|tled, <HI>Of Dominion Paternal and De&s;potical.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="15" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XV.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>I.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his digre&s;sion cen&s;ured. His fir&s;t Propo&s;i|tion untrue. His &s;uppo&s;ition of a General A&s;&s;embly to con&s;ent to the Soveraignty of the Conqueror un|practicable.</HEAD>
<P>A <HI>Commonwealth by accui&s;ition is that, where the S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">veraign Power is acquired by force; as it is acquired by force, when men &s;ingly, or many together, by plurality of voices, for fear of death or bonds, do auth<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">rize all the actions of that man; or A&s;&s;embly, that hath their lives and liberty in his power.]</HI> Now I am in the 102. page. This is a &s;trange digre&s;&s;ion from his Title; What hath this acqui&s;ition to do with Dominions Pa|ternal or De&s;potical? but let it pa&s;s, I will examine his defi|nition. It is not true, that all acqui&s;ition of a Kingdom is
<PB N="59" REF="36">
by force, &s;ometimes it is got by craft and knavery, we know how <HI>Ab&s;alom</HI> got the Kingdom. There may be other in&s;tan|ces, but let that go, acqui&s;ition by force is but one &s;pecies of acquiring Kingdomes. But then &s;ee what follows, <HI>[It is then acquired by force, when men &s;ingly, &amp;c.]</HI> as before expre&s;&s;ed. I dare boldly &s;ay he can &s;hew me no con&s;iderable Kingdom that either is or was &s;o acquired. I have confuted this in my former di&s;cour&s;e, concerning the In&s;titution of a Common|wealth, and tho&s;e arguments will be of more force again&s;t this manner of acquiring. Suppo&s;e an Enemy &s;hould conquer <HI>France</HI> or <HI>Spain,</HI> do you think he could or would a&s;&s;emble all the Nation together to &s;ub&s;cribe, or any way expre&s;s their intentions of this his mo&s;t unju&s;t reque&s;t to own all his acti|ons, and make him their per&s;on? it is beyond po&s;&s;ibility to i|magine any &s;uch thing. Look upon <HI>David, Alexander, Pom|pey,</HI> any of tho&s;e Conquerors in the world, did they ever act any &s;uch thing? I am confident we read of none, and yet they attained Kingdomes, and got Dominions. But let us proceed to the next Paragraph.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>II.</HI> Fear not the only motive to con&s;ent to obedience in the In&s;titution of Commonwealths. No obligation from fear, when that fear is removed. The fear of God the greate&s;t &s;ecurity of obedience.</HEAD>
<P><HI>ANd this kind of Dominion or Soveraignty, differeth from Soveraignty by In&s;titution, only in this, that men who chu&s;e their Soveraign do it for fear of one another, and not of him whom they in&s;titute: But in this ca&s;e they &s;ubject them&s;elves to him they are afraid of.]</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> doth attribute very much to fear; however, in the la&s;t ca&s;e, I think it not ami&s;s: A vanqui&s;ht Nation &s;eldome &s;ubjects them&s;elves to an Enemy, but out of fear of the Conqueror. But concerning the for|mer, the motive is as much the love of their own happy and quiet condition, together with the hope and expectation of
<PB N="60" REF="37">
many other conveniences which will accrew to them and their Families by it: But (&s;aith he) <HI>in both ca&s;es they do it for fear; which is to be noted by them that hold all &s;uch Covenants as proceed from fear of death, or violence, void; which if it were true, no man in any kind of Commonwealth could be obliged to obe|dience.]</HI> Thus far he, and indeed if there were no other obli|gation but the&s;e fears he &s;peaks of, there were no obligation to bind any man when he may &s;ecure him&s;elf: For let the Reader ob&s;erve, that the fear he &s;peaks of are fears of men, one of another in an in&s;tituted, and in his acquired Kingdom for fear of the Conqueror. Here is put down no fear of God, which is the obliging fear; for the re&s;t men may have worldly plots to e&s;cape, and rid them&s;elves of the dangers of War, but he can have none to acquit him&s;elf of Gods anger, which is the great weight, and the only one which pre&s;&s;eth man to obedience.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>III.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his Propo&s;ition a&s;&s;erted. His rea&s;on of this Propo&s;ition cen&s;ured. Contracts again&s;t the moral Law <HI>ip&s;o facto</HI> void.</HEAD>
<P>HE proceeds <HI>[It is true, that in a Commonwealth once in|&s;tituted or acquired, promi&s;es proceeding either from fear of death, or violence, are no Covenants, nor obliging, when the thing promi&s;ed is contrary to the Laws: But the rea&s;on is not, becau&s;e it was made upon fear, but becau&s;e he that promi&s;eth, hath no right to the thing promi&s;ed.]</HI> Here is a Propo&s;ition, and the rea&s;on of it. The Propo&s;ition I &s;peak to fir&s;t, and allow it to be true, not only in a Commonwealth in&s;tituted or acqui|red, but in any e&s;tate of mankind: Who&s;oever promi&s;eth an unlawful thing is not obliged to the performance; and the rea&s;on is, that the Moral Law of Nature being written in mens hearts, what&s;oever engagement is made again&s;t it, is <HI>ip&s;o facto</HI> invalid, whether he did it by fear or no, being (as he rightly &s;peaks) an act without his ability to perform, and
<PB N="61" REF="37">
of that which was otherwi&s;e di&s;po&s;ed of by the Moral Law. But con&s;ider, Reader, what this is to his purpo&s;e, the &s;en&s;e pre|ceding was, <HI>That all Commonwealths were founded upon fear, whether in&s;tituted or acquired:</HI> From thence he &s;pake again&s;t &s;uch as hold <HI>Covenants made for fear of death, or violence, void.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>IV.</HI> Of Covenants ari&s;ing from fear in things lawful, but again&s;t Equity. Of mixed Contracts and Actions, of ju&s;t, and lighter, or unwarrantable fears in a|voidance of Contracts.</HEAD>
<P>I Looked to have him prove they were not; but in&s;tead of that he affirms, <HI>they are v<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">id in an in&s;tituted Common|wealth, when they Covenant for an unlawful thing.]</HI> But &s;up|po&s;e they covenant to do a thing that is lawful? when it is in its &s;elf lawful, although full of many inconveniencies, as that Thieves &s;hould with oaths and imprecations make a man &s;wear to alienate his e&s;tate from his Wife and Children, it is lawful for him to do it, but it would be a mo&s;t wicked act to keep &s;uch a Covenant; not becau&s;e (as his rea&s;on is) <HI>that he had no power to do it;</HI> for he had by all tho&s;e Laws which he &s;eems to acknowledge, which are the Laws of the King|domes wherein he lives; but the rea&s;on is that which he will not acknowledge, that Covenants made upon &s;uch terms are not free, but mixed actions, which are done with a relu|ctancy, and not <HI>plen<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> con&s;er&s;u.</HI> For although he that throws his goods into the Sea, to &s;ave his Ship and his life, doth that act willingly, that is principally &s;o, yet becau&s;e it is with a reluctancy, and again&s;t his love of his riches, which weighs the ballance heavier on the other &s;ide, it is neither violent, nor willing, but a mixed action, yet willing princi|pally, becau&s;e it is cho&s;en; and upon this rea&s;on it is, that this act done by &s;uch con&s;iderable fear, is expounded not ob|ligatory: As if a Maid &s;urprized by &s;uch means &s;hould pro|mi&s;e Marriage upon terrors of death if &s;he did not &s;o Cove|nant;
<PB N="62" REF="38">
if &s;he finds &s;he &s;hould be unhappy in &s;uch a Match, without doubt &s;he is not bound to perform it, becau&s;e it was not fully a willing or rational act, but mixed; but yet if it had been a voluntary act, and with full con&s;ent, &s;he ought to keep her Covenant: Which &s;hews, that many times forced acts or obligations made by terrour of death, or with &s;trong probabilities of great mi&s;chief, if refu&s;ed, may when that fear or terror is removed, and upon repentance of &s;uch Co|venant, be lawfully denied, and are not obligatory: But if it be for fear of &s;ome little danger, &s;uch as may not <HI>cadere in con&s;tantem vicum,</HI> it doth excu&s;e no body. And now I let pa&s;s the latter end of that Paragraph, and proceed to the next, in the margin of which I find.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>V.</HI> The ca&s;e of a conquered and in&s;tituted Kingdom not the &s;ame. The be&s;t art of a Conquerour is to &s;e|cure his Victory By what means &s;uch a &s;ecurity may be obtained.</HEAD>
<P><HI>THe rights and con&s;equencies of Soveraignty the &s;ame in both.]</HI> That is, both in an in&s;tituted and an acquired Soveraignty, in which his marginal note is the whole pith of that Paragraph; for he only &s;ets down the particulars formerly treated of, and di&s;cour&s;ed upon before by me, and offers at no one argument, but at the latter end he &s;aith; <HI>[The rea&s;ons whereof are the &s;ame which are alledged in the pre|cedent Cop.]</HI> He &s;ays they are the &s;ame, and I &s;ay they can|not be the &s;ame: For if there were &s;uch a thing as his in&s;ti|tution of a Soveraignty, yet the ca&s;e of a conquered Nation mu&s;t needs differ from it, for either the Conque&s;t is fully and compleat, (which &s;eldome happens) or el&s;e the well-nigh-conquered Nation comes to a Treaty for their condi|tions, which may be to enjoy their ancient Laws &s;ome|times, &s;ometimes accept of new, &s;ometimes pay a tribute to the Conquerour, who gives them leave to live under their
<PB N="63" REF="38">
former Race of Kings; &s;ometimes have Deputies and Vice-roys &s;et over them, impowred by the Conquerour; &s;ometimes they accept of Garri&s;ons to bridle them; &s;ometimes their words are taken; and then if there be an ab&s;olute Victory, they mu&s;t be ruled &s;olely by the will of the Conquerour. And in none of the&s;e is the condition of a conquered Kingdom the &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">me with an In&s;tituted: And &s;urely the more conform their conquered condition is to their former &s;tate, the more la&s;ting it will be, and otherwi&s;e it is in danger to decay quickly; for there is no di&s;cretion more becoming a Conque|ror, then to make his Victory certain and durable: Nor is that any way to be atchieved &s;o ea&s;ily, as by di&s;cerning the temper of tho&s;e men which he is to deal with, nor can their temper be &s;o well under&s;tood by any thing, as by their cu|&s;tomes; for the commonalty of men not being able to chu&s;e for them&s;elves, mu&s;t and will be contented with that Go|vernment which they are u&s;ed to, though perhaps another may be ea&s;ier in its &s;elf. So that it is evident (I think) to be ap|prehended, that the &s;ame rights and con&s;equencies of Sove|raignty which belongs to a Supreme by In&s;titution, do not belong to one by Conque&s;t.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="16" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XVI.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>I.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his method cen&s;ured, his contradictions noted. Of the right of Dominion from Generation. Paternal Dominion not flowing from the con&s;ent of children. Infants cannot con&s;ent. Paternal Domi|nion flowing from the Laws of God and Nature. Scripture vilified by Mr. <HI>Hobbs.</HI></HEAD>
<P>IN the next Paragraph he comes to treat of <HI>Dominion Pa|ternal how attained,</HI> as the Margin directs. My fir&s;t note &s;hall be upon his method. He had treated in the precedent <HI>Cap.</HI> of <HI>Dominion by In&s;titution,</HI> then the Title of this <HI>Cap,</HI>
<PB N="64" REF="39">
was of <HI>Dominion Paternal</HI> and <HI>De&s;potical.</HI> In all the prece|ding part of this <HI>Cap.</HI> he hath handled only Dominion by ac|qui&s;ition, and that (without con&s;ideration of what he had writ before) he defined to be &s;uch <HI>as is got by force.</HI> Now he confutes him&s;elf in the fir&s;t words of this Paragraph; which are <HI>[Dominion is acquired two ways, either by Generati|on, or by Conque&s;t.]</HI> That by Generation, I am &s;ure, cannot be called by force; therefore either his definition of acquired Dominion is not good, or that Dominion by Generation is not an acquired Dominion. He proceeds <HI>[The right of Do|minion by Generation, is that which the Parent hath over his Children, and is called Paternal.]</HI> A high My&s;tery expounded; that the Government of Parents &s;hould be called Paternal: But his next words confute this immediately, which are <HI>[And is not &s;o derived from the Generation, as if therefore the Parent had Dominion over his Child, becau&s;e he begot him.]</HI> How then can Paternal Dominion be acquired by Generati|on? which he immediately before affirmed, when he &s;aid, Dominion is acquired two ways, by Generation, and by Con|que&s;t: (but, &s;aith he) <HI>from the Childs con&s;ent, either expre&s;s, or by other &s;ufficient Arguments declared.]</HI> Let us con&s;ider this, and examine what con&s;ent a Child can give in his Infancy; certainly no otherwi&s;e then a Pig, or any Infant Bea&s;t; he can wi&s;h for a Teat, and cry for it when he lacks it, and be &s;atisfied with any that is offered. If this Doctrine of his were true, the Child did chu&s;e his Nur&s;e who gave him &s;uck, not the Mother who gave him being. At the fir&s;t in his Infancy he cannot di&s;tingui&s;h betwixt his Parents, and therefore can have no election nor con&s;ent (I mean rational con&s;ent) to one more then another to be his Guardian, yet the Parent hath Dominion over that Child, and like other Go|vernours, &s;hall give an account one day of that Steward&s;hip, and of his behaviour towards him. Let us go on, and ob|&s;erve the Child grown up with a &s;mattering of Rea&s;on; Can any man think that the Parent &s;hould not govern that Child, who hath not prudence enough to govern him&s;elf, but much pa&s;&s;ion to make him unruly, and therefore needs to have a Governour? Well, let us go further, and bring the Child to
<PB N="65" REF="39">
one and twenty years of age, when he is generally thought fit to govern his e&s;tate, if he have any, yet even then, until his death, he owes obedience to his Parents, and they have Dominion over him, whether he con&s;ent or not: And who|&s;oever denies this, denies not only Scripture (which is no|thing with Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI>) but even Humanity, which hath ex|pre&s;&s;ed her tenderne&s;s of this duty in all Ages, as will appear <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ore fully hereafter.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>II.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his Chain of contradictions di&s;covered.</HEAD>
<P>BUt good Reader ob&s;erve with me how many contradicti|ons are crouded together in one page. Fir&s;t an acquired Dominion is by force, and that contradicted; becau&s;e that a Dominion is acquired by Generation, which is not a forced, but a mo&s;t natural act; and that is again contradicted, be|cau&s;e not Generation, but con&s;ent gives the Dominion; and this which he calls con&s;ent, is not &s;uch a thing as belonged to an acquired Dominion, for that con&s;ent is only a con&s;ent to that Government for fear of the Conquerour; but this con|&s;ent is for love of his own accommodation, or out of that reverential awe which Children have to their Parents; and this is in nothing like the other. And &s;urely if it participated of either, it mo&s;t re&s;embled the con&s;ent which he imagines to be in an in&s;tituted Commonwealth, and therefore not to be ranked under the Acqui&s;ite.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<PB N="66" REF="40">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>III.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his con&s;tant abu&s;e of Scripture noted. The command of the Mother to be obeyed in &s;ubordina|tion to the Father, in whom the obedience of chil|dren is terminated. His iterated quarrelling with Scripture. Rules of Government to be proportion|able to general emergencies.</HEAD>
<P>BUt let us go on with him (for &s;aith he) <HI>As to the Genera|tion, God hath ordained to man a helper, and there be al|ways two that are equally Parents: The Dominion therefore over the Child, &s;hould belong equally to them both, and he be equally &s;ubject to both, which is impo&s;&s;ible, for no man can obey two Ma&s;ters.]</HI> To begin where he ends. He doth abu&s;e Scripture where&s;oever it cro&s;&s;eth his way, as it doth very often: <HI>No man can &s;erve two Ma&s;ters, but in every Family a man &s;erves a Ma&s;ter and a Mi&s;tre&s;s: There cannot be two Supremes.]</HI> But in an Oe|conomical Dominion the Man is above the Woman, and if the Woman command contrary to the Man, the Mans com|mand is to be obeyed, and the Woman her &s;elf is to be obedi|ent to the Man, the Mother to the Father: I but, &s;aith he, they are equally principles of Generation; therefore if the right of Dominion be an appendant to Generation, it mu&s;t equally belong to them both. I will not di&s;pute the nature of Gene|ration, which Philo&s;ophers and Phy&s;itians have abundantly done; but &s;uppo&s;e that in the ca&s;e it exacts an obedience to them both, yet with a &s;ubordination to the Father, which mu&s;t clearly appear in this, becau&s;e the Woman her &s;elf mu&s;t be obedient to the Father, as will appear in the two fir&s;t prin|ciples of Generation, <HI>Adam</HI> and <HI>Evah,</HI> God gave them that Law, <HI>Thy de&s;ire &s;hall be to thy Husband, and he &s;hall rule over thee, Gen.</HI> 3.16. Now then if the man rules the woman, then in the &s;ubordination of Government, &s;he cannot equally &s;hare in that Dominion with him, who is Governour of her: So that although the Child hath from his Generation two per|&s;ons
<PB N="67" REF="40">
to obey; yet this obedience is terminated in one, the Fa|ther who is Supreme, to whom the Mother al&s;o is &s;ubject: He proceeds <HI>[And whereas &s;ome have attributed the Dominion to the man only, as being of the m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">re excellent Sex, they mi&s;|reckon it; for there is not always that difference of &s;trength and prudence between the man and the woman, as that the right can be determined without war.]</HI> Thus this Author hath a &s;pight to Scripture, and hopes with a fla&s;h of wicked wit to divert men from that due ob&s;ervance which they ought to have of tho&s;e duties which are there required, or at the lea&s;t to dimini&s;h that rational obedience which men &s;hould give to it. It may be &s;ome do attribute the obedience to the man only, out of this regard, that he is the Nobler Sex, and why not? He is &s;o un|doubtedly; for although it may happen out in particulars, that the Woman may be more prudent or &s;trong then her Hu&s;|band, yet certainly the generality is not &s;o; and the rules of governing and obeying are not to be taken from a few parti|cular in&s;tances, but the common condition of the Sexes. Ser|vants may be wi&s;er or &s;tronger then their Ma&s;ters, Subjects then their Kings, children then their Parents, yet the&s;e &s;a|cred Laws of governing and obeying mu&s;t not be varied for &s;uch few particular in&s;tances.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>IV.</HI> The brawling of Man and Wife improperly called war. War only between Nations. VVi&s;dom, not &s;trength, enable to Government. VVives &s;ubmit to their Hu&s;|bands, by the Law of God, under the fir&s;t and &s;e|cond <HI>Adam.</HI> St. <HI>Pauls</HI> Argument from the Law of Nature explained.</HEAD>
<P>WHat he &s;aith that this cau&s;e mu&s;t be <HI>determined by war,</HI> is ill expre&s;&s;ed. For fir&s;t the contention betwixt man and wife, cannot properly be called war, but brawling or fight|ing at the wor&s;t. War is betwixt Nations in the genuine &s;ig|nification. I remember <HI>Aelian</HI> tells a &s;tory of the <HI>Sacae,</HI> that
<PB N="68" REF="41">
when a Man and a Maid married, they were to fight at the fir&s;t, and he or &s;he that conquered, was afterwards &s;erved by the other for the term of their lives. This was a pretty gam|bal, whether true or fal&s;e it is not much material; I read it only in him; but &s;urely a mo&s;t unrea&s;onable practice. Is the power of Government proper to &s;trength or wi&s;dom? Can any man think that a Bull or a Hor&s;e is fitter to govern a man, then he them, becau&s;e they are of more &s;trength, though he have more wi&s;dom? But &s;urely for us that are Chri&s;tians, there is no need to fly to &s;uch poor little in&s;tances, or cu&s;toms, or the accidental prudence or &s;trength of the woman; if &s;he have more wit, let her u&s;e it to the gaining and winning him to vertue; if &s;he have more &s;trength, let her u&s;e it to the a&s;&s;i|&s;tance of her Husbands weakne&s;s: by that means her excel|lencies will be imployed to their right u&s;es; &s;he &s;hall be a helper to him, not a Ruler over him. I need not here repeat what of late I delivered concerning this Doctrine out of <HI>Gen.</HI> 3. But that Gods Command is clear to this purpo&s;e, not only in <HI>Adam,</HI> but tho&s;e that are de&s;cended from the &s;econd <HI>Adam,</HI> con&s;ider what S. <HI>Paul</HI> writes in the fifth to the <HI>Ephe&s;ians,</HI> v. 22. <HI>Wives &s;ubmit your &s;elves to your own Husbands, as unto the Lord.</HI> But methinks Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> &s;hould an&s;wer to this, that this is on|ly a po&s;itive Law; yet I can reply to that, that it is univer&s;al, or what is equivalent, indefinite, and comprehends all wives. But then go further, and read the Apo&s;tles Argument in the following ver&s;e; <HI>For the Husband is the Head of the Wife, e|ven as Chri&s;t is the Head of the Church.</HI> Thus the Apo&s;tle ar|gues from the Law of Nature: Fir&s;t, that by the Law of Nature the re&s;t of the body &s;ubmits to the Head; &s;o mu&s;t Wives do to their own Husbands. Then this is exemplified from Chri&s;ti|anity in the manner of his Head&s;hip, &s;uch a Head as Chri&s;t is over his Church; which I hope no Chri&s;tian will &s;ay, but that it mu&s;t &s;ubmit to, and be governed by him. And I hope, both Nature, Gods Law, and Chri&s;tian duty, may be &s;ufficient to de|termine this controver&s;ie without war: And I may add, that &s;ince all Nations have con&s;ented to it, &s;ure we ought not now to demur upon the ca&s;e, becau&s;e Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> interpo&s;eth his Authority with little or no rea&s;on.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<PB N="69" REF="41">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>V.</HI> This Paragraph contrary to Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his principles, and the &s;uppo&s;ed in&s;titution of a Commonwealth; but yet mo&s;t true, not from Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his rea&s;on, but the Law of God. Fathers of Families have the di&s;po&s;ition of their Families. The invalidity of Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his rea&s;ons. His example of the Ama|zons inconcludent.</HEAD>
<P>HE proceeds: <HI>In Commonwealths this controver&s;ie is decided by the Civil Law; and for the mo&s;t part (but not always) the &s;entence is in favour of the Father, becau&s;e for the mo&s;t part Commonwealths have been erected by the Fathers, not by the Mo|thers of Families.]</HI> Now I am come to page <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">03. but I would fain know how the Fathers, rather then the Mothers, &s;hould come to be Erectors of Commonwealths? Certainly if Com|monwealths were in&s;tituted (as he feigns) by the general &s;uf|frage of all who had intere&s;t in the Government, then women as well as men, Mothers as well as Fathers, had the manage|ment of that bu&s;ine&s;s, for they have their intere&s;t in the pub|lick con&s;titution as well as men. But he hath let fall an excel|lent truth which is clear again&s;t the whole Body of his Poli|ticks, which is, that the Fathers of Families, not the Rabble, were the Erectors of Commonwealths: For if they did (as I am confident with him here they did) then his former di&s;|cour&s;e which is built upon the in&s;titution of a Commonwealth by the univer&s;al con&s;ent of all who have intere&s;t in it mu&s;t fail; for not the Fathers and Mothers only, but even the meane&s;t child or &s;ervant, may challenge their &s;hares in it. And certain|ly the Fathers of Families could not be the Erectors of Com|monwealths, but only out of this regard, that they were the chief in their Families, and by that rea&s;on had right to di&s;|po&s;e of him&s;elf and them. And here let the Reader con&s;ider, that Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> never remembers that great Authority given by God to <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> which regulated him and his Po&s;terity ma|ny
<PB N="70" REF="42">
Generations; nor the confirmation that Law laid from our Saviour in the New Te&s;tament, which are obligatory to us in all Ages. He only clouds the truth with this pittiful poor rea|&s;on, or rather &s;hew of rea&s;on, only that men were the Law|makers, and they were partial to their own Sex; No, Ma&s;ter <HI>Hobbs,</HI> God was the Law-maker, who is no accepter of per|&s;ons, or Sexes, but in an infinitely wi&s;e manner di&s;po&s;eth all things in the be&s;t and &s;ure&s;t method that may be, according to his mo&s;t ju&s;t Laws, But becau&s;e he &s;aid (but not always) that is, that the Fathers of Families were not always the Erectors of Commonwealths, intimating that &s;ome Commonwealths were erected by the Mothers of Families, I &s;hould thank him, or any man el&s;e, who can &s;hew me any &s;uch in the world. It may be he will fly to that beggerly in&s;tance which he gives pre|&s;ently of the <HI>Amazons;</HI> but let it &s;uffice for them (if there were any &s;uch) that they were Widdows, or &s;ingle Women, not united in Marriage, and &s;o not &s;ubject to Husbands, and therefore were free to di&s;po&s;e of them&s;elves as they plea&s;ed, and might have made what ju&s;t Laws they thought fit for their condition; but if they were joyned in marriage to Hu&s;|bands, they mu&s;t then &s;ubm<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">t to that yoak, and be governed in their dome&s;tick affairs according to his di&s;cipline. The di|&s;pute is here betwixt Husband and Wife, not betwixt man and woman, Wives mu&s;t &s;ubmit to their own Husbands, not every woman to every man.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>VI.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his contradiction again cen&s;ured. Antipo|dial Government introduced. His conclu&s;ions not con&s;i&s;tent one with another. Contracts (with Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI>) but words, and advantaged by power, may lawfully be broken. Lawful Contracts &s;ealed in Heaven.</HEAD>
<P>HE goes on: <HI>But the Que&s;tion lieth now in the &s;tate of meer Nature, where there are &s;uppo&s;ed no Laws of Matrimony,
<PB N="71" REF="42">
no Laws for the education of children, but the Law of Nature, and the natural inclination of the Sexes one to another, and to their children.</HI> This is incon&s;i&s;tent with what he hath former|ly taught, and I have confuted; viz. <HI>That naturally men are at war, every man with every man:</HI> Well then, in this &s;tate before they are covenanted into a Commonwealth, all things, all rights are tryed by force, and it may happen that the man who conquers this day may fall &s;ick and grow weak, and then the Woman may be Victor, and &s;o the ca&s;e may be altered; or both may grow old or &s;ick, and their children ma&s;ter them both, and &s;o bring in an Antipodial Government: And then let any man think, whether the wi&s;e con&s;titution of Nature can agree with &s;uch abominable follies? and how weak, ac|cording to his Doctrine, this conclu&s;ion is: <HI>In this condition of meer nature</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>either the Parents between them&s;elves di&s;|po&s;e of the dominion over the child by contract, or do not di&s;po&s;e thereof at all: If they do di&s;po&s;e thereof, the right pa&s;&s;eth ac|cording to the contract.</HI> This di&s;tinction cannot be denied, ei|ther they mu&s;t, or they mu&s;t not contract: <HI>If they di&s;po&s;e</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>the right pa&s;&s;eth according to the contract.</HI> But let him remember the &s;tate and condition he &s;peaks of, is in mans na|ture, before any imbodying them&s;elves into a Commonwealth. Then let him look back to what he hath writ, <HI>Cap.</HI> 17. page 85. <HI>Covenants without the Sword are but words, and of no &s;trength to &s;ecure a man at all.</HI> And again in the &s;ame page; <HI>Theref<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">re notwith&s;tanding the Law of Nature, if there be no power erected, or not great enough for our &s;ecurity, every man will and may lawfully relye upon his own &s;trength, and art for caution again&s;t all other men.]</HI> Let us put the&s;e together; the right pa&s;&s;eth by contract, &s;aith he, in this 20. <HI>Cap.</HI> Contracts are but words, and have no force to bind, &s;aith he, in his <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">7. <HI>Cap.</HI> unle&s;s a Commonwealth be erected; therefore no Cove|nant gives an active right to any thing, without the Sword in a Magi&s;trates hand to make it good: So then the Sword rules every man in that &s;tate, before a Commonwealth is in&s;tituted, may lawfully relye upon his own &s;trength or art for caution. So that although the word be out in that &s;tate, and the Con|tract made, yet if the Husband or the Wife can find &s;trength
<PB N="72" REF="43">
or art to avoid it, they may lawfully u&s;e it, and to defraud and force each other to the breach of this Covenant is law|ful. So that according to <HI>his principles, there is no con&s;idera|ble &s;trength in the &s;tate of Nature to keep any to their promi&s;es;</HI> but according to mine it is not &s;o, who am a&s;&s;ured that tho&s;e lawful Contracts made on earth are &s;ealed in heaven; and the God of truth &s;o loves truth, that he approves it in all conditi|ons of men; and therefore the&s;e bargains ought to be ob&s;er|ved, unle&s;s it may happen out, that they are contrary to the Divine Law, as that a man &s;hould dive&s;t him&s;elf of all his Oeconomical right which God hath placed in him, and the woman by &s;uch power &s;hould u&s;urp a Superiority, when God hath commanded her to be &s;ubject: So that a man may, as I think, ab&s;olutely conclude, where there is no Common|wealth, a veracity is exacted by God in &s;uch contracts, which are not again&s;t &s;ome Divine Law; where there is a Common|wealth the&s;e bargains are confirmed as are not contrary to their Civil Laws.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>VII.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his example of the Amazons, further &s;hewed to be impertinent.</HEAD>
<P>HE proceeds, and gives an in&s;tance; <HI>We find</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>in Hi&s;tory, that the Amazons contracted with the men of Neighbouring Countries, to whom they had recour&s;e for I&s;&s;ues, that the I&s;&s;ue Male &s;hould be &s;ent back, but the Female remain with them&s;elves; &s;o that the Dominion of the Females was in the Mother.]</HI> Here is an in&s;tance from a Lawle&s;s Conjunction, where man and woman meet together, like bea&s;ts, to enjoy that carnal familiarity, but not like rational creatures to co|habit together in an Oeconomical Di&s;cipline. Among&s;t them there were only the fir&s;t names, Man and Woman, not Husband and Wife, which began our di&s;cour&s;e. It is of Women re|nouncing mens &s;ociety, who neither them&s;elves, nor their children, lived in the &s;ame Nation, nor under the &s;ame Go|vernment
<PB N="73" REF="43">
with the&s;e whom they did conver&s;e with; and &s;o if they had kept the Male-child, the father could no ways come to lay claim to it, or any thing in the Amazonian Coun|try. And yet con&s;ider once more how weak and incon&s;i&s;tent his di&s;cour&s;e is, which contradicteth it &s;elf in almo&s;t every page. He di&s;cour&s;ed of men in me<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">r nature ju&s;t before, and pre&s;ently after, as his words are, <HI>which men which are without all union in a Commonwealth;</HI> and here in the middle of his di&s;cour&s;e he gives his in&s;tance for proof of his Conclu&s;ion from the conver&s;ation of the Amazonians with their Neigh|bouring Countries, both which were incorporated into &s;eve|ral Commonwealths: For it is evident from what is written of the Amazonians in Hi&s;tories, that their Commonwealth had many di&s;tinct Laws and Cu&s;tomes from other Nations (if there were any &s;uch.) But let us go on with him.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="8" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>VIII.</HI> His &s;uppo&s;ition of the &s;tate of Nature without Matri|mony cen&s;ured. His rea&s;ons refuted. The Father of the Family hath dominion of the Child born out of Matrimony.</HEAD>
<P>HE enters now upon the &s;econd part of his di&s;tinction: <HI>If there be no Contract</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>the dominion is in the Mo|ther: For in the condition of meer nature, where there are no Ma|trimonial Laws, it cannot be known who is the Father, unle&s;s it be declared by the Mother; and therefore the right of dominion o|ver the child dependeth upon the will of the Mother, and is con&s;e|quently hers.]</HI> Here you find the &s;tate of nature again, where are no Matrimonial Laws: But &s;tay, there was never &s;uch a time or place, for God gave the Law of the Wives &s;ubjection to her Husband in Paradi&s;e, <HI>Gen.</HI> 3.16. of which I have for|merly treated. It was the fir&s;t Law he gave after their eating the forbidden fruit; therefore there was no &s;uch time or &s;tate of men, in which there was no Law concerning Matrimony. But if he under&s;tand by this word <HI>Law,</HI> only Humane Politick
<PB N="74" REF="44">
Laws, he receives his an&s;wer, that where no Politick Laws re&s;train it, there mo&s;t abundantly Divine Laws are without controul. But he hath rea&s;on for what he writes <HI>(Becau&s;e no man can tell who is Father of the child, but the Mother only; therefore he is at her di&s;po&s;e)</HI> I would ask whether the child was born in Marriage or no? if &s;o, then the child is his fa|thers, and he is bound to maintain him; but if not, he is <HI>Fi|lius Populi</HI> (unle&s;s the Woman produce the Father) and the people mu&s;t father it, and provide for it. But he will an&s;wer in the meer &s;tate of nature, without Politick Sanctions, there is no Marriage. I reply there was never &s;uch a &s;tate, but there were &s;ome forms by which men accepted their Wives in|to that union; or if no Laws, yet cu&s;tom and con&s;tant u&s;age grew into a Law, and they were thus appropriated one to the other. But &s;uppo&s;e the Infant (he &s;peaks of) were born without any &s;uch conjunction, the Woman either lived in her Fathers hou&s;e, or was her &s;elf alone Mi&s;tre&s;s of a family. If the fir&s;t, &s;he and the Child were at the Fathers di&s;po&s;e; if the &s;econd, and the Father unknown, he is hers only. But he and I might have &s;pared the troubling a Reader with this di&s;|cour&s;e in this que&s;tion; for the que&s;tion was rai&s;ed about man and wife in the &s;ame family, who &s;hould govern the child, not about &s;uch &s;purious Generations, where the man and wo|man live in di&s;tinct families. He urgeth further; <HI>Again</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>&s;eeing the Infant is fir&s;t in the Mothers power, &s;o as &s;he may either nouri&s;h or expo&s;e it; if &s;he nouri&s;h it, it oweth its life to the Mother, and is therefore obliged to obey her rather then any other, and by con&s;equence the dominion over it is hers.]</HI> Let us fir&s;t exa|mine this little Particle <HI>(Fir&s;t)</HI> that mu&s;t be under&s;tood of the fir&s;t in&s;tant of the childs birth, becau&s;e that gives him his fir&s;t being in the world: But then is not the &s;ame power in the Midwife, who may either &s;tifle the child, or pre&s;erve it? And then an equal &s;hare of duty from this rea&s;on will be owing to her as well as the Mother. Then con&s;ider that phra&s;e <HI>(if &s;he nouri&s;h it)</HI> what is that? give it &s;uck? But &s;uppo&s;e &s;he doth neither expo&s;e it, nor give it &s;uck, by rea&s;on of &s;ome infirmi|ty or weakne&s;s which &s;he hath, but put it out to Nur&s;e, &s;hall the Nur&s;e have any intere&s;t in the dominion over the child? I,
<PB N="75" REF="44">
but (he may an&s;wer) that this mu&s;t be by the Mothers provi|dence, and then &s;he is Author of that childs pre&s;ervation: No (&s;ay I) but the Father who mu&s;t either direct, or at the lea&s;t willingly permit the Mother to do it; for the Mother being under the Fathers dominion, &s;he cannot act any con&s;iderable matter either to her &s;elf, or for her child, without the Fathers leave.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="9" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>IX.</HI> No Law impowring the woman to expo&s;e her child. The Law of Nature favourable to Infants. Power or abi|lity cannot give the character of Ju&s;tice to unju&s;t a|ctions. The con&s;equences of Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his con|clu&s;ions di&s;covered, and the contrary a&s;&s;erted. The Mother gets no dominion over the Child by not ex|po&s;ing it.</HEAD>
<P>NExt let us con&s;ider what power the Mother hath to ex|po&s;e her child; <HI>Id pote&s;t, quod jure pote&s;t;</HI> &s;he hath no power, but by &s;ome Law which gives her that power. I am confident he cannot find any National Law which gives the Woman authority to act any &s;uch thing, or if he could, what would it avail him? becau&s;e he di&s;putes of &s;uch who are not imbodied into a Commonwealth, much le&s;s can he pretend to the Law of Nature, which dictates nothing more clearly then the Love of Parents to their children. I but he will &s;ay, <HI>&s;he hath power, that is, &s;he is able to do it:</HI> If &s;uch a malicious di&s;po&s;ition were di&s;covered, the Husband hath power to re|&s;train it: But &s;uppo&s;e &s;uch a horrid wickedne&s;s may be in the Woman, and a power, yea an opportunity of acting it, doth &s;he gain dominion, becau&s;e &s;he doth it not? by that rea&s;on Wives may have dominion over their Husbands, Children o|ver their Parents, Servants over their Ma&s;ters, Subjects over their Kings, for all the&s;e have or may have power, though no right to murder or &s;lay the other, which is very odious to the con&s;ideration of any man who thinks upon either Oecono|micks
<PB N="76" REF="45">
or Politicks; nay there is none of tho&s;e more abhorring to nature, then the Mothers expo&s;ing her child. I therefore conclude again&s;t that member of his di&s;tinction, that although a Mother may be &s;o impious as to expo&s;e her child, yet be|cau&s;e &s;he hath no right to do it, &s;he gains no right of domini|on by not doing it.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="10" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>X.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his deviation from the matter propo&s;ed. Children expo&s;ed and nouri&s;hed by others, owe not filial duties to them that nouri&s;h them; pre&s;ervati|on not &s;o great a benefit as being. <HI>Romulus</HI> his re|&s;pect to them that nouri&s;hed him, not filial duty, but gratitude and kindne&s;s.</HEAD>
<P>HE proceeds upon that &s;uppo&s;al: <HI>[But if &s;he expo&s;e it, and another find and nouri&s;h it, the dominion is in him that nouri&s;heth it.]</HI> Fir&s;t (good Reader) con&s;ider with me what this is to his purpo&s;e? The que&s;tion rai&s;ed was betwixt the Father and Mother of a Family, who &s;hould have the domi|nion over their child; now it is betwixt the Mother who brought a child into the world, and a &s;tranger who nouri&s;h|eth it: If the Wife have it (as I have &s;hewed) the Husband hath it, becau&s;e he hath dominion over the Wife, therefore of what&s;oever likewi&s;e is &s;ubject to her dominion. Now he produceth an in&s;tance where neither hath it: <HI>Then</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>the dominion is in him that nouri&s;heth it.</HI> I &s;hall an&s;wer it: If there be &s;uch Mon&s;ters who for fear, or for that Tyrant daughter of <HI>fear, &s;hame,</HI> &s;hall expo&s;e their child, as (&s;ure there are) without doubt they do as much as in them lies put off all their Parental intere&s;t, and deve&s;t them&s;elves of all fi|lial duties belonging to them, and it is as undoubted a truth, that for that time which they are &s;o nouri&s;hed and relieved (yea indeed all the daies of their life) they owe and ought to pay great kindne&s;s and re&s;pect to &s;uch deliverers (though not filial) becau&s;e the benefit is exceeding great which they
<PB N="77" REF="45">
have received from their Patrons, but not &s;o great as from their Fathers; for the Parent gives him his very being, the other but his pre&s;ervation. Now as the being of man, or any thing, is the fountain of all the good which can come to that man, &s;o mu&s;t the gift of that exceed all other, el&s;e his Phy&s;i|tian may be his Father, his Cook, or his Apothecary, which conduce to his pre&s;ervation. But &s;uppo&s;e he &s;hould be expo|&s;ed not by his Parents, but by any other means, as <HI>Romulus,</HI> although pre&s;erved and educated by <HI>Fau&s;tulus</HI> and <HI>Lupa,</HI> and owed them a mighty kindne&s;s for that pre&s;ervation, yet this kindne&s;s when he came to be a man, cea&s;ed to be filial duty towards them, &s;uch as was due if proceeding from a Paternal dominion over him, and rather became a great kindne&s;s and benignity towards them.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="11" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>XI.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his rea&s;ons of the former a&s;&s;ertions weigh|ed, and refuted. Obedience, where it cro&s;&s;es, fir&s;t due to the Parent. The weakne&s;e of Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI>'s inferen|ces noted. His conclu&s;ion cen&s;ured. Oecominical Laws mu&s;t be &s;ubmitted to National.</HEAD>
<P>HE adds <HI>[For it ought to obey him by whom it is pre&s;erved; becau&s;e pre&s;ervation of life being the end for which one be|comes &s;ubject to another, every man is &s;uppo&s;ed to promi&s;e obedi|ence to him in who&s;e power it is to &s;ave or de&s;troy him.]</HI> I an|&s;wer, pre&s;ervation (as the Philo&s;opher &s;peaks) is <HI>continuata creatio or generatio;</HI> &s;o that the very being of any thing is the &s;ub&s;tance which is pre&s;erved, and that mu&s;t needs be more ex|cellent then &s;uch an acci<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ent as pre&s;ervation It is true, a ch<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ld ought to obey him who hath nouri&s;hed him, but not in &s;uch a degree as to a Parental relation, when that obedience &s;hall cro&s;s the obedience to the Parents: [<HI>Pre&s;ervation of life is the end</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>for which one man becomes &s;ubject unto another.]</HI> But con&s;ider what pre&s;ervation that is, with that which is to come; upon this ground the unvanqui&s;hed man &s;ubmits him|&s;elf
<PB N="78" REF="46">
to the Conquerour, that he may protect his future being, and pre&s;erve him from future danger; but this &s;ubjection is not to him who hath pre&s;erved him, but to him who will pre&s;erve him; or if this &s;ubjection be due, yet not &s;uch, nor contrary to that of his Parents. But I mu&s;t not tire my &s;elf nor my Reader with &s;uch needle&s;s di&s;cour&s;es upon errors which fall of them&s;elves without any di&s;pute, only entreat the Rea|der in peru&s;ing them to con&s;ider his inferences how they de|pend one upon another, and that will be light enough to &s;hew him the weakne&s;s of them. He goes on; <HI>If the Mother be the Fathers &s;ubject, the Child is in the Fathers power,</HI> &amp;c.] It is not worth the tran&s;cribing; he now runs from Parents barely under the Law of Nature, to &s;uch as are in &s;etled Common|wealths; to all which one an&s;wer will &s;erve, that they mu&s;t be according to the National and peculiar Laws belonging to that Commonwealth; for Oeconomical Laws mu&s;t &s;ubmit to National. The next learned note of his is, <HI>[He that hath do|minion over the Child, hath dominion al&s;o over the children of that Chi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">d.]</HI> I mu&s;t confe&s;s a mo&s;t true and excellent ob&s;ervati|on, and &s;uch as he will hear of hereafter, and &s;o I let it pa&s;s for this pre&s;ent. The next conclu&s;ion he enters upon, is <HI>the right of &s;ucce&s;&s;ion to Paternal dominion, which</HI> (he &s;aith) <HI>pro|ceedeth in the &s;ame manner as doth the right of &s;ucce&s;&s;ion to Mo|narchy, of which he had &s;poke in the precedent Chapter.]</HI> I will di&s;pute nothing about this. The Cu&s;tomes and Laws of every Nation direct the Inhabitants to what they mu&s;t obey; every condition fits not every place, yea though they may be better in them&s;elves, yet not to &s;uch people which are accu&s;tomed to other.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="12" TYPE="section">
<PB N="79" REF="46">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>XII.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his immethodical procedure cen&s;ured. <HI>Man|cipia qua&s;i manu capta.</HI> Servitude introduced by Conque&s;t. The right of &s;ervitude aboli&s;hed among&s;t Chri&s;tians. After the heat of war, and a &s;ettlement made, commonly meliorated and erected into Te|nures. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his conclu&s;ions contrary to <HI>Ari|&s;totles</HI> Politiques. The horrid con&s;equence of this Doctrine di&s;covered.</HEAD>
<P>AT the bottom of this page, and the beginning of page 104. he enters into a di&s;cour&s;e of Dominion by Con|que&s;t: In this he &s;eems very erroneous in his method, as well as his &s;ub&s;tance: He entitled this Chapter of Dominion Pater|nal and De&s;potical. In the fir&s;t part of this Chap. he di&s;puted about Dominion by acqui&s;ition, which he defined to be &s;uch as is got by force or conque&s;t; and he &s;hewed then that there is no difference betwixt Dominion by in&s;titution, and that by acqui&s;ition, but only the difference of their fears Then he treated of Dominion Paternal, (I wonder he did not call it Maternal, for that he endeavoured to make it) now again he comes to Dominion acquired by War, which mu&s;t needs appear to any man an immethodical method. But let us pa&s;s on, and come to cen&s;ure divers pa&s;&s;ages in his Di&s;cour&s;e: [<HI>Dominion</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>acquired by Conque&s;t or Victory in War, is that here which &s;ome Writers call De&s;potical, from</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>which &s;ignifieth a Lord or Ma&s;ter, and is the dominion of the Ma&s;ter over his &s;ervants.]</HI> He &s;peaks truth when he &s;aith, that dominion acquired by Conque&s;t is &s;uch, if it be under&s;tood of one that is <HI>(Mancipium)</HI> taken in War; <HI>Mancipium</HI> as it were <HI>manu captum</HI> taken by your hand in War, &s;urely &s;uch a per|&s;on is a &s;ervant, or if you will u&s;e a more unworthy term, a Slave; the Conquerour may &s;ell him, or do what el&s;e he will with him, which is the condition of the&s;e de&s;potical
<PB N="80" REF="47">
&s;ervants (though this right all Civilians agree to be cea&s;ed among&s;t Chri&s;tians.) But then if after a while the&s;e con|quered men are left to them&s;elves to Till the ground, and live peaceably upon it, and perhaps are governed by Vice-Roys, or &s;uch other means as Politiques pre&s;cribe, they then cea&s;e to be &s;ervants or &s;laves, and come to be Colonies, and live under a Civil Government. We may ob&s;erve this in the Conque&s;t that <HI>David, Alexander, Pompey, Cae&s;ar,</HI> all the great Monarchs of the World; &s;o that they &s;hall not for ever be under a de&s;potical, but at the la&s;t grow into a Civil Govern|ment; as <HI>Ari&s;t.</HI> and from him all learned Politicians termed it, until Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> appeared. But Reader, I mu&s;t here beg leave to look back again upon what he writ at the beginning of this Chap. for the confu&s;edne&s;s of his method mu&s;t needs make my di&s;cour&s;e &s;omewhat &s;uch, who follow him clo&s;ely foot by foot. He there affirms, that the&s;e two Governments by In&s;titution and Acqui&s;ition, differ not but in the manner of fear; that by In&s;titution is obeyed for fear of one another; that by Acqui&s;ition is obeyed for fear of the Conqueror; then the condition of all Subjects in the mo&s;t civil e&s;tate is &s;lavery: The Supreme may kill, ruine, de&s;troy, beggar any of them, without Law, other then his own will, nay he may do it rightly, then which never was there a more horrid Propo&s;iti|on uttered in Politiques, and if the&s;e two Dominions be the &s;ame which he affirms there, and Dominion by Acqui&s;ition have the power to do &s;o as he affirms here, it mu&s;t needs be &s;o with all Subjects according to his Doctrine.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="17" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="81" REF="47">
<HEAD>CHAP. XVII.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>I.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his fictitious contracts with the Conqueror cen&s;ured. Women by his conclu&s;ion obliged to pro|&s;titute them&s;elves to the Conqueror. The horror of this Doctrine, and improbability of this contract.</HEAD>
<P>I Return now to the place where I left: [<HI>And this Dominion</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>is then acquired to the Victor, when the vanqui&s;h|ed to avoid the pre&s;ent &s;troak of death, covenanteth either in expre&s;s words, or by other &s;ufficient &s;igns of the Will, that &s;o long as his life, and the liberty of his body is allowed him, the Victor &s;hall have the u&s;e thereof at his plea&s;ure.]</HI> It was well he added <HI>(or by &s;ufficient &s;igns)</HI> for I think few men in any Conquered Nation did ever expre&s;s &s;uch words, nor indeed would half the people in any conquered Nation do it. But con&s;ider, Reader, that in a conquered Nation, women mu&s;t do it as well as men, and then all tho&s;e women mu&s;t pro&s;ti|tute their bodies to the lu&s;t of the Conqueror by contract, which is mo&s;t abominable; and indeed that is almo&s;t expre&s;|&s;ed in that &s;entence, where it is &s;aid, <HI>That he &s;hall have the u&s;e of their bodies at his plea&s;ure.</HI> Let us once again look back and con&s;ider that formerly repeated conclu&s;ion, <HI>That the &s;ame mu&s;t be the &s;tate of an in&s;tituted Commonwealth:</HI> Then all their bodies, their Wives (their lives excepted) are at his di&s;po&s;e, yea at the di&s;po&s;e of his plea&s;ure, and that ju&s;tly, which is mo&s;t abominable. He proceeds: <HI>And after &s;uch Covenant made, the vanqui&s;hed is a &s;ervant, and not before.]</HI> If he is no &s;er|vant before he make &s;uch expre&s;&s;ion, I think a conquered Na|tion will never generally be &s;ubdued to that &s;ervitude. It is true, &s;ome particular per&s;ons may &s;toop &s;o low for fear of death, but the generality of any con&s;iderable Nation can ne|ver &s;ub&s;cribe to it, or &s;urely if they could, would they, for death is more eligible then many accidents which may happen to a man under &s;uch a Covenant.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<PB N="82" REF="48">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>II.</HI> Sen&s;e de&s;ired in this Paragraph. A Slave more a &s;lave in Fetters then upon his Parol. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his in|con&s;i&s;tencies cen&s;ured. Conque&s;t gives no right where the War is not ju&s;t.</HEAD>
<P>BUt he offers at rea&s;on to prove this a&s;&s;ertion: <HI>For</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>by this word Servant, whether it be derived from</HI> &s;ervire, <HI>to &s;erve, or from the word</HI> &s;ervare, <HI>to &s;ave (which I leave to Grammarians to di&s;pute) is not meant a Captive which is kept in pri&s;on or bonds till the owner of him what took him, or bought him of one that did, &s;hall con&s;ider what to do with him.]</HI> I &s;hall cen&s;ure this fir&s;t for apparent non&s;en&s;e; Can any man tell who he is that is called here the owner of him that took him? E|very man knows that he who takes a Captive is owner of the Captive, but who is owner of that owner no man can tell. At the fir&s;t I thought it fal&s;e printed, and (of) put for (or) &s;o that then it &s;hould have been read, <HI>the owner or him that took him;</HI> and that (or) might have been an explication of that word <HI>owner;</HI> but this cannot be &s;o, becau&s;e he adds this (or) immediately after, <HI>or he that bought him of him that took him;</HI> &s;o that it &s;eems to me a meer irrational Propo&s;ition, to &s;ay, the owner of him that took him, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> This I ob&s;erved, becau&s;e the Reader &s;hould con&s;ider how much care is to be u|&s;ed in reading &s;uch Paradoxes as this Gentleman writeth. But mark this, although this was introduced with a <HI>(for)</HI> yet it proves nothing; his Propo&s;ition he was to prove was, <HI>That the Captive was a &s;ervant or &s;lave when he was &s;et at liberty, and not before.]</HI> How is that enforced from this di&s;cour&s;e? he may &s;ay that clau&s;e is <HI>not before:</HI> No, &s;ay I; for (whether it be de|rived from <HI>&s;ervire</HI> or <HI>&s;ervare</HI>) he is more a &s;lave to his owner, when he is compelled to work in fetters, or bonds, then when he is left to his Parol; for I am &s;ure he &s;erves more &s;lavi&s;hly, and is &s;aved more &s;ecurely in that condition than the other. He procceds; <HI>For &s;uch men (commonly called &s;laves) have no
<PB N="83" REF="48">
obligation at all;</HI> (I believe, they are &s;laves not bound with any thing but fetters) <HI>and may break their bonds or pri&s;on, and kill or carry away captive their Ma&s;ter ju&s;tly.]</HI> 'Tis true, becau&s;e he is tru&s;ted with nothing by him, not with him&s;elf; <HI>but one</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>that being taken hath corporal liberty allowed him, and upon promi&s;e not to run away, nor to do violence to his Ma|&s;ter, is tru&s;ted by him.]</HI> This man, if &s;ecure, is a Captive by Mr. <HI>Hobbs,</HI> and a <HI>&s;ervant,</HI> but not the other. I am oppo&s;ite to him, and put him in mind how little this agrees with his for|mer di&s;cour&s;e about the Covenant of him who is vanqui&s;ht: In this la&s;t, it is one <HI>that covenants not to run away, and to do no violence;</HI> but in the fir&s;t it was to <HI>re&s;ign his whole body and be|ing to his plea&s;ure.</HI> The&s;e are very thwarting di&s;cour&s;es to hap|pen in &s;o little di&s;tance, and this la&s;t hath much more ea&s;ie terms then the other. He next enters into another Paragraph, <HI>It is not therefore the victory that giveth the right of dominion over the vanqui&s;hed, but his own covenant.]</HI> That covenant giveth no right, when the ju&s;tne&s;s of the cau&s;e did not warrant the War; for (as he el&s;ewhere) <HI>No man when he hath covenanted to one before, hath right to make the &s;ame covenant to another; no man can give that again which he hath fir&s;t given to another.]</HI> Co|venant upon Conque&s;t may gain po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, but not right, when the cau&s;e of War was not ju&s;t, Reader, you and I may think our &s;elves tired with the&s;e dull di&s;cour&s;es, and therefore I let pa&s;s all the re&s;t of that Paragraph, and that which follows, and will only drive at the fundamental, which being &s;haken, the building will fall of its &s;elf. At the bottom of this page he begins a new old bu&s;ine&s;s. <HI>[In &s;um, the rights and con&s;equen|ces to both paternal and de&s;potical dominion, are the very &s;ame with tho&s;e of a Soveraign by In&s;titution, and for the &s;ame rea|&s;ons, which rea&s;ons ore &s;et down in the precedent Cap.]</HI> which Chapter and rea&s;ons have been examined heretofore, and therefore I will not trouble the Reader with unnece&s;&s;ary repe|titions.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="18" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="84" REF="49">
<HEAD>CHAP XVIII.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>I.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his har&s;h conditions impo&s;ed on the Conque|rors &s;ubjects a&s;&s;i&s;tants in the war. Subjects newly conquered to be re&s;trained with more &s;everity, then tho&s;e to whom cu&s;tom has made their yoak more plea&s;ant and ea&s;ie. A difference to be made between tho&s;e that are of a doubtful, and others who are of a known and certain obedience. The difference be|tween Civil and De&s;potical Government.</HEAD>
<P>HE proceeds: <HI>[So that for a man that is a Monarch of di|vers Nations, whereof he hath in one the Soveraignty by in&s;titution of the people a&s;&s;embled, and in another by Conque&s;t that is by the &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion of each particular, to avoid death or bonds.]</HI> I am confident (as I have formerly writ) there was never &s;uch a Soveraign, either by In&s;titution or Conque&s;t, as he &s;ets down; he hath &s;hewed none, nor I believe can &s;hew any example of either, or a po&s;&s;ibility how either &s;hould be compo&s;ed. But &s;uppo&s;e tho&s;e now (as in his <HI>&V;topia</HI> is imagi|ned) why then (&s;aith he) <HI>for &s;uch a Monarch who is Monarch of the&s;e two Nations, to demand of one more then of another by the title of Conque&s;ts, as being a conquered Nation, is an act of ignorance in the rights of Soveraignty.]</HI> Now I am at the 105 page, he hath pa&s;&s;ed a free and liberal cen&s;ure upon &s;uch So|veraigns; but let him know (that if it were po&s;&s;ible that there were two &s;uch Kingdomes) it were very hard if &s;uch as adventured their lives and fortunes with their King, and had a &s;ubordinate &s;hare in the Conque&s;t, &s;hould after the Conque&s;t be no better but in the &s;ame condition with tho&s;e whom they conquered, and by them were conquered. It is true, an ea&s;ie yoak, and time (the Mother of Experience) may reduce them into one condition, when it &s;hall be ob&s;erved that they who are conquered, are gained to a liking of the cu&s;tomes and
<PB N="85" REF="49">
manners of their Conquerors, and that mutually their good is beneficial one to the other; then it is wi&s;dom in a Conque|ror to put them in a parity of condition, but at the fir&s;t &s;ub|duing any Nation <HI>Regni novitas,</HI> will enforce &s;ome &s;everity, though perhaps afterwards Tros, <HI>Tyriu&s;que mihi nullo di&s;cri|mine agetur,</HI> they are grown one, and ought to be &s;o go|verned: I but &s;aith he, <HI>that were ignorance of government;</HI> I &s;ay no, but great wi&s;dom 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 rea&s;on for what he writes; for (&s;aith he) <HI>he is ab&s;olutely over both alike:</HI> Let that be granted, yet among&s;t his true and na|tural &s;ubjects, he may ju&s;tly and prudently di&s;pence his fa|vours and di&s;plea&s;ures variou&s;ly, according to their differing merits and demerits, or other prudential rules, among&s;t which this is one, not too far to tru&s;t a newly reconciled Ene|my, and much le&s;s an Enemy newly conquered.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>II.</HI> Servitude not equally ab&s;olute in a civil or &s;etled Go|vernment, as in de&s;potical. The right of &s;ervitude antiquated among Chri&s;tians.</HEAD>
<P>SEcondly, that &s;uppo&s;al may be denied, that <HI>he is equally ab&s;olute over both;</HI> he governs one de&s;potically as &s;ervants or captives which are taken in the War, and the other civil|ly; and this is <HI>Ari&s;totles</HI> di&s;tinction, and received with ap|plau&s;e by all latter Writers, till we come to Mr. <HI>Hobbs,</HI> the one are governed like &s;laves, the other like &s;ubjects; <HI>or el&s;e</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>there is no Soveraignty at all.</HI> Away with &s;uch a hateful &s;peech, odious to all Nations; No Soveraignty but arbitrary? No &s;ubjection but &s;lavi&s;h or &s;ervile? Certainly no &s;ociety of men can abide &s;uch language: Look among&s;t Chri|&s;tian Kingdoms, and we &s;hall find &s;ervitude (I think) ba|ni&s;hed every where by the univer&s;al con&s;ent of all Nations, who have received the Doctrine of Chri&s;tianity: Tho&s;e we
<PB N="86" REF="50">
call &s;ervants, indeed are free, at lea&s;t not &s;uch &s;ervants as he and I have di&s;cour&s;ed of; yet they are &s;ubjects to their Ma|&s;ters, and they have dominion over them, but not &s;uch as a Conqueror hath over a vanqui&s;hed man; nay Kings them|&s;elves, nor can any other Supreme, take away by right an in|nocent mans life, and yet they are Soveraigns, and have not ab|&s;olute power over them,</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>III.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his incon&s;equences further cen&s;ured. The ab&s;urdity and iniquity of his conclu&s;ion in this Pa|ragraph, which is yet &s;hewed to be other where a&s;|&s;erted by him.</HEAD>
<P>I But (&s;aith he) <HI>And every man may lawfully protect him&s;elf, if he can, with his own Sword, which is the condition of war]</HI> There was never man writ &s;uch disjoynted things. How can this follow, if a King cannot kill an hone&s;t man lawfully, <HI>then he may protect him&s;elf lawfully with his own Sword?</HI> as if it &s;hould be, becau&s;e a Supreme may do ill unlawfully, there|fore I may do ill lawfully? But I am &s;ure he hath &s;aid more then once, <HI>That no mon can &s;o dive&s;t him&s;elf of his own power and right to defend his own life and happy being in it, as that he may not deliver him&s;elf, if he can, by killing or doing any thing to any man.]</HI> Again&s;t which Propo&s;itions I have already &s;poke heretofore, and &s;hewed how men may and have done it; &s;o that that wicked conclu&s;ion, which for the ab&s;urdity of it, he would have to di&s;countenance the difference betwixt the Government of a conquered and an in&s;tituted Nation, though not allowed by me, is yet approved by him el&s;ewhere, which was a main fault in him.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<PB N="87" REF="50">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>IV.</HI> This Paragraph re&s;erved to its proper place. Scripture honoured even by tho&s;e who approve it not. Ma&s;ter <HI>Hobbs</HI> his inconcludent deductions from the 20th of <HI>Exodus</HI> cen&s;ured.</HEAD>
<P>HE begins the next Paragraph, <HI>By this it appears that a great family, if it be not part of &s;ome Commonwealth, is of its &s;elf, as to the rights of Soveraignty, a little Monarchy.]</HI> I will que&s;tion nothing in this Paragraph at this time; but let the Reader bear in mind, that there is &s;uch a thing for which I &s;hall call Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> 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 tho&s;e that will not follow it. But it may be Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> objects it again&s;t us who do confide in it, and not produceth it to &s;atisfie him&s;elf, that his Do|ctrine is con&s;onant to Scripture. I will examine this there|fore; for &s;urely if the Scripture be for him, I am al&s;o, al|though to me it appears never &s;o erroneous, according to mine own rea&s;on: He begins; <HI>Let us now con&s;ider what the Scripture teacheth in the &s;ame point: To</HI> Mo&s;es, <HI>the Children of I&s;rael, &s;ay thus,</HI> Exod. 20.19. <HI>Speak thou to us, and we will hear thee; but let not God &s;peak to us, lea&s;t we die. This is ab&s;olute obedience to Mo&s;es]</HI> thus he. A &s;trange deduction out of this Text, where is no one word of obedience, much le&s;s of ab&s;olute obedience as to a Supreme. But I will help what I can, <HI>Deut.</HI> 5.27. there this &s;elf-&s;ame bu&s;ine&s;s being re|peated, it is added, <HI>We will hear it, and do it.</HI> There obe|dience is mentioned implicitly: To under&s;tand this therefore con&s;ider with me, that the Children of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> having the Law delivered to them by God in &s;uch a terrible manner in Mount <HI>Sinai,</HI> with Thunder, Lightning, Trumpets, and the like, they were terrified and afraid to have &s;uch an immedi|ate conver&s;e with God, they thought it mortal, it being ne|ver
<PB N="88" REF="51">
before &s;een in the world; and therefore they entreated <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> 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 <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> but to God only; they tru&s;ted that <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> would relate Gods Laws to them truly, which indeed they had great rea&s;on to do. If the re&s;t be like this, I &s;hall have little trouble with it.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>V.</HI> The fir&s;t of <HI>Sam.</HI> the <HI>8.11, 12.</HI> explained. The diffe|rence between the right of the King, and the right of a King. Kings of &s;everal Kingdoms may have &s;everal rights in the &s;ame Country. Divers Kings may have different rights, as the &s;ame Kings may al&s;o at &s;everal times. The genuine &s;ignification of the&s;e words cited by Mr. <HI>Hobbs.</HI></HEAD>
<P><HI>FOr the right of Kings, &s;aith God him&s;elf, by the mouth of</HI> Samuel, 1 Sam. 8.11, 12. <HI>This &s;hall be the right of the King you will have to raign over you.]</HI> I &s;top here, becau&s;e I have &s;ome things to examine in this particle before I go fur|ther. Fir&s;t then con&s;ider, that it is not &s;aid, this &s;hall be the <HI>right of a King,</HI> that would have made it <HI>Jus Regale;</HI> and being indeffinite would have con&s;tituted it to belong to every King; but it &s;hall be the <HI>right of your King.</HI> Many things may be the rights of one Countries King, which are not of another; yea many things may belong to one King of a Country, which did not belong to another King of the &s;ame Country, yea to the &s;ame King at another time. I urge this only again&s;t him, becau&s;e 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 <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> and it may be not that neither, but only the right of the next King; for it is &s;aid, <HI>of the King that &s;hall reign over you,</HI> in the &s;ingular number, not in the plural. Nay it is mo&s;t certain, that God, by whom Kings reign, and from whom they have their Authority, may give what Authority
<PB N="89" REF="51">
he plea&s;eth to one, and not to another, the Plenipotency of which Commi&s;&s;ion I &s;hall more fully &s;hew hereafter. Well then, let it however be granted, that this Text is truly pro|duced, yet it proves not his conclu&s;ion, that this <HI>is the right of all Kings.</HI> And now I mu&s;t blame Mr. <HI>Hobbs,</HI> who profe&s;|&s;eth <HI>obedience to the Supreme Magi&s;trate, and the Laws and Cu|&s;toms of this Country;</HI> and yet here again&s;t the Declaration of the Supreme Magi&s;trate, the Laws and Cu&s;toms of this &s;ame Country, in the urging of this Text, which (as he interprets it) varies from that tran&s;lation which is approved by the <HI>Su|preme Magi&s;trate, the Laws and Cu&s;toms of this Nation,</HI> and is only read in the vulgar Latin; our Tran&s;lation reads it, <HI>This will be the manner of the King that &s;hall reign over you.</HI> There is a great difference betwixt this &s;hall be the right, and this will be the manner.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>VI.</HI> The former Text further illu&s;trated. The force of the Hebrew word compared with other places of Scrip|ture. <HI>Cajetans</HI> interpretation cen&s;ured. The di&s;tin|ction of ordinary and extraordinary right impro|perly u&s;ed for the clearing of this Text. The word right taken for <HI>practi&s;e.</HI> The <HI>17</HI> of <HI>Deuteron. 14.16, 17, 18.</HI> ver&s;e explained. The King to have two Copies of the Law, and obliged to keep it. <HI>Ezek.</HI> the <HI>46.18.</HI> explained. The former conclu&s;ion a&s;&s;erted from the whole Di&s;cour&s;e.</HEAD>
<P>THere is a great di&s;pute among&s;t Criticks in the Hebrew Tongue, what is the true &s;en&s;e of the word <HI>Mi&s;hpot,</HI> which is rendred by Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> (Right,) and by our Tran|&s;lators (manner, or cu&s;tom;) but certainly it cannot but be yielded, that it is u&s;ed in both &s;en&s;es. But our Tran&s;lators do very often render it as here, &s;o <HI>P&s;alm</HI> 19.132. as thou u&s;e&s;t to do unto tho&s;e that love thy name: But it is not material to
<PB N="90" REF="52">
alledge more Quotations; this Text will enforce this inter|pretation; for in the 18 ver&s;e it is &s;aid, <HI>Ye &s;hall cry out in the day becau&s;e of your King which ye &s;hall have cho&s;en you, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.</HI> Con&s;ider here, that men do not clamour and cry out upon Ju&s;tice, when it is executed but upon inju&s;tice. I know there are other Expo&s;itions given be|&s;ides his or mine, as that of <HI>Cajetan,</HI> that it is not &s;aid, <HI>the right of the Kingdom,</HI> which is a Law, but <HI>of the King;</HI> as if Kings would e&s;teem this right. But this is &s;candalous to Kings, to many of whom, I doubt not, but Ju&s;tice and Mercy are as dear as to any men in the world. There is another Expo&s;ition with a di&s;tinction, that there is an ordinary and extraordina|ry right: This Text &s;ets down the extraordinary right; to which I &s;ay I allow the di&s;tinction; many things may be right and lawful for Kings to do upon extraordinary occa&s;ions, which would not be ju&s;t in his ordinary Government. But how can a man conceive that the&s;e things &s;hould relate to ex|traordinary occa&s;ions, to make Perfumes, or to run before his Chariot, to gather in his Harve&s;t? as if there &s;hould be exi|gencies of the&s;e poor trifles, or the honour of a Kings Reve|nue could not yield &s;uch a return as might make every man fit for &s;uch an imployment, ambitious of his entertainment. I think this may &s;uffice for the expo&s;ition of this Text, to &s;hew that it was &s;poke of the practi&s;e, not the right of their Kings: but if not, look the &s;eventeenth of <HI>Deut.</HI> at the four|teenth ver&s;e, where you may &s;ee the pa&s;&s;age foretold, <HI>When thou art come into the Land,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>and &s;halt &s;ay, I will &s;et a King over me like as all the Nations that are about me.</HI> The very language which the&s;e men u&s;ed, ver. 15. Thou &s;halt in any wi&s;e &s;et him King over thee, whom the Lord thy God &s;hall chu&s;e; and &s;o goes on to de&s;cribe the Laws for their Kings in the following part of that ver&s;e, and the 16, 17, and 18. ver|&s;es: But there is none of the&s;e things reckoned there; and in the 18 and 19 ver&s;es, he is commanded to get him a Copy, or a double Copy (as &s;ome would have it) of this Book, which is <HI>Deuteronomy;</HI> one Copy to lye by him, and another to car|ry about with him, as our marginal hath it, and is mo&s;t con|&s;onant (methinks) to the Text, which &s;aith, <HI>He &s;hall read
<PB N="91" REF="52">
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 the&s;e &s;ta|tutes to do them.</HI> So that a King ought to take care to keep the Law of the Land, which to them was <HI>Deuteronomy.</HI> And from thence the madne&s;s of their Expo&s;ition will appear, who think that the Law which was &s;poken of, was this Law af|terwards &s;poken of by <HI>Samuel:</HI> But alas! that needs no great &s;tudy either to know or practi&s;e; this therefore mu&s;t needs be the &s;en&s;e of it. But if this will not &s;erve the turn, you may read in the 46 of <HI>Ezek.</HI> ver. 18. &s;ome part of the Kings Law delivered clear oppo&s;ite, to one clau&s;e delivered here; that is, <HI>That the Prince &s;hall not take of the peoples inheritance by oppre&s;|&s;ion, to thru&s;t them out of their po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, but he &s;hall give his &s;ons inheritance of his own po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, that my people be not &s;cat|tered every man out of his po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion.</HI> Now this is clean contrary to that which is &s;aid, <HI>He will take your fields, and your vine|yards, and your Olive-yards, even the be&s;t of them, and give them to his &s;ervants.</HI> This certainly is unju&s;t for a Prince to do by <HI>Ezekiel;</HI> and therefore the&s;e places mu&s;t be reconciled, which may ea&s;ily be done by our Tran&s;lation, under&s;tanding the word <HI>(Mi&s;hpot)</HI> for a cu&s;tom or u&s;age, for &s;o <HI>Sam.</HI> de&s;cribes what will be done; but the Prophet <HI>Ezekiel,</HI> from God com|mands, what is right and ju&s;t to be done. And thus I think Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> hath got little advantage for his conclu&s;ion out of the Scripture.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>VII.</HI> The Hi&s;tory of <HI>Saul</HI> quoted by Mr. <HI>Hobbs,</HI> improved a|gain&s;t his Novel In&s;titution, and that other conclu&s;i|on of his, That a man may kill any man in right of him&s;elf. Prayers and tears the weapons of Chri|&s;tians.</HEAD>
<P>BUt I will try how I can advance this Hi&s;tory again&s;t di|vers de&s;perate and horrid Opinions of his. Fir&s;t of his electing a King by the people, which he makes to be <HI>the only</HI>
<PB N="90" REF="53">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="91" REF="53">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="92" REF="54">
way by which <HI>he is e&s;tabli&s;hed in his Throne;</HI> a thing (as I have &s;aid before) never done nor practicable; and here we find it otherwi&s;e, for God cho&s;e that King <HI>Saul;</HI> and indeed it was the Law it &s;hould be &s;o, <HI>Deut.</HI> 1<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">.15. Nay, to come clo&s;er, (as I &s;hall &s;hew hereafter) it is impo&s;&s;ible, that the people who had no power given them from God, &s;hould give it to a King; none &s;ure but the All-powerful God can give men power one over another. And as this &s;tory confutes his abominable prin|ciples which de&s;troy the foundation of Government, &s;o it doth that horrid and trea&s;onable conclu&s;ion of his which plucks down all Government, and hath been the Author of almo&s;t all Trea&s;ons that ever were; that is, that in defence of a mans life, or him&s;elf, from &s;uch hard&s;hip as may render his life irk&s;ome to him, a man may take arms, or kill any man, or do any thing which may re&s;cue him from it. I have &s;poke to this before, how unchri&s;tian a &s;peech it is; but now con&s;i|der how de&s;tructive of peace it is in a &s;etled Commonwealth. There are no Traytors but pretend their Liberties are invaded, they have no &s;afety in their condition: The Tyrant (for &s;o they will term any again&s;t whom they rebel) takes away their fields, their children illegally, and the like, he doth without Law. The next (they tell us) is their life, they will provide therefore again&s;t that, and kill him: No, &s;aith this Hi&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ory, when your King abu&s;eth you with &s;uch oppre&s;&s;ion, there is no &s;uch con&s;equence to be drawn from the whole context, that men &s;hould whet their Swords, and be avenged. There is no power above that of the Kings, much le&s;s is there any &s;uch in his own Subjects: But men in &s;uch a ca&s;e mu&s;t fly to the King of Kings, who according to his infinite Wi&s;dom, Ju&s;tice and Mercy, will con&s;ider and help them when he thinks fit. There is no appeal from a King, but to his King; and then when your own &s;ins call for his judgments (as it was here) he will not hear your cryes; which &s;trongly intimates, we mu&s;t not fight, but cry in that day when &s;uch things are done unto us; prayers and tears are the only weapons allowed Chri&s;tians in that ca&s;e: Righteous men mu&s;t not think to go to heaven with plea&s;ure and delight, by pride and &s;trugling again&s;t their Superiours, but with patience, &s;uffering quietly; by Faith,
<PB N="93" REF="54">
believing Gods mercies and promi&s;es; by hope, that in his good time he will deliver them when he thinks fit, gently &s;ubmitting our &s;elves under the mighty hand of God, who out of his infinite wi&s;dom &s;uffers us ju&s;tly to be &s;o puni&s;hed, that in his good time he may exalt us.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="8" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>VIII.</HI> The former conclu&s;ions illu&s;trated from the fact of <HI>Ahab.</HI> The condition of Subjects, according to Ma|&s;ter <HI>Hobbs</HI> his Doctrine, the &s;ame with Slaves ta|ken in War. The people transfer no power to the King be&s;ides that which God had given him. <HI>Sa|muels</HI> words not po&s;itive, but menacing. God him|&s;elf concerned in the Election of <HI>Samuels</HI> Govern|ment. Exorbitant power, or ab&s;olute dominion, not deduceable from this Text. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his conclu|&s;ions fitted to the Rapine of the late Rebels in <HI>Eng|land,</HI> who&s;e actions he &s;eems to approve.</HEAD>
<P>YEt con&s;ider once more, if this had been the right of Kings, what a fooli&s;h as well as a wicked King had <HI>A|hab</HI> been, who when by right he might have taken <HI>Naboths</HI> Vineyard, would mourn and afflict him&s;elf, becau&s;e <HI>Naboth</HI> would not let him have it. And indeed you may ob&s;erve there, that <HI>Naboth</HI> conceived no &s;uch right; for el&s;e he would not have denied to yield that upon a good valuable con&s;ideration, which was due by Law. Well, this Text being thus exami|ned, and &s;ome inferences made upon it, let us now con&s;ider his collections out of it: [<HI>This</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>is ab&s;olute power, and &s;ummed up in the la&s;t words, you &s;hall be his &s;ervants]</HI> which is the la&s;t clau&s;e of the &s;eventeenth ver&s;e. Let a man con&s;ider here what Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> hath writ of &s;ervants in the for|mer page, (where he &s;ets down, that men vanqui&s;hed in war are &s;ervants, and what their &s;ervitude is) and he &s;hall find all
<PB N="94" REF="55">
Subjects to be in a mi&s;erable condition, &s;uch as will little dif|fer from being in war; for what can war do? it can but &s;ub|ject mens e&s;tates, their wives, children, and their lives, to a Conquerors will; and that, by this Gentleman, they are in al|ways, even in peace; yea by that very rea&s;on, that they are imbodied into a Commonwealth. But he proceeds further: <HI>[Again; when the people heard what power their King was to have, yet they con&s;ented thereto, and &s;ay thus, We will be as all other Nations, and our King &s;hall judge our cau&s;es, and go before us, to conduct our wars.]</HI> I looked for the&s;e words, but find them not either in ours or other Tran&s;lations; but indeed the &s;en&s;e is in the nineteenth and twentieth ver&s;es: And &s;o I let it pa&s;s: His collection is <HI>[Here is confirmed the right that Soveraigns have, both to the Militia, and to all Judicature, in which is contained as ab&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">lute power as one man can po&s;&s;ibly tran&s;|fer to another.]</HI> But hark you Mr. <HI>Hobbs,</HI> what is the mean|ing of that phra&s;e transfer? can it be thought, that the peo|ples a&s;&s;ent transfer'd any Authority which God did not give? Certainly that is a greater Exaltation then ever man dreamt of until now. But I am confident that the people took this as a menace of <HI>Samuel,</HI> to deter them from having a King, agree|ing to the language u&s;ed in the ninth ver&s;e by God to <HI>Samuel, Prote&s;t &s;olemnly to them, or again&s;t them</HI> (as it is in the margent of our Tran&s;lations) &s;o they thought it a menace or threat; and that you may conceive from the nineteenth ver&s;e, which begins&mdash; Neverthele&s;s, that is, for all that menace, or <HI>nequa|quam,</HI> as the vulgar Latin, by no means will we be terrified, but will have a King like other Nations; they would be in this fa&s;hion; but where can they find that fa&s;hion u&s;ed in the world? they had lived in <HI>Aegypt,</HI> and <HI>Pharoah</HI> oppre&s;&s;ed them mightily, mi&s;tru&s;ting them to be a dangerous people, and a people that lived apart from the Aegyptians, and had no com|munication with them. But I do not read, that they took the Land of <HI>Go&s;hen</HI> from them, which had formerly been given them by the King of <HI>Aegypt;</HI> and tho&s;e horrid oppre&s;&s;ions were mo&s;t wonderfully revenged by God upon <HI>Pharoah</HI> and his Aegyptians, when the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI> cryed to him for help, becau&s;e they were unde&s;erved: But &s;aith <HI>Samuel; You in this
<PB N="95" REF="55">
ca&s;e &s;hall cry, and not be &s;aved,</HI> becau&s;e you provoke the&s;e mi&s;chiefs, being under a mo&s;t excellent Government, the im|mediate protection of God him&s;elf; in which regard he &s;aith in the &s;eventh ver&s;e to <HI>Samuel, They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I &s;hould not reign over them.</HI> And al|though there were &s;ome mi&s;carriages by <HI>Samuels</HI> Govern|ment, that his Sons did not behave them&s;elves well under him; yet you may find in the twelfth <HI>Cap.</HI> third ver. when <HI>Samuel</HI> re&s;igned up his Government to <HI>Saul,</HI> he could cal them to witne&s;s, <HI>whether he had taken any mans Oxe or A&s;s from him, or defrauded or oppre&s;&s;ed any man;</HI> and at the fourth ver&s;e they acquit him. So that for men thus to reject the Go|vernment of God, by &s;uch a pious and excellent per&s;on as was <HI>Samuel,</HI> for &s;ome di&s;contents and rebellious humors which were in their fancies, and exchange him for they knew not whom, was &s;uch an unpardonable fault, that God threat|ned by <HI>Samuel,</HI> that he would not hear their cryes when they clamoured out for the&s;e evils; which not their folly only, but impiety had brought upon them: So that methinks there can be no inference deduced here to &s;hew the ju&s;tne&s;s or right of this exorbitant power, which he pretends to in this word <HI>ab|&s;olute.</HI> He hath the power of <HI>Judicature,</HI> but that power is to determine what is right, and to whom the Vineyard be|longs, but not to take it to him&s;elf. He hath the power of the <HI>Militia</HI> to fight with the Enemy; nay, he may by it force (and rightly ought to u&s;e that power to force) men to render to every man their own; but he cannot rightly take away any mans e&s;tate from him, otherwi&s;e then the Law directs; and he who &s;aith he can do it to others, if he felt &s;uch unju&s;tne&s;s done to him&s;elf, would quickly learn that Le&s;&s;on, that it is excellent Ju&s;tice, that <HI>Artifex necis arte periret &s;ua;</HI> then he would abhor his own Doctrine. This was well fitted for the &s;eque&s;trations and &s;ei&s;ures which were made of mens e&s;tates when he wrote this Book for them.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="9" TYPE="section">
<PB N="96" REF="56">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>IX. Solomon</HI>'s Prayer <HI>(1 Kings 3.9.)</HI> explained. Ma&s;ter <HI>Hobbs</HI> his Logick de&s;ired in his deductions from this Text. Judges mu&s;t govern or determine ac|cording to Law.</HEAD>
<P>BUt Mr <HI>Hobbs</HI> hath Scripture out of <HI>Solomon</HI>'s Prayer, (1 <HI>Kings</HI> 3.9.) <HI>Give to thy Servant under&s;tanding to judge thy people, and to di&s;cern betwixt good and evil;</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>therefore it belongeth to the Soveraign to be Judge, and to pre&s;cribe the rules of di&s;cerning good and evil, which Rules are Laws; and therefore in him is the Legi&s;lative Power.]</HI> I could que&s;tion his place of Scripture if I were given to wrangle, for <HI>in terminis</HI> he cannot &s;hew it there, but there is the &s;en&s;e. I let it therefore alone, but con&s;ider his Logick: He &s;aith, <HI>Becau&s;e he is to be Judge, and to pre&s;cribe the Rules of di&s;cerning betwixt good and evil, which Rules are Laws.]</HI> For my part I think this con&s;equence is &s;o far from a nece&s;&s;ary deduction out of the premi&s;es, as I conceive the contrary is ab&s;olutely true; becau&s;e he is Judge, he mu&s;t take tho&s;e rules which are pre|&s;cribed him, but not make his rule. Con&s;ider with me, I be&s;eech you Reader, that every Judge mu&s;t be a Judge either in a con&s;tituted Commonwealth, betwixt men who live in that Polity, or el&s;e where there is no Commonwealth, and where men live only according to the dictates of Nature: In the fir&s;t every Judge hath the National Laws of that Country to be his guide, and he mu&s;t judge according to them, and not make Laws of his own head to judge the cau&s;e is committed to him. For the &s;econd, he hath the Law of Nature to guide him to that which &s;hall appear mo&s;t equal, according to that rule. He who draws a line by a rule, doth not make the rule, the Judge is &s;uch, his Decrees are regulated by the Laws according to which he decrees, but doth not make tho&s;e Laws: So that al|though I think it true, that a Soveraign is the Supreme Judge, and that he hath likewi&s;e the Legi&s;lative power, yet not be|cau&s;e
<PB N="97" REF="56">
he is Judge: for the&s;e two are di&s;tinct faculties apper|taining to the &s;ame per&s;on, as will appear more fully here|after.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="10" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>X.</HI> The impertinencies of the remaining part of this Pa|ragraph cen&s;ured. <HI>Matth. 21.2, 3.</HI> not truly cited by <HI>Mr. Hobbs.</HI> His inferences upon this Text re|torted upon him. The true intention of the&s;e words mi&s;taken by <HI>Mr. Hobbs,</HI> and his argument thence invalid.</HEAD>
<P>THe re&s;t in that Paragraph is &s;uch tra&s;h as never was read; not fit to foul paper with, 'tis &s;o impertinent. In the lat|ter end of it he comes clo&s;e to his bu&s;ine&s;s thus; &mdash;<HI>And that the Kings word is &s;ufficient to take any thing from any Subject when there is need; and that the King is Judge of that need: for he him&s;elf, as King of the Jews, commanded his Di&s;ciples to take the A&s;s, and the A&s;&s;es Colt, to carry him into</HI> Jeru&s;alem: <HI>Read the Text,</HI> Mat. 21.2, 3. The words as he writes them are, <HI>Go into the Village over again&s;t you, and you &s;hall find a She-A&s;s tyed, and her Colt with her, untye them, and bring them to me: And if any man ask you what you mean by it, &s;ay the Lord hath need of them, and &s;traightway they will let them go.</HI>) Thus he writes that Text mo&s;t fal&s;e in many places. But I will con&s;ider the matter in hand, and &s;tick to his Inferences. <HI>(They will not ask whether his nece&s;&s;ity be a &s;ufficient title, nor whether he be Judge of that nece&s;&s;ity, but acquie&s;ce in the will of the Lord.)</HI> Thus he. And I could wi&s;h he would acquie&s;ce in the will of the Lord, for then he would never have vented &s;o many abominable fal&s;hoods as he hath. But to my bu&s;i|ne&s;s; I fir&s;t retort this <HI>ad hominem,</HI> be it true or fal&s;e; This argument is not proper from his mouth, who (page 262.) de|nies <HI>that our Saviour had any Kingdom in this world whil&s;t he was in it</HI>) therefore he did not now &s;end for this A&s;s by a Kingly right; (I mean to &s;peak to that in its proper place:)
<PB N="98" REF="57">
but now he who denies his Kingdom, cannot here ju&s;tly urge this for a pre&s;ident to Kings: I (but he will &s;ay) he &s;poke that of our Saviours Manhood; I reply, if he &s;poke this of him as God, it is no pre&s;ident for Kings; for undoubtedly God hath re&s;erved ca&s;es to him&s;elf, by which he can and doth di|&s;po&s;e of all things in this world how he plea&s;eth, (as will be &s;hewed hereafter) and not only of things in Kingdoms, but of Kingdoms them&s;elves; and therefore this in&s;tance is no pre&s;ident. But then let us con&s;ider the fact: Our Saviour &s;ent for an A&s;s and her Colt, they were goods belonging to a|nother man; and the up-&s;hot of all was, when the right owner que&s;tioned why they loo&s;ed them, and they told him it was for the u&s;e of the Lord, which was the Apo&s;tles lan|guage concerning Chri&s;t, he being a per&s;on famous for many Miracles, and much Piety, as that Story will &s;hew, the right owner let them go, and let them u&s;e them; and it is mo&s;t rea&s;onably thought, that our Saviour having made u&s;e of them in that great Solemnity he was then going about, re&s;to|red them afterwards, when it was fini&s;hed. But mark, the owner gave way to his u&s;e of them; he did not take <HI>Naboths</HI> Vineyard from him without his con&s;ent: This is a weak way of arguing, from an act by the owners con&s;ent, to prove it lawful again&s;t his will; if the right owner gives way to a|nother to u&s;e his goods, there is no fault in it, and this proves no more.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="11" TYPE="section">
<PB N="99" REF="57">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>XI.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his fallacious arguing from <HI>Gen. 3.5.</HI> di&s;covered: The difference of the ca&s;e &s;tated in re&s;pect of Divine and Humane Power. <HI>Act. 4.19.</HI> explained. Obedience to Humane Power command|ed <HI>in licitis &amp; hone&s;tis. Mat. 23.</HI> ver&s;e the <HI>23.</HI> il|lu&s;trated from the former ca&s;e of S. <HI>Peter,</HI> and S. <HI>John. Mr. Hobbs</HI> his argument from <HI>Adams</HI> di&s;cour&s;e in Paradi&s;e not conclu&s;ive.</HEAD>
<P>WE will proceed with him. <HI>To the&s;e places</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>may be added</HI> Gen. 3.5. <HI>You &s;hall be like Gods, know|ing good and evil.</HI>) Let the Reader con&s;ider this was the De|vils language: Then ver. 11. <HI>Who told thee that thou wa&s;t naked? Ha&s;t thou eaten of the Tree of which I commanded thee thou &s;houlde&s;t not eat?</HI>) A man may ju&s;tly wonder what he could collect from hence: His di&s;cour&s;e is unnece&s;&s;ary, but the &s;en&s;e is this, that our fir&s;t Parents, by an ill glo&s;s of the De|vil, mi&s;interpreted the command of God, which cau&s;ed Gods di&s;plea&s;ure; <HI>whereby</HI> (&s;aith he at the bottom of that page) <HI>it is clearly (though Allegorically) &s;ignified, that the commands of them that have the right to command, are not by their Sub|jects to be cen&s;ured or di&s;puted.</HI>) See the fallacy of this arguing, from the infinite power of Gods Wi&s;dom, Ju&s;tice and Equi|ty, to the finite power of man; betwixt which the diffe|rence is evident, and &s;o decided in the ca&s;e of S. <HI>Peter,</HI> and S. <HI>John,</HI> Acts 4.19. <HI>Whether it be right in the &s;ight of God to hearken unto you, more then unto God, judge ye.</HI>) The &s;tory is this, (as you may read in the former part of that Chap. ver. the 5.) their Rulers and Elders, <HI>Annas</HI> and <HI>Caiphas,</HI> con|vented the Apo&s;tles before them, and after con&s;ultation about the bu&s;ine&s;s, commanded them in the 18. ver. <HI>not to &s;peak at all, nor teach in the name of the Lord Je&s;us)</HI> nay, &s;ay the A|po&s;tles) <HI>whether it be fitter to obey God or you, judge ye.</HI>) It is
<PB N="100" REF="58">
&s;o clear a ca&s;e, that God who is your Governour more ab|&s;olutely, then you are ours, mu&s;t be obeyed before you, that you cannot deny it. This will be oppo&s;ed to his ca&s;e; the difference betwixt obedience to Gods Commands, and mens, is mighty; the one from an infinite Ju&s;tice, and known to be &s;o, the other from a finite, and known al&s;o to be &s;o; that of Gods from an infinite power, and known to be &s;uch; that of mans from a finite, and known to be &s;uch. It mu&s;t not there|fore follow, that becau&s;e Gods Commands are obeyed with|out examining, mans mu&s;t. This may likewi&s;e give the true &s;en&s;e of that place urged by him out of the 23. of S. <HI>Mat.</HI> 2, 3. <HI>The</HI> Scribes <HI>and</HI> Phari&s;ees <HI>&s;it in</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>Chair; and therefore all that they &s;hall bid you ob&s;erve, that ob&s;erve, and do.</HI>) This he urged for unque&s;tioned obedience to Superiours, and re|ceives its an&s;wer from the pa&s;&s;age of the Apo&s;tles, who denied their obedience in this point: it mu&s;t be therefore <HI>in licitis &amp; hone&s;tis,</HI> not in things cro&s;&s;ing with Gods Commands in his written word, or his Commands by the Law of Nature: A &s;ervant mu&s;t not obey his Ma&s;ters Oeconomical Laws, where they are contrary to the National: A Child mu&s;t not obey his Natural Parents, commanding contrary to his Politi|cal: A man is not to obey a Con&s;table commanding again&s;t his King, nor a King again&s;t God; his argument there|fore drawn from this in&s;tance of <HI>Adams</HI> mi&s;con&s;truction of Gods Commands, is not of force: That therefore we may not expound or di&s;cour&s;e upon mans commands, is not well collected out of his premi&s;es.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="12" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>XII.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his conclu&s;ion not deducible from the premi&s;es. The former place of the <HI>23.</HI> of S. <HI>Mat.</HI> further explained out of <HI>Petrus Gallatinus.</HI> Ari|&s;tocratical Power not ve&s;ted in the <HI>Scribes</HI> and <HI>Phari&s;ees.</HI></HEAD>
<P>HE concludes that page; <HI>So that it appeareth plainly to my under&s;tanding, both from Rea&s;on and Scripture, that the
<PB N="101" REF="58">
Soveraign Power, whether placed in one man</HI> (that which fol|lows is page 107.) <HI>as in Monarchy, or in one A&s;&s;embly of men, as in popular and Ari&s;tocratical Commonwealths, is as great as po&s;&s;ibly men can be imagined to make it.</HI>) My fir&s;t ob&s;ervation is, that he hath no one place of Scripture, but only from that place of S. <HI>Mat.</HI> where obedience to the <HI>Scribes</HI> and <HI>Phari&s;ees</HI> is mentioned, which can look towards Ari&s;tocraty or Demo|craty, of which I &s;pake ju&s;t now: And &s;urely he doth not think that the <HI>Scribes</HI> and <HI>Phari&s;ees</HI> had an Ari&s;tocratical Go|vernment over the <HI>Jews,</HI> for they were under the <HI>Roman</HI> Monarchy at that time, and could not put a man to death by their own Law (as they prote&s;ted at our Saviours Tryal,) in that then there was no Juridical Power among&s;t them, no So|veraign Authority: Nay, <HI>Petrus Gallatinus de arcanis Catho|licae veritatis, Lib.</HI> 4. <HI>Cap.</HI> 6. &s;hews at large, how not only the <HI>Jews</HI> were captivated by the <HI>Romans,</HI> the Kingdom tran&s;la|ted, given from one of their own Nation to <HI>Herod</HI> who was an Alien, but likewi&s;e their <HI>Sanhedrim</HI> (which was until then continued from <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> his time) taken away; and when he had &s;lain them all but one <HI>Baba,</HI> he was not of Authority to erect one more rightly con&s;tituted by the Law of <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> and the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Tradition. At the la&s;t he cites this place, <HI>Mat.</HI> 23.2. and &s;aith it ought to be read, The <HI>Scribes</HI> and <HI>Phari&s;ees have &s;ate</HI> in <HI>Mo&s;es</HI>'s Chair. The word in the Origi|nal is <GAP DESC="foreign">, which being in the fir&s;t Aori&s;t, is often (I confe&s;s) u&s;ed in the pre&s;ent ten&s;e, but the &s;tory (being a matter of fact) &s;eems to oppo&s;e it: I know therefore no rea|&s;on why it &s;hould be forced from its genuine &s;en&s;e; yet how|&s;oever let it go, it &s;hall be taken in the pre&s;ent ten&s;e, and I will make all agree. He further &s;hews, that after <HI>Herod</HI> had &s;lain all but this <HI>Baba,</HI> and put out his eyes, he erected ano|ther <HI>Sanhedrim</HI> of his own, in which it was likely tho&s;e who were members of it, were allowed to meddle with &s;ome mat|ters of &s;mall con&s;equence: Among&s;t the&s;e the <HI>Scribes</HI> and <HI>Phari&s;ees</HI> were mixed, and by that Authority might, accord|ing to their proud nature, po&s;&s;ibly u&s;urp the dignity of <HI>&s;itting in</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>his Chair;</HI> and yet (he &s;hews) that forty years be|fore the la&s;t de&s;truction of the Temple, the&s;e al&s;o were taken
<PB N="102" REF="59">
away. Well then, it appears clearly, that here was no Ari&s;to|cratical Government among&s;t them, they were governed Mo|narchically by <HI>Cae&s;ar,</HI> and under him by <HI>Herod.</HI> This inferi|our Councel had no part of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> his judicature of life and death; nay, that power which they had was variable, ac|cording to the will of the Monarch. But becau&s;e I am in now, I will add a word or two again&s;t his urging this place, for the ab&s;olutene&s;s of their Dominion, out of the following words,&mdash;<HI>What&s;oever they &s;hall bid you ob&s;erve, that ob&s;erve, and do it.</HI> Now this word <HI>what&s;oever,</HI> mu&s;t have relation to the former words, <HI>what&s;oever they teach you out of</HI> Mo&s;es; let not their vicious lives or hypocri&s;ie make you refu&s;e the whole|&s;ome Doctrine which they teach; but if they teach you fal&s;e Doctrine (as they will) that comes not out of <HI>Mo&s;es his Chair,</HI> but <HI>ex Cathedr&acirc; pe&s;tilentiae,</HI> as the P&s;almi&s;t phra&s;eth it, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 1.2. and therefore our Saviour often forewarns them, not only of the <HI>life, but doctrine of the</HI> Phari&s;ees, in the 16. of <HI>Mat.</HI> 6. take heed of the leaven of the <HI>Phari&s;ees,</HI> which in the 12. ver&s;e is expounded the doctrine; and in this very Chap. ver&s;e 4. <HI>They bind heavy burthens, and grie|vous to be born, and lay them upon mens &s;houlders;</HI> and in the 13. ver&s;e, they were &s;aid <HI>to &s;hut up the Kingdom of Heaven a|gain&s;t men;</HI> which mu&s;t be by their doctrine: In the 16th ver&s;e, <HI>They are called blind guides,</HI> which mu&s;t al&s;o be by their ignorance in doctrine or teaching; and if the <HI>blind lead the blind, they will both fall into the ditch:</HI> So likewi&s;e in the &s;ame ver&s;e he reproves their fal&s;e doctrine about Oaths; wherefore this <HI>(what&s;oever)</HI> mu&s;t be under&s;tood of what&s;o|ever according to that they pretend: So out of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> his Chair, what they from his Authority &s;hall appoint to be ob|&s;erved, mu&s;t be ob&s;erved; but when they produce doctrine contrary to that, they mu&s;t be di&s;obeyed; their wicked lives &s;hall not prejudice their godly doctrine, nor &s;hall <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> his Chair countenance their wicked doctrine or commands; for if &s;o, S. <HI>Peter,</HI> and S. <HI>Paul</HI> (before &s;poken of) were to blame, who di&s;obeyed their commands; and the inhumane Murther of our Saviour might be ju&s;tified, which was acted by their direction. Well, I need &s;peak no more to this, it is
<PB N="103" REF="59">
apparent, that this neither can prove Ari&s;tocraty, nor deli|ver an infallible unerring rule for them to be regulated by. And as he was to blame to found Ari&s;tocraty upon any of the&s;e places of Scripture, &s;o &s;urely upon this hyperbolical expre&s;&s;ion, That the power of every one of the&s;e Supremes <HI>is as great as po&s;&s;ibly men can be imagined to make it.</HI>) For then all Supremes have a like power, (which certainly is not apparent) and at all times; for if &s;uch a greatne&s;s belong to a Soveraign as a Soveraign, then in no Soveraign, or at any time, can it be mi&s;&s;ing: Then the Subject cannot have right to re&s;cue him&s;elf <HI>from bonds, or &s;uch hard&s;hip which may render his life odious to him,</HI> as he often per&s;wades; for &s;uch ab&s;olute power may be imagined to be made.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="13" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>XIII. Mr. Hobbs</HI> his Hyperbolical Power &s;carce any where to be found, and yet no &s;uch &s;tate of War, as he imagines, hath followed <HI>de facto.</HI> His &s;ub&s;equent que&s;tion an&s;wered by another. <HI>Mr. Hobbs</HI> his Do|ctrine the foundation of Sedition. Di&s;putes con|cerning Governments dangerous, but not to be pre|vented.</HEAD>
<P>HE proceeds; <HI>(And though of &s;o unlimited a power men may fancy many evil con&s;equences, yet the con&s;equences of the want of it (which is perpetual war of every man again&s;t his Neighbour) are much wor&s;e.)</HI> Thus far he: What a &s;trange wild a&s;&s;everation is this? Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> (I am per&s;waded) hath lived in divers Commonwealths, yet did he never find in any this ab&s;olute Hyperbolical Power of a Soveraign; nor did he &s;ee any where, that every man was at war with his Neighbour. That which follows in that Paragraph I let pa&s;s, becau&s;e confuted by what hath been writ heretofore, there being no new matter in it, and pa&s;s to the next, which he thus begins: <HI>(The greate&s;t objection is that of the practi&s;e,
<PB N="104" REF="60">
when men ask where and when &s;uch power has by Subjects been acknowledged.)</HI> Truly a wi&s;e que&s;tion, and &s;hrewdly propo|&s;ed, and to which he makes an un&s;atisfactory an&s;wer, which is; <HI>(But one may ask them again, when and where hath there been a Kingdom long free from Sedition and Civil Wars?)</HI> That word <HI>long</HI> is a word of &s;o large a capacity, a man can hardly find any time which he cannot &s;ay is &s;hort: But let that pa&s;s; he may con&s;ider, that Civil War and Tumults ari&s;e from divers occa&s;ions; &s;ometimes from diver&s;e Titles, &s;ome|times from private injuries, &s;ometimes when people are taught, <HI>that they may vindicate them&s;elves from oppre&s;&s;ion by their own private force and &s;trength;</HI> &s;ometimes when they &s;hall be taught, that <HI>they are the Fountain of all Power;</HI> and therefore they may take away, as well as give: which two la&s;t are the Fundamental Props of his whole <HI>Leviathan,</HI> and naturally produce Rebellion towards Superiours. He goes on &mdash; <HI>And in tho&s;e Nations, who&s;e Commonwealths have been long-lived, and not been de&s;troyed but by Forreign War, the Subjects never did di&s;pute of Soveraign Power.</HI>) He &s;hould have done a great work if he had in&s;tanced in tho&s;e Nations, and had proved they never di&s;puted that point. In an&s;wer to this; The le&s;s di&s;pute there is about it, 'tis by &s;o much the &s;afer: But who can hold men that have rea&s;on, from di|&s;puting the rea&s;on of the&s;e great affairs which &s;o nearly con|cern them?</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="14" TYPE="section">
<PB N="105" REF="60">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>XIV. Mr. Hobbs</HI> his bold cen&s;ure of tho&s;e who have written before him. His Principles de&s;tructive to Humane Society.</HEAD>
<P><HI>B&V;t</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>how&s;oever an argument from the practi&s;e of men, that have not &s;ifted to the bottom, and with exact rea&s;on weighed the Cau&s;es and Nature of Commonwealths, and &s;uffer daily tho&s;e mi&s;eries that proceed from the ignorance there|of, are invalid.</HI>) A bold a&s;&s;ertion, and cen&s;orious of all the world, in a Subject of which hundreds of learned men have di&s;cour&s;ed much more &s;afely and rationally then him&s;elf, and declared tho&s;e things which he calls the Cau&s;es and Nature of Commonwealths, much more excellently then he, (as may appear to any man who will peru&s;e them.) Which Writers, although they may have infirmities and errours, yet I never read one man, who maintained in Politiques, Principles &s;o de&s;tructive to Humane Society as him&s;elf: But he gives an in&s;tance to confirm his an&s;wer to that argument; <HI>For</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>though in all places in the world men &s;hould lay the foun|dation of their hou&s;es on the &s;and, it could not thence be infer|red, that &s;o it ought to be.</HI>) He &s;aith truth; but his in&s;tance is like his conclu&s;ion which he would illu&s;trate by it: and when he can &s;hew me that all men have built their hou&s;es upon the Sand, I will yield, that all Nations in the world have founded them&s;elves upon weak &s;upports; but until then, he &s;hall excu&s;e me from thinking one or the other.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="15" TYPE="section">
<PB N="106" REF="61">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>XV.</HI> The Rules in Politiques not founded upon Demon&s;tra|tions. The judgments and humours of men equally various. The Rule of Government mu&s;t follow the pre&s;ent occurrences.</HEAD>
<P>HE again: <HI>The skill of making and maintaining Common|wealths, con&s;i&s;teth in certain Rules, as doth</HI> Arithmetick <HI>and</HI> Geometry, <HI>not (as</HI> Tennis-<HI>play) upon practi&s;e only; which Rules neither poor men have the lei&s;ure, nor men that have had the lei&s;ure, have hitherto had the curi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">y or the method to find out.</HI>) The fir&s;t clau&s;e of this affirmation mu&s;t be exa|mined; fir&s;t, where he &s;aith, <HI>the skill of making and ruling Commonwealths, con&s;i&s;ts in certain Rules, as doth</HI> Arithmetick <HI>and</HI> Geometry;) Rules, without doubt, all prudential actions are governed by; but to &s;ay like <HI>Arithmetick</HI> and <HI>Geometry,</HI> is more then can be ju&s;tified, for their Rules are mo&s;t cer|tain, the demon&s;trations out of them mo&s;t undeniable; but the affairs of Politique Government mo&s;t weak, the &s;ubjects (which it treats about) mo&s;t uncon&s;tant, which is men uni|ted: and becau&s;e the judgments of men, their humours, their pa&s;&s;ions, are all obnoxious to variation, there can be no certain Rules which can meet with all accidents at home, or abroad with other Nations, which are variable one as the other; but much and many de&s;igns mu&s;t be daily changed, according to divers occa&s;ions; and indeed they are &s;o many, that no wit of man can fore&s;ee all: Let <HI>Achitophel</HI> him&s;elf advi&s;e never &s;o cunningly, yet if <HI>Ab&s;olon</HI> do not follow it (which no man can foreknow, but by gue&s;&s;es) his directions can effect nothing; and therefore there is no conformity in the Rules of the Mathematicks, and the&s;e of Politiques; the one like the &s;ubject mo&s;t immutable; the other like its &s;ub|ject mo&s;t uncertain. The la&s;t clau&s;e of that Paragraph and Chap. is nothing but a great Rant, and expre&s;s contempt of all other Writers, and an implicite magnifying his own Po|litiques:
<PB N="107" REF="61">
To which I may ju&s;tly &s;ay, it would have become other mens mouths or pens better than his own; and what I think of it is this; that if his former expre&s;&s;ion be true of them, that they have built upon Sand, I may &s;ay, his building is upon Quagmire: building upon Sand will &s;upport a building until &s;torms fall, but his will not &s;upport an Edi|fice, but fall of its &s;elf; the very Foundation &s;inks, without any other weight upon it, or violence to it. And &s;o I have run over this Chap. and thought to have gone no further in his Politiques, but the Title of the next Chap. enticeth me on, which is, <HI>Of the Liberty of Subjects.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="19" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XIX.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>I. Mr Hobbs</HI> his Comment upon his own Text cen&s;ured. <HI>Libertas coactionis, &amp; nece&s;&s;itatis:</HI> the &s;econd proper only to men.</HEAD>
<P>HE begins this Treati&s;e thus: <HI>(Liberty, or freedom, &s;ignifi|eth (properly) the ab&s;ence of oppo&s;ition (by oppo&s;ition I mean external impediments of motion;) and may be applied no le&s;s to irrational and inanimate Creatures, than to rational.)</HI> Con&s;ider, Reader, what a &s;trange perplexed kind of writing this is, where he is forced to write a Comment upon his own Text. To begin with him: <HI>(Liberty, or freedom)</HI> What need of freedom here, when the &s;ubject he treats of is Li|berty? Secondly, What need of that <HI>Parenthe&s;is</HI> to expound <HI>oppo&s;ition?</HI> If he had not affected a deceitful way of wri|ting, he might in fewer words, and much more clearly, have &s;aid, <HI>Liberty &s;ignifies (properly) the ab&s;ence of external impe|diments of motion:</HI> But if his contempt of &s;uch Learning had not made him neglect to read it, he might ea&s;ily have known there is a liberty <HI>&agrave; Coactione, from con&s;traint,</HI> and a liberty from <HI>nece&s;&s;ity.</HI> The fir&s;t is that, and that only which he de|fines; but the &s;econd, which is the more noble part of liber|ty, is left out by him, and that is peculiar to men alone a|mong&s;t
<PB N="108" REF="62">
all &s;ublunary Creatures. He proceeds to illu&s;trate his conclu&s;ions; <HI>(For what&s;oever is &s;o tyed, or invironed, as it can|not move but within a certain &s;pace, which &s;pace is determined by the oppo&s;ition of &s;ome external body, we &s;ay it hath not liber|ty to go further.)</HI> This I agree to, this is liberty from <HI>con|&s;traint;</HI> and &s;o I agree to his whole di&s;cour&s;e, in exemplify|ing that, which I would &s;ay is ingenious, but that it explains what no man denies; therefore I let alone what follows to the bottom of this page, and &s;o come to page 108, which be|gins thus.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>II. M. Hobbs</HI> his Free-man not actually to be found in the whole world. His unhand&s;om cen&s;ures of tho&s;e who have u&s;ed the word <HI>Liberty</HI> or <HI>Freedom,</HI> in a &s;en&s;e different from him&s;elf. The activity of heat hin|dred by cold; neither of them bodies. Spirits hin|dred in their motion. Freedom u&s;ed in a pa&s;&s;ive acception.</HEAD>
<P><HI>ANd according to this proper and generally received meaning of the word, A Free-man, is he, that in tho&s;e things which by his &s;trength and wit he is able to do, is not hindred to do what he has a will to do.]</HI> This is freedom and great liberty; but I doubt he will not find any Subject in the world having this liberty. He might have given this Chap. another title, for there are no &s;ubjects which are not confined from this liberty. Well, he goes on, and I wait upon him: <HI>But</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>when the words Freedom and Liberty are applied to any thing but bodies, they are abu&s;ed.</HI>) It was unkindly and unhand&s;om|ly &s;aid, to affirm it <HI>abu&s;ed,</HI> &s;ince it hath been the language of all men who have written of any &s;piritual things; which certainly, having no bodies to hinder them, mu&s;t needs be free, according to his own conceit. I hope in a fuller manner to handle the nature of Spirits; therefore I will not meddle now with it, only I will mind him of that common Pro|verb
<PB N="109" REF="62">
among&s;t us, denoting a &s;piritual freedom in that which is no body, and that is, <HI>Thought is free;</HI> and yet this thought is a &s;piritual thing, having no dimen&s;ions; but becau&s;e no Humane Laws can re&s;train, confine, or judge of mens thoughts, they are free. But he produceth a rea&s;on for what he had writ <HI>(for that which is not &s;ubject to motion, is not &s;ub|ject to impediment;)</HI> What he means by <HI>motion,</HI> I know not; but if he means that, which according to the common ac|ceptation of Philo&s;ophers it importeth, that is, not only lation or changing of place, but that which makes any change in any thing, which (he knows) are commonly reduced to &s;ix &s;pecies: then he might have ob&s;erved, that that heat which warms a mans hand is not a body, and yet may be impeded and hin|dred by cold from its activity, or that motion of calefaction. Well then, &s;ome things be&s;ides bodies have motion, and may have that liberty (which he &s;peaks of) confined by ex|ternal things. But becau&s;e his Philo&s;ophy points at a con|tempt of Spirits, who&s;e motion is not &s;o clearly di&s;cerned as that of bodies, e&s;pecially in that &s;ucce&s;&s;ion in which bodies move; and I think he means only local motion; I dare af|firm that Spirits move, in their way, from one place to ano|ther, in a &s;piritual manner, and are at one time in a place, in which they were not before; and many times have &s;piritual impediments; of which I re&s;erve a fuller di&s;cour&s;e hereafter. But at this pre&s;ent, my affirmation is as good as his negation, e&s;pecially countenanced with &s;uch a general con&s;ent of Phi|lo&s;ophers, as cannot be counterpoi&s;ed by any thing that can be produced for the contrary opinion. Well then, let us ex|amine that which follows&mdash; <HI>Therefore</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>when 'tis &s;aid (for example) the way is free, no liberty of the way is &s;ignified, but of tho&s;e who walk in it without &s;top.</HI>) This expre&s;&s;ion will not &s;erve his turn; that phra&s;e, <HI>The way is free,</HI> doth not mean a liberty of the <HI>men who walk in it</HI> without &s;top; for pri&s;oners in bonds may walk in it without &s;top, who are far from freedom; nor is it yet u&s;ed abu&s;ively, but pa&s;&s;ively, which that word <HI>freedom</HI> doth bear, (though hardly that word <HI>liberty,</HI> which he applies to it.) So that the meaning is, the way is of an open condition, not appropriated to any
<PB N="110" REF="63">
particular owner, &s;o as to forbid you legally to pa&s;s there; nor is this an abu&s;ive &s;peech, but this word <HI>liberty</HI> is &s;eldom u&s;ed but (with &s;uch addition as may expound it) in a pa&s;&s;ive &s;en&s;e, for &s;ome power to act, although freedom in others.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>III.</HI> The in&s;tance of a Gift, not at all to <HI>Mr. Hobbs</HI> his purpo&s;e. A double acceptation of the word Gift. The vulgar phra&s;e, of Gift is free, abu&s;ed in either &s;en&s;e. Metonymies the Elegancies of common Lan|guage.</HEAD>
<P><HI>ANd</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>when we &s;ay a Gift is free, there is not meant any liberty of the Gift, but of the Giver, that was not bound by any Law or Covenant to give it.</HI>) Con&s;ider, good Reader, how this in&s;tance di&s;agrees with his undertaking; which is, fir&s;t, that <HI>freedom applied to any thing but bodies is a|bu&s;ed; Secondly,</HI> his medium by which he proves that it is, <HI>for that which is without motion is without impediment.</HI> Now his &s;econd in&s;tance is, becau&s;e <HI>a gift is called a free gift.</HI> Let us con&s;ider that a gift, is either the thing given (which is of|ten called the gift of &s;uch a man) or el&s;e the very act of gi|ving it. In the fir&s;t acceptation he cannot &s;ay, it was bodies, nor a body, that hath no motion, like to a high way; (of which before) it may be a hor&s;e, a dog, or any living crea|ture. Then &s;econdly, take it for the act of giving, that is, a motion of the mouth, or hand by writing, it is a motion of a man, that therefore cannot be pertinent. But then he ex|pounds right, when he &s;ays it &s;ignifies the <HI>liberty of the giver, who was not bound by any Law or Covenant to give it</HI>) It is true Mr. <HI>Hobbs;</HI> but yet this is no abu&s;ive &s;peech but a Me|tonymie, the effect for the cau&s;e; which figures are &s;o far from being an abu&s;e, as they are the Elegancy of common Language; and indeed have &s;o prevailed upon every mans tongue and pen, that a man can hardly &s;peak or write &s;ignifi|cantly without them, unle&s;s he would tye him&s;elf to &s;trict Logical and Metaphy&s;ical notions and expre&s;&s;ions.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<PB N="111" REF="63">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>IV. Mr. Hobbs</HI> his third in&s;tance cen&s;ured. <HI>Freedom of Speech</HI> diver&s;ly accepted. His illu&s;trations mo&s;t uncertain, and deviating from his matter.</HEAD>
<P>HIs third in&s;tance: <HI>(So when we &s;peak freely, it is not the liberty of voice or pronuntiation, but of the man whom no Law had obliged to &s;peak otherwi&s;e then he did.)</HI> Fir&s;t, I think he is mi&s;taken much in the &s;en&s;e of this phra&s;e <HI>(free &s;peech)</HI> for we &s;hall find it two ways u&s;ed in our common conver&s;ation of men with men; &s;ometimes in a virtuous &s;en&s;e, as, he did preach <HI>freely,</HI> deliver the truth without fear of men, for that bondage of fear is a great captivity; &s;ometimes in a wor&s;e &s;en&s;e, when we u&s;e to &s;ay, &s;uch a man is one of a <HI>free</HI> conver&s;ation, he &s;peaks <HI>freely;</HI> not that he &s;peaks things <HI>as no Law hath forbid to &s;peak otherwi&s;e,</HI> but without con&s;ideration; he gives no Law to his own tongue, one (as we otherwi&s;e phra&s;e him &s;ometimes) without fear or wit, and it is within an inch of &s;aucine&s;s. Now freedom of &s;peech doth not relate only to the outward Laws, but to the ability &s;ometimes of Language; and yet I may add, he was to blame when he denied the u&s;e of it concerning the bodily pronuntiation, for we u&s;e to &s;ay, he is free from &s;tam|mering; and for &s;tammering, he hath an impediment in his &s;peech. Let the Reader forgive me for medling with &s;uch trifles as the&s;e are, which in this place I do, becau&s;e he may ob&s;erve how crude and indige&s;ted his di&s;cour&s;e is, and how uncertain even his illu&s;trations are, which ought to be of a clearer evidence. But now I come to his <HI>La&s;tly;</HI> which in|deed I gue&s;s to be the work he aimed at, and this only a Preamble to the Liberty of Subjects, which indeed it con|cerns not.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<PB N="112" REF="64">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>V.</HI> Of freedom and liberty again; The&s;e two contrary to his former acception of the words, now di&s;tin|gui&s;hed by <HI>Mr. Hobbs.</HI> The word <HI>will</HI> taken in a double &s;en&s;e, equally with under&s;tanding, by the Philo&s;ophers. The common notion ju&s;tified again&s;t <HI>Mr. Hobbs.</HI> The <HI>&s;ubjectum quod,</HI> and the <HI>&s;ubje|ctum quo</HI> of liberty in the will. A twofold act of the will (confounded by <HI>Mr. Hobbs</HI>) explained and a&s;&s;erted. God only can do what ever he has inclination to.</HEAD>
<P><HI>LA&s;tly,</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>from the u&s;e of the word Free-will, no liberty can be enforced of the will, de&s;ire, or inclination, but the liberty of the man; which con&s;i&s;teth in this, that he finds no &s;top in doing what he has the will, de&s;ire, or inclination to do.</HI>) What? from the u&s;e of this word Free-will, no liberty can be inferred of the will, de&s;ire, or inclination! I wonder why by his di&s;cour&s;e, becau&s;e it is no body, which he conceives to be the only free thing; but that hath been refuted: other things are as free as bodies, according to his conceit of free|dom, becau&s;e other things produce alteration, and may be impeded in their operations. But perhaps he puts a diffe|rence here betwixt freedom and liberty, which before he conjoyned; and conceives that the freedom of the will, which may not be &s;topt or hindred in its operations, is a di|&s;tinct thing from its liberty of doing, or not doing, of elect|ing this, or refu&s;ing that: And although he allows the fir&s;t, that it is free, without &s;top to operate; but hath no liberty to operate, or not operate, or to refu&s;e one, and chu&s;e another; this I apprehend to be his meaning, as will appear pre&s;ently, his whole di&s;cour&s;e pointing at it. To under&s;tand which, let the Reader con&s;ider with me, that this word <HI>will</HI> is ta|ken two ways; for a faculty in the Soul, by which it produ|ceth
<PB N="113" REF="64">
divers acts, as to will, or nill, chu&s;e, or refu&s;e. And &s;e|condly, for the prime act of this faculty, which is to will, for &s;o Philo&s;ophers do with the under&s;tanding. <HI>Intellectus</HI> is the faculty by which a man under&s;tands any thing, and the prime act of the under&s;tanding, or indeed the chief habit by which it under&s;tands any thing. The <HI>habitus principiorum,</HI> is called <HI>Intellectus:</HI> Thus &s;ometimes the &s;ame name is applied to the faculty, and the chief operation of the faculty. I &s;peak this, becau&s;e he more then once abu&s;eth this notion with &s;ome deri&s;ion; but however, until we can learn more &s;ignificant terms to expre&s;s our notions by, we mu&s;t be con|tent with &s;uch as are in u&s;e. Now con&s;ider, here he takes will for the act, or the operation of the faculty, not the fa|culty it &s;elf: that is evident, becau&s;e he expounds it, as if they were one by de&s;ire and inclination. Now tho&s;e two, de|&s;ire, and inclination, are actual motions, or at the lea&s;t, ten|dencies to motions: Now (&s;aith he) of the&s;e there is no li|berty, but the liberty of the man. It is true, the man is the <HI>&s;ubjectum quod,</HI> or the Soul of man in which the faculty of the will is, but the will is the faculty which is the <HI>&s;ubjectum quo,</HI> the immediate &s;ubject by which the man is free; and by this faculty the man is enabled to work this act of wil|ling freely. But yet con&s;ider with me a little, that the will being the in&s;trument which man u&s;eth to obtain his happi|ne&s;s, hath a twofold act; one re&s;pects the end, which is happine&s;s, the other the means, by which this happine&s;s is to be obtained: The fir&s;t is natural, and nece&s;&s;ary; as natu|ral, as for the eye to &s;ee colours, for the fire to burn. There cannot be a man who would not be happy, he may be mi&s;ta|ken in the thing &s;o as to count this or that to be happine&s;s, which is not, but he would be happy. The &s;econd, which is conver&s;ant about the means, is Election, and that act is free for a man to chu&s;e, or not chu&s;e, to chu&s;e one, and refu&s;e another. Now concerning the &s;econd there is abundance of liberty; concerning the fir&s;t, he might confound will, de&s;ire, and inclination; but concerning the &s;econd, he may will, or rationally de&s;ire that which he hath no inclination to, yea is a ver&s;e to in his natural inclination; and therefore in that
<PB N="114" REF="65">
regard they were very ill joyned together; and it was a Gam|bal of him, and what follows is mo&s;t odious to all rea&s;on and experience; for explaining him&s;elf, what he meant by the liberty of man, <HI>which</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>con&s;i&s;teth in this, that he finds no &s;top in doing what he has the will, de&s;ire, or inclination to do.</HI> Con&s;ider this &s;trange propo&s;ition; Was there ever any man of &s;uch a liberty, &s;uch a power, that he finds no &s;top in doing what he hath a will to do. The greate&s;t Emperour that ever was, could never &s;ay &s;o; they have &s;tops in them&s;elves, their own rea&s;ons and con&s;ciences forbid them to do many things they would do, their &s;hort and weak arms &s;top them from doing many things they are inclined to do, only God is capa|ble of this liberty, who&s;e infinite wi&s;dom can find out all things, and infinite goodne&s;s de&s;ires nothing but what is mo&s;t excellent, and infinite power can do all what he hath an inclination to: It was therefore a mo&s;t &s;trange &s;peech, and I cannot but wonder how &s;uch things can pa&s;s among&s;t rea|&s;onable men for Philo&s;ophy; and being in, I think it my duty to &s;hew &s;uch a thing to a heedle&s;s Reader.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>VI.</HI> Of mixed actions, will, de&s;ire, and inclination, di|&s;tingui&s;hed; confounded by <HI>Mr. Hobbs.</HI> Of goods ca&s;t into the Sea, for the pre&s;ervation of the Ship and Pa&s;&s;engers. The dictate of Rea&s;on often di&s;o|beyed, and the will violently carried by the &s;en&s;ual appetite. Denominations are a <HI>principaliori.</HI></HEAD>
<P>SO now we will pa&s;s on to the next Paragraph; I expect more of this &s;tuff: It begins <HI>(Fear and Liberty are con|&s;i&s;ting)</HI> (I believe they are in a mixture) <HI>as</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>when a man throweth his goods into the Sea for fear the Ship &s;hould &s;ink.</HI>) This in&s;tance is commonly given to mixed actions, which are compounded of voluntary and involuntary; here is a part of both; he doth throw his goods into the Sea, this makes it voluntary; he doth it grudging, that makes
<PB N="115" REF="65">
it involuntary, yet it &s;eems the predominancy is in the will. But now con&s;ider with me, that the&s;e terms (which he handled before, and confounded together) you may now find di&s;tingui&s;hed, they are will, de&s;ire, and inclination: the&s;e three (to &s;peak properly) differ, according to a three|fold e&s;tate in man, Natural, Animal, and Rational: Ac|cording to the fir&s;t, he hath inclination to tarry and remain in the world, with the like; agreeing to the &s;econd, he de&s;ires meat, drink, to walk, to talk, and do all things which are plea&s;ant to him: According to the la&s;t, to act &s;uch things as rea&s;on &s;hall dictate: Nay he may have an inclina|tion to many things which Rea&s;on can &s;ay are not fit; take the highe&s;t in&s;tance which can be given, that is, to live; when Rea&s;on &s;hall &s;hew him, that it is not fit to live upon &s;uch di&s;hone&s;t terms as are offered. So likewi&s;e he may have an animal de&s;ire of plea&s;ure, which being found not fit by Rea&s;on, the rational will controuls it. Thus we &s;ee tho&s;e three Appetites; and to keep clo&s;e to his in&s;tance, man hath an inclination and a natural appetite to live, and hath a &s;en&s;ual de&s;ire of his riches, by which he hopes to live to the &s;atisfaction of his &s;en&s;ual appetite; but Rea&s;on pre|&s;cribes, that life is to be preferred before all the plea&s;ures in the world. So that here he &s;aith right, one may have a will to throw his riches into the Sea, but his &s;en&s;ual de&s;ire is again&s;t it, and that makes it have a degree of unwilling|ne&s;s. Con&s;ider again, that this act of throwing his goods into the Sea, is in its own nature an unwilling act; for no man would de&s;ire to ca&s;t that away, which with &s;o much hazard and pains he had got; but in the particular, when it comes to be yoked with that greater mi&s;chief of loo&s;ing his life, then it is cho&s;en before the other, and yet it is oft grieved for when it is pa&s;&s;ed and gone, which is a &s;hrewd objection again&s;t the willingne&s;s of it; for no man is ratio|nally grieved for doing what he will; but be it as he will, yet the rational will, the &s;en&s;ual de&s;ire, and the natural in|clination, are not the &s;ame; and although the rational will in that act doth command, yet in many it doth not, being violently carried away with the other; So that he &s;aith
<PB N="116" REF="66">
truth, when he &s;aith, &mdash;ca&s;ting his goods into the Sea was a willing action, although there was an earne&s;t de&s;ire to the contrary; and there was, by rea&s;on of that, &s;ome mixture of unwillingne&s;s in it; yet <HI>denominatio &agrave; principaliori,</HI> the predominant part gives the denomination invincibly: So likewi&s;e what follows in another in&s;tance, <HI>of him who pays his debts only to avoid impri&s;onment:</HI>) And what in the con|clu&s;ion of that Paragraph, he &s;aith, <HI>That generally all acti|ons which men do in Commonwealths for fear of the Law, are actions which the doers had liberty to omit</HI>) therefore cer|tainly they had liberty in them&s;elves, they might do, or not do them.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>VII.</HI> The deficiency of <HI>Mr. Hobbs</HI> his in&s;tance of water pa&s;&s;ing in its channel. <HI>Libertas coactionis, &amp; ne|ce&s;&s;itatis,</HI> further explained. Liberty properly <HI>ad oppo&s;ita.</HI></HEAD>
<P>NOw I come to a new bu&s;ine&s;s: <HI>Liberty</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>and nece&s;&s;ity are con&s;i&s;tent; as in the water, that hath not only liberty, but a nece&s;&s;ity of de&s;cending by the channel.</HI>) This in&s;tance is not full; for although there is a freedom to run in the channel, yet the banks of the channel &s;o confine it, that the water can run no where el&s;e; like a man who hath his &s;hackles knocked off, yet is confined to his chamber &s;till, and is a pri&s;oner there. But to under&s;tand this, con&s;i|der with me, that this liberty which he &s;peaks of concern|ing the water, is a true liberty, &s;o far as I explained it, ac|cording to his definition, which is a liberty to run in the channel without external impediments; but ab&s;olute liberty it is not, becau&s;e both it is impeded from overflowing the channel by the banks, and likewi&s;e becau&s;e it is re&s;trained by its nature, &s;o that it is not ab&s;olutely liberty. There is <HI>li|bertas &agrave; coactione,</HI> a liberty from con&s;traint of outward cau&s;es,
<PB N="117" REF="66">
but there is no liberty <HI>&agrave; nece&s;&s;itate,</HI> from the nece&s;&s;ity of its nature, without which there is no proper liberty any other|wi&s;e then a pri&s;oner hath to live in Gaol: But liberty is <HI>ad oppo&s;ita,</HI> to things of divers nature, where the Internal Prin|ciple hath power to do this, or that; or at the lea&s;t, to do, or not to do, as he &s;peaks at the end of the la&s;t Paragraph; &mdash;<HI>The doer had liberty to omit.</HI> Now the water hath freedom to do, it is not hindred from running in the channel; but not &s;o much liberty as School boys take one towards ano|ther, when the weaker Boy &s;hould chu&s;e the be&s;t, the &s;tron|ger would give him the wor&s;t, and bid him chu&s;e that or none; for the water hath not liberty to run, or not to run, but only liberty to run.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="8" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>VIII. Mr. Hobbs</HI> his former in&s;tance to voluntary actions. His liberty to have, or not to have written and di&s;per&s;ed, the&s;e impious Doctrines.</HEAD>
<P>HE proceeds: <HI>(So likewi&s;e in the actions which men vo|luntarily do.)</HI> It is not &s;o in the actions which men vo|luntarily do; there is no nece&s;&s;ity for them to do their vo|luntary actions; they can chu&s;e whether they will do them or not; that man who doth vertuou&s;ly, can chu&s;e, and do vitiou&s;ly: And &s;o contrarily, he could have cho&s;en whether he would have writ the&s;e wicked Doctrines which he hath taught: If not, let him confe&s;s it, and I will prove him not to be a Man, but a Bea&s;t, and fit to be u&s;ed as a Bea&s;t, yea wor&s;e then a Bea&s;t, to be like a &s;tone which naturally de&s;cends, or water which nece&s;&s;arily runs down its Chan|nel, and &s;o ought to be u&s;ed like it; for indeed there is no one thing more peculiar to man then this liberty.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="9" TYPE="section">
<PB N="118" REF="67">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>IX. Mr. Hobbs</HI> his Rea&s;on of the former A&s;&s;ertion inva|lid. Of the fir&s;t and &s;econd cau&s;es. Men actively, other creatures pa&s;&s;ively, capable of commands, Fools and Mad-men incapable of commands.</HEAD>
<P>BUt he gives a rea&s;on for what he &s;peaks: <HI>(And yet, be|cau&s;e every act of mans will, and every de&s;ire and incli|nation proceedeth from &s;ome cau&s;es, and that from another cau&s;e, in a continual chain (who&s;e fir&s;t link is in the hand of God, the fir&s;t of all cau&s;es) proceed from nece&s;&s;ity.)</HI> The force of this Argument is invi&s;ible; for though this will doth proceed from a cau&s;e, as he expre&s;&s;eth it, yet if that imme|diate cau&s;e from which it proceeds be not nece&s;&s;ary, yea, if any one Link in the Chain of Cau&s;es be free, and not nece&s;&s;a|ry, the effect is not nece&s;&s;ary; for the arbitrarine&s;s of any one will make the effect &s;uch: But this liberty of the Agent (he &s;peaks of) looks only upon the immediate cau&s;e, which in humane actions is free, and may not be done; yea, very often the Agent may chu&s;e the contrary: That the fir&s;t cau&s;e works with all &s;econd cau&s;es, is as certain as any thing in the Mathematicks; for there cannot be a &s;econd, or a third, or any number, but it proceeds from a fir&s;t: And yet becau&s;e the fir&s;t hath an influence upon the re&s;t, it follows not that they are Cyphers, but each out of that foundation hath its &s;everal operations: So in this, the fir&s;t cau&s;e is <HI>Cau&s;a generalis,</HI> and works with &s;econd cau&s;es which are derived from it: But they have their &s;everal ways and powers of working; Natural, according to their natural inclination; Animal, according to the peculiar di&s;po&s;ition of tho&s;e Souls which inhabit them; only man hath a free nature among&s;t bodily things, in that re&s;embling the Great Cau&s;e of Cau|&s;es, he is the Principle of tho&s;e actions which he doth as a man voluntarily, and therefore is capable of Commands a|ctively to do, and the other Creatures pa&s;&s;ively to be done,
<PB N="119" REF="67">
or u&s;ed, and Man is u&s;ed as a Ma&s;ter, or Owner under God, of them, a Steward who mu&s;t give an account of &s;uch of them as come within the &s;phere of his Dominion. Let any man tell me, how a man can be capable of commands, if he were like them nece&s;&s;itated: No man commands Fools, Mad|men, or Infants; we might account them Fools, or Mad, who &s;hould do it; but, if he would have them act any thing, he mu&s;t work upon their predominant pa&s;&s;ion, as we would do with Bea&s;ts, becau&s;e there is in them a deficiency of this high Power, to be Ma&s;ter of their own actions. It cannot be then, that all tho&s;e Precepts, Councels, Commands of God, &s;hould be given to him who hath no power to o|bey: And from thence we mu&s;t needs conclude, that they have a liberty to do, or not to do. But let us follow him.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="10" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>X. Mr. Hobbs</HI> his Suppo&s;ition impo&s;&s;ible, without a Reve|lation. The force of the word-<HI>See.</HI>- His Hypothe&s;is granted. His Inference would not follow. Cau&s;es not otherwi&s;e to &s;eem, then as they are in their own Nature.</HEAD>
<P><HI>SO that</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>to him who could &s;ee the connexion of tho&s;e Cau&s;es, the nece&s;&s;ity of all mens voluntary actions would ap|pear manife&s;t.</HI>) This conclu&s;ion is founded upon an impo&s;&s;i|ble &s;uppo&s;al; there is no po&s;&s;ibility that a man in this world &s;hould &s;ee that Chain of Cau&s;es, in Heaven hereafter he may, but here he cannot without a mighty &s;trange Revela|tion. But &s;uppo&s;e he could? This word <HI>See</HI> denotes a clear apprehen&s;ion; What would follow then, but that he &s;hould &s;ee &s;uch cau&s;es nece&s;&s;ary which are nece&s;&s;ary, and &s;uch free which are free; he would &s;ee them as they are, not &s;ee them in a repre&s;entation fal&s;e, and &s;o not agreeing to their con|dition.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="11" TYPE="section">
<PB N="120" REF="68">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>XI.</HI> Of Gods concurrence with humane actions. No man a &s;inner if nece&s;&s;itated to &s;in. Divine di&s;po&s;ure nece&s;&s;itates not to Evil. God not the Author of tho&s;e actions which are contrary to his commands. He is truly the Author of tho&s;e actions he advi&s;eth. Gods concurrence further illu&s;trated, from the in|flux of the Sun. Liberal Agents not nece&s;&s;itated by the ordinary concurrence of God.</HEAD>
<P>HE proceeds: <HI>(And therefore God that &s;eeth and di&s;po|&s;eth all things, &s;eeth al&s;o, that the liberty of man in doing what he will, is accompanied with the nece&s;&s;ity of doing that which God will, and no more, nor le&s;s.)</HI> Certainly, al|though I think very many men are too bold to di&s;cour&s;e of both Gods Knowledge and Will, as they do, which are things too high for the weak &s;ight of man to look clearly into, yet men may confidently &s;ay, as his Knowledge cannot be de|ceived, to judge fal&s;ly, &s;o his Will cannot be deceived, in willing that which is not good; and therefore becau&s;e men are free Agents in what they do, and mu&s;t give an account of their actions to him, and be judged according to them by him, it is not po&s;&s;ible to conceive, that he &s;hould know them other then free, which liberty was his own gift. And for his will, &s;ince it hath plea&s;ed God in his holy Word to reveal to us Rules by which we may know what is his will for us to do, in doing which we plea&s;e him, and that he likes us; as al&s;o what is again&s;t his will, in doing which we &s;hall anger and offend him, and he will puni&s;h us, although God be not only a general, but the fir&s;t cau&s;e which works with and in us; yet it is not po&s;&s;ible for man to think, that God doth in that concurrence determine mans actions to &s;uch things which he him&s;elf hath declared evil, and again&s;t his will, and which he will puni&s;h; and therefore it was too bold an A&s;&s;ertion to &s;ay, <HI>That man doth no more or le&s;s,
<PB N="121" REF="68">
then he is nece&s;&s;itated by Gods will,</HI> which is to make no man a &s;inner; for although (as he &s;pake) God di&s;po&s;eth all things, and that di&s;po&s;ure mu&s;t needs be to infinitely good and wi&s;e ends, even the evils and things again&s;t his Rules of good|ne&s;s, yet his di&s;po&s;ure orders &s;uch men, according to their evil actions, to &s;uffer, not makes them do evil that they may &s;uffer. But perhaps he explains this <HI>(For though men may do many things which God does not command, nor is therefore Au|thor of them.)</HI> Nay, I will tell him more, men may do, and many men do many things, not only which God hath not commanded, but which God hath forbidden, and hath com|manded they &s;hall not do; and &s;urely then he is le&s;s Author of them: But if a man do an act of advi&s;e or coun&s;el of Gods without a Command, yet that Gods Coun&s;el is Au|thor of. Now the&s;e actions which are again&s;t Gods Com|mand, without doubt he is not Author of; if he were, he could not ju&s;tly puni&s;h them: But I would fain make out his &s;en&s;e, which is this, he doth not do it by Authority given by God, but again&s;t it; Well then, Gods Authority is a|gain&s;t evil, but his power worketh this evil. So he &s;eems to affirm in his following words; <HI>(Yet they can have no pa&s;|&s;ion nor appetite to any thing, of which appetite Gods will is not the cau&s;e.)</HI> True indeed, God is the fir&s;t general cau&s;e, but not the &s;econd and particular. The Sun is an univer|&s;al cau&s;e, it &s;hines upon the Earth, Trees, Plants, and is the cau&s;e of their fertility, but diver&s;ly, according to the diver|&s;ity of Con&s;titutions it concurs with; &s;o doth God, as he is the fir&s;t and general cau&s;e (meeting with &s;everal conditions) operate &s;everally, to the production of tho&s;e &s;everal effects which are produced by them, with things nece&s;&s;ary, before he produceth nece&s;&s;ary effects. But, as the Suns concour&s;e doth not determine this thing to this, and that to that ef|fect; &s;o doth not the general concour&s;e of God determine this or that appetite to this or that object, in this or that manner; but when it meets with things &s;o di&s;po&s;ed, it con|curs in the production of that effect to which it was &s;o di|&s;po&s;ed; &s;o that God concurring with free Agents, makes them no more nece&s;&s;ary, then his concurring with nece&s;&s;ary
<PB N="122" REF="69">
Agents makes them free: It is the &s;ame infinite Power of God which con&s;tituted both, and his concurrence de&s;troys neither in its ordinate working: (I &s;peak not of his extra|ordinary operation, whereby he can and doth controul all the frame of Nature, when and how he plea&s;eth, nor doth Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI>): Nay, I may &s;ay, that God him&s;elf being ab&s;o|lutely free, bounded with no limits, having nothing above, or about him, which can &s;top or hinder his Almighty hand from working, it is much more rea&s;onable to think, that his concour&s;e &s;hould make even nece&s;&s;ary Agents free, and not to be bounded by their natures which he had given them, rather then that this mo&s;t free Agent &s;hould again&s;t him&s;elf make tho&s;e which he had con&s;tituted in a free na|ture to be nece&s;&s;ary, becau&s;e they are by that more like him&s;elf, which every Agent endeavours: Nay, in his ex|traordinary works, he doth often, for the pre&s;ent, &s;hake off tho&s;e bonds which his former Donation had confined them to; &s;o that by his extraordinary concour&s;e, he makes them cea&s;e from their former operations, which by their natures they were nece&s;&s;itated to do; as the fire not to burn, the water not to run down its channel, and the like, which are apparent to every man. So then, though Gods will and concurrence is a cau&s;e of tho&s;e actions, yet not being a terminating cau&s;e, but concurring with that nature which he had given them, that concurrence doth not nece&s;&s;itate that operation which he had given to man, <HI>viz.</HI> freedom to do, or not to do. But he proves the contrary in his fol|lowing words, which are the&s;e.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="12" TYPE="section">
<PB N="123" REF="69">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>XII.</HI> The con&s;equence of this Paragraph examined. His meaning conjectured and refuted. Every devia|tion contradicts not the Power and Omnipotency of God. <HI>Voluntas facere &amp; fieri</HI> di&s;tingui&s;hed in God. Men not ju&s;tly puni&s;hed with Damnation, if nece&s;&s;itated to &s;in. <HI>Mr. Hobbs</HI> cen&s;ured for obtru|ding tho&s;e Doctrines in Divinity among&s;t his Po|litical Di&s;cour&s;es. The actions of the King and Subject alike nece&s;&s;itated by <HI>Mr. Hobbs</HI> his Chain of Cau&s;es.</HEAD>
<P><HI>ANd did not his will a&s;&s;ure the nece&s;&s;ity of mans will, and con&s;equently of all that on mans will dependeth, the li|berty of men would be a contradiction and impediment to the Omnipotency and liberty of God.</HI>) I do not ob&s;erve how this con&s;equence can be deduced out of the premi&s;es; for if God endowed man with liberty and free power in his na|ture, why &s;hould it follow, if God do not nece&s;&s;itate his actions, that mans will would cro&s;s and impede the power and liberty of God? For the will of God is, that man &s;hould act freely: the free actions therefore are according to his will, and the nece&s;&s;itation would be contrary to his will. But, I think, he means, that if mans <HI>free power could &s;in again&s;t the will of God, then man &s;hould be able to con|tradict and &s;top his Omnipotency and Liberty.</HI> To under&s;tand this therefore, con&s;ider with me, that Gods Dominion o|ver this World, is like that of a King in a Kingdom; he gives Laws and Rules to the Subjects, which if they ob|&s;erve, they &s;hall live happily under him; but if not, he will puni&s;h and afflict, yea perhaps de&s;troy the offending parties: It is an oppo&s;ition to the Kings power, that when men break his Laws, and he &s;hall go about to puni&s;h them, they &s;hall then rebel again&s;t him, and oppo&s;e the power of the
<PB N="124" REF="70">
County, or of the Kingdom, or that power which he mu|&s;ters up to do Ju&s;tice upon them; then indeed his power is contradicted and impeded. God, whil&s;t men live here with the&s;e natures, hath given Rules, and governs them by &s;uch Laws as he hath appointed them for their good; if they ob&s;erve tho&s;e Laws, happy are they, but he &s;eldom puts in his Omnipotency to make men do the one or the other, never to make men break his Laws; he ordinarily doth not vary the nature of man, or any thing. Men may and may not keep his Commandments, (I do not now di|&s;pute of the nature of Grace, or any thing of that kind) they that do not, &s;hall be puni&s;hed, as the other ble&s;&s;ed; and then comes in his Omnipotency; if man could re&s;i&s;t or impede that, that were contradicting his power; but the&s;e &s;ins only oppo&s;e his concour&s;e which inclines, but not nece&s;&s;itates a mans nature; &s;o that there is Gods <HI>voluntas facere &amp; fieri,</HI> his will which we &s;hould do, which it is im|po&s;&s;ible for God to oppo&s;e; and there is his <HI>voluntas facere,</HI> to do him&s;elf, which it is not po&s;&s;ible for man to oppo&s;e: The fir&s;t appears in this life, the &s;econd in the other; nor is it any contradiction to the Divine Power which hath &s;o e|&s;tabli&s;hed it, and without which it were impo&s;&s;ible for his Power to joyn with his Ju&s;tice in puni&s;hing Offenders at the la&s;t day; for how can a man ju&s;tly be puni&s;hed for what was not in his power to do otherwi&s;e, yea much le&s;s can he puni&s;h him in Ju&s;tice, who makes him commit that fault which he puni&s;heth, which God mu&s;t do, if he (with his co-operation in the act) determines mans power to that evil which he puni&s;heth, and for which condemneth him to Hell. Certainly, this is the mo&s;t abominable impu|dent Doctrine for &s;inning that ever was read in any Author that ever writ of this Subject, and the mo&s;t derogative from that infinite E&s;&s;ential Goodne&s;s that &s;hould cau&s;e, or make men do evil; for no more then fire can cool or act again&s;t its nature, no more can God, who is e&s;&s;entially good (goodne&s;s it &s;elf) act that which is evil. It is in vain for a man to &s;ay, it is not evil, God doing it; for it is an evil which God hates and puni&s;heth, and therefore mu&s;t be evil
<PB N="125" REF="70">
in his e&s;teem. I do not now &s;peak of that Language u&s;ed by &s;ome, of Gods afflictions working with &s;ome men, which comes not in this di&s;cour&s;e to be di&s;puted of; but that God doth work the&s;e &s;ins which he puni&s;heth, this is abhorrent to the thought of a Religious man. And now, I mu&s;t cen&s;ure Mr. <HI>Hobbs,</HI> not only for ill and fal&s;e Doctrine, but for having &s;uch a delight in it, as in this place unnece&s;&s;a|rily to obtrude it, where there was no rea&s;on for, nor u&s;e of it; for let any man con&s;ider 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 le&s;s for his linking of his actions to God Almighty; nay, if his di&s;cour&s;e be true, Subjects have as great liberty as Kings, for all their actions are alike nece&s;&s;itated by this Chain.</P>
<P>Here Reader, I thought to have ended with his Politicks, having, as I think, digged up his Foundation, and then the Building mu&s;t fall; but meeting &s;o many wicked interpre|tations of Scripture, and &s;o many abominable conclu&s;ions in Divinity intermixed with his Political di&s;cour&s;es, I am for|ced to proceed with &s;ome of them, le&s;t the Reader &s;hould be unhappily &s;educed, but not pro&s;ecute them word by word, as I have done; but skipping from one hill to ano|ther, leaving the le&s;&s;er work, and Mole-hills, to be cen&s;u|red by any man who hath more lei&s;ure and &s;pare time; and to that purpo&s;e remove with me to the next page 109. about the middle, where he begins thus.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="20" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="126" REF="71">
<HEAD>CHAP. XX.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>I. Mr. Hobbs</HI> his impious Propo&s;ition in this Para|graph, di&s;covered and cen&s;ured. Inju&s;tice and in|iquity the &s;ame. The Subject not Author of the a|ctions of his Soveraign. The Soveraign, granting the former Propo&s;ition, cannot kill an Innocent ju&s;tly. No man hath power to take away his own life ju&s;tly. Neither Subjects nor Kings have right to any thing but from God, who gives not power to either to &s;hed Innocent Blood. The Law of Na|ture, de&s;erted by <HI>Mr. Hobbs,</HI> to the murther of an Innocent. His di&s;approbation of Scripture cen|&s;ured.</HEAD>
<P><HI>NEverthele&s;s we are not to under&s;tand, that by &s;uch liberty, the Soveraign Power of Life and Death is either abo|li&s;hed or limited.</HI>) I conceive, <HI>by Soveraign Power,</HI> he means the power of the Soveraign, and that Authority not limi|ted by any Law, which being violated, he &s;hould do un|ju&s;tly: (for this &s;en&s;e the &s;equel of this di&s;cour&s;e will ap|parently ju&s;tifie) and then I &s;ay it is a wicked Propo&s;ition, as will appear by the examination of his rea&s;ons, which he enters upon in the following words: <HI>(For it hath been al|ready &s;hewn, that nothing the Soveraign Repre&s;entative can do to a Subject, on what pretence &s;oever, can properly be called inju&s;tice, or injury):</HI> Yes, he hath &s;hewn it with a nice and learned di&s;tinction, betwixt <HI>Inju&s;tice</HI> and <HI>Iniquity;</HI> concern|ing which, I may ju&s;tly &s;ay they are hardly two words, but not two things, as I have &s;hew'd. But what doth he mean by a <HI>Soveraign Repre&s;entative here?</HI> I think he hath deliver|ed, that all Soveraigns are Repre&s;entatives of the people; What he can mean by this addition of Repre&s;entative, I know not; but he explains him&s;elf in the words follow|ing;
<PB N="127" REF="71">
<HI>Becau&s;e</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>every Subject is Author of every act the Soveraign doth; &s;o that he never wanteth right to any thing, otherwi&s;e then as he him&s;elf is a Subject of God, and bound thereby to ob&s;erve the Laws of Nature.</HI>) The fir&s;t part I have &s;poken to heretofore, and &s;hewed, that every Subject is not Author of the Soveraigns acts; where, he &s;aith, he hath &s;hown it: But now I &s;hall go further, and prove, that if they were Authors of his acts, yet by their Authority he cannot kill an Innocent ju&s;tly; which I do thus, &mdash; The peo|ple cannot authorize him to act any thing, which they them&s;elves have not ju&s;t power to do; but the people <HI>con|junctim,</HI> or <HI>divi&s;im,</HI> have no ju&s;t power to take away an inno|cent 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; &mdash; Before a Commonwealth be in&s;tituted, no man hath ju&s;t power to take away anothers life, as is mo&s;t evi|dent. I, but they may an&s;wer, every man hath power over his own, which every man may yield to the Soveraign. I rejoyn; No man hath ju&s;t 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 him&s;elf. And if there were no other argument again&s;t his popular Con&s;titu|tion of a Supreme, this were enough for confutation of it; for there mu&s;t be a power of life and death in a Common|wealth upon the emergency of great iniquities, it cannot &s;ub&s;i&s;t el&s;e. And &s;o I pa&s;s to the &s;econd part of that con|clu&s;ion, which is, <HI>(Otherwi&s;e then as he him&s;elf is the Subject of God, and bound thereby to ob&s;erve the Laws of Nature:)</HI> There is much folly <HI>(if not wickedne&s;s)</HI> in the&s;e few words. Fir&s;t, I &s;ay, neither Kings, nor any man, hath right to any thing, but as they are Gods Subjects: <HI>The earth is the Lords, and all that is in it;</HI> and to whom he giveth it, they have right to &s;uch pieces, and none el&s;e: He is King of Kings, with a much greater Prerogative then they can have over
<PB N="128" REF="72">
their Subjects: They can have no power therefore or right to act any thing which is not a power delegated from him; and certainly he can never &s;hew me any power given to Kings by God to &s;hed innocent blood. Secondly, it is a &s;trange phra&s;e u&s;ed by him <HI>(and bound thereby to ob&s;erve the Laws of Nature:)</HI> Fir&s;t, becau&s;e the Law of Nature, in par|ticulars, is to pre&s;erve, not to take away life in general; and concerning Commonwealths, to reward Virtue, and puni&s;h Vice; when this wicked book would have it the Law of Nature, to kill an Innocent, yea a virtuous per&s;on. Second|ly, con&s;ider <HI>(that being bound, becau&s;e he is Gods Subject, to the Law of Nature)</HI> and only that he &s;hould not be bound to Gods po&s;itive Laws in Scripture, a di&s;tinction which he him|&s;elf makes u&s;e of, and therefore may more powerfully be retorted to him; but he loves not Scripture, and this odious expre&s;&s;ion of his is mo&s;t abominable.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>II. Mr. Hobbs</HI> his Propo&s;ition in this Paragraph exami|ned and cen&s;ured. His dubious expre&s;&s;ions di&s;co|vered from his former A&s;&s;ertions, and refuted. Scripture &s;eldom cited by <HI>Mr. Hobbs,</HI> but to give a colour and Authority to Impiety. <HI>Jephta</HI>'s ra&s;h Vow examined. The execution of that Vow impi|ous. <HI>Jephta</HI>'s Sacrifice no Pre&s;ident for others.</HEAD>
<P>HE goes on: <HI>(And therefore it may, and doth often happen in Commonwealths, that a Subject m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">y be put to death by the Command of the Soveraign Power, and yet neither <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">o the other wrong.)</HI> There is one &s;hift in this Propo&s;ition by which it may be ju&s;tified, as thus; That a Soveraign may pu|ni&s;h a Delinquent, who formally did him no wrong, or an incon&s;iderable one, that is, to the Prince him&s;elf; but for an injury to another of his Fellow Subjects, as for robbing, or burning his Neighbours hou&s;e. But (as it &s;eems) by that argumentative word <HI>therefore,</HI> which mu&s;t relate to the precedent matter, he may do it, when the
<PB N="129" REF="72">
murthered Party hath done no wrong to any body, and then it is wickedly fal&s;e, he gives in&s;tances two or three. We will examine them next [<HI>As</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>when</HI> Jeptha <HI>cau&s;ed his daughter to be &s;acrificed, in which and the like ca&s;es, he that &s;o dyeth, had liberty to do the action, for which he is neverthele&s;s put to death without injury]</HI> I could wi&s;h he would let Scripture alone, for he loving it not with a due reverence, &s;eldom names it, but to countenance &s;ome wick|edne&s;s, as here. This &s;tory is recorded <HI>Judges</HI> the 11. And Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> I am per&s;waded did know how it is with &s;harp|ne&s;s di&s;puted by Divines whether he &s;acrificed her, or made a Votary of her. I will embroile my &s;elf in no unnece&s;&s;ary controver&s;ies, but will grant all he requires in that di&s;pute, that he did &s;acrifice her; what follows then? that he did it ju&s;tly? certainly no, the actions of bad Kings, yea the bad actions of good Princes cannot be ju&s;tifiable precedents for following ages. The world and the particular men in it are compounded of good and evil; there is not any man &s;o bad as hath no good, but that he may be wor&s;e; nor any man &s;o good, but he may be better; he hath &s;ome ill actions falling from him. That is it which I &s;peak of this very gallant per&s;on, <HI>Jephta,</HI> he might have &s;uch an ill action out of a fooli&s;h mi&s;taken Zeal, that that ra&s;h vow of his was to be kept; it was a fooli&s;h and a ra&s;h vow; for (for my part) I cannot gue&s;&s;e what he could imagine, what he could conceive, &s;hould come out of his doors which &s;hould be fit for a &s;acrifice to God; Dome&s;tick creatures, as dogs, &s;er|vants or children, are all of them hated by God for &s;acrifices. Calves, Rams, Cows, Goats &amp;c. which are the proper things for &s;acrifices, are not dome&s;tick inhabitants; but to &s;hed innocent blood in offering his daughter for a &s;acrifice was without doubt mo&s;t impious; and this is reckoned by <HI>Da|vid</HI> in <HI>P&s;alm</HI> 106. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 38. among&s;t the abominations of the I&s;raelites that they &s;hed blood, in their offering up their Sons and Daughters to Divels. I, but it may be ob|jected, that he had vowed it to God. A vow made to do evil is <HI>ip&s;o facto</HI> void; God never confirmed it; he ought not to keep it, but to repent for making it; this was to &s;hed
<PB N="130" REF="73">
innocent blood which was a &s;acrifice fit for none but the Divel, from whom the in&s;tigation to it proceeded; &s;o that if <HI>Jephta</HI> did kill her for a &s;acrifice, he did wickedly. There is a certain humour in many men, who will be peremptory in &s;ome point of religion that they may &s;eem godly, who value not much the reality of it: they will keep a ra&s;h, or (which amounts to the &s;ame) a not well advi&s;ed oath, although to &s;in, when they will neglect obedience to do righteou&s;ly; this was evident in King <HI>Saul,</HI> you may find 1 <HI>Sam.</HI> 14.24. <HI>Saul</HI> cur&s;eth any man who &s;hould eat any food until eventide; here was a mo&s;t ra&s;h cur&s;e, and the 27. <HI>ver&s;e, Johnathan</HI> who knew nothing of this cur&s;e of his Fathers eats a little honey; in the 44. <HI>ver&s;e, Saul</HI> &s;wears again, that he &s;hall &s;urely dye: what a horrid inju&s;tice had this been in <HI>Saul</HI> to &s;lay that gallant per&s;on, a man of &s;o much honour and worth, for the &s;atisfaction of his ra&s;h oath? You &s;hall find in the next <HI>Chap.</HI> that <HI>Samuel</HI> gave <HI>Saul</HI> a commandment from God to do execution upon <HI>Amalek,</HI> and then he can in the 9. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> &s;pare <HI>Agag</HI> and the be&s;t of their cattle; &s;ee the &s;ame humour in both, that which God had prohibited, murther, even upon his own &s;on, he would have committed, although again&s;t Gods law, becau&s;e it was agreeing with that religion which he had in&s;tituted for God, to wit his oath; but then upon the &s;ame rea&s;on he &s;pared <HI>Agag</HI> when God commanded his de&s;truction, becau&s;e it &s;uited better with his phancie that they &s;hould make a glorious &s;acrifice to God of what they had taken: and therefore in the 22. <HI>v. Sam.</HI> gives him this heavy reproof, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and &s;acrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? behold to obey is better than &s;acrifice. When God hath given laws for mens actions it is a di&s;obedience to in|vent witty ways of our own which cro&s;s them, to &s;pare what God would have us de&s;troy, and de&s;troy that which God would have us &s;ave. This was the humour of <HI>Sauls</HI> religion. I dare not cen&s;ure <HI>Jephta,</HI> he was a per&s;on of as &s;potle&s;s integrity as any I find among&s;t the <HI>Judges,</HI> unle&s;s <HI>Samuel;</HI> but if he did kill his daughter, I may ju&s;tly &s;ay it was a mo&s;t unju&s;t act, and a &s;atisfaction of his fancy in religion (which imagined what he had &s;worn <HI>in re illicita,</HI>
<PB N="131" REF="73">
mu&s;t be performed although again&s;t Gods law, which forbids kill|ing which in &s;acrifice required no &s;uch thing) but not a religi|ous act; nor can this be a precedent for others, nor a ju&s;ti|fication of others in doing the like, although a better man than he be joyned with him, which is <HI>David;</HI> and &s;o I come to his &s;econd in&s;tance.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XX. SECT. <HI>III.</HI> The murther of <HI>Uriah</HI> di&s;cu&s;&s;ed. Mr <HI>Hobbs</HI> his di&s;tin|ction cen&s;ured. Killing of an innocent contrary not only to the equitable part, but the very letter of the law of nature. The law not the executioner kills a Criminal. No power given by <HI>Uriah</HI> to <HI>David</HI> to kill him being an innocent. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his errors multiplied from his fictitious institution of So|veraignes by popular election. <HI>Uriah</HI> not impow|ered to di&s;po&s;e of his own life.</HEAD>
<P>HIs words are, <HI>[In which and the like ca&s;es he that &s;o dyeth, had liberty to do the action, for which he is neverthele&s;s, without injury put to death.]</HI> I have &s;hewed the contrary: it is an injury to put any man to death for that which he had liberty (that is) was not bound by law, not to do, and &s;uch a law which enjoyned &s;uch a penalty for the breach of it. Again he <HI>[And the &s;ame holdeth al&s;o in a Soveraign Prince, that putteth to death an innocent Subject.]</HI> What a Tautologie is this? I thought he had di&s;|cour&s;ed of a Soveraign Prince all this while; if not, it is more abominable. I, but he hath rea&s;on for what he hath delivered, for (&s;ath he) <HI>Though the action be again&s;t the law of nature as being contrary to equitie (as was the killing of</HI> Uriah <HI>by</HI> David) <HI>yet it was not an injury to</HI> Uriah; <HI>but to</HI> God. A very fine and delicate di&s;tinction, of which I
<PB N="132" REF="74">
have &s;poke before. But now concerning this language, as it is u&s;ed here, <HI>though the action</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>be again&s;t the law of nature, as being contrary to equitie.]</HI> Fir&s;t, Reader, con&s;ider, if he take equity (as many times it is) for a mitiga|tion or a gentle expo&s;ition which moderates the extream rigor of the law, this &s;urely may be deduced out of the law of na|ture, then (&s;aith he) it is again&s;t the law of nature, becau&s;e again&s;t the kind and charitable expo&s;ition of the law of na|ture only; but without que&s;tion killing an innocent is mo&s;t directly contrary to the very letter of the law of nature and the full &s;ence of it, for although he makes nothing of the po&s;itive law of God in this di&s;cour&s;e, yet the ten command|ments being by all under&s;tood to be an illu&s;tration or ex|plication of that law writ in our hearts (as he him&s;elf &s;eems to allow hereafter) therefore that law being clear, Thou &s;halt not kill, and this killing an innocent being the mo&s;t dete&s;table of all other, it is mo&s;t clearly not only a|gain&s;t the equity but the letter, that is that &s;ence which the law intends; for the law of nature directs and commands that vertue and vertuous men &s;hould be rewarded and incoura|ged, and vice puni&s;hed. Thou &s;halt not kill for the &s;atis|faction of thy pa&s;&s;ion, whom the law doth not direct; but if the law command killing, le&s;t the Common-wealth be hurt by &s;o wicked a per&s;on, le&s;t vice may be nouri&s;hed, then the law kills, not thou who art an executioner of the law. And therefore to kill an innocent is a mon&s;trous crime, whom no law kills; he gives an in&s;tance again, <HI>as was the killing of</HI> Uriah <HI>by</HI> David, <HI>yet it was not an in|jury to</HI> Uriah, <HI>but to God:</HI> yes, the greate&s;t injury could be done to him. No &s;aith he, <HI>not to</HI> Uriah, <HI>becau&s;e the right to do what he plea&s;ed was given him by</HI> Uriah <HI>him&s;elf.</HI> Shew that conce&s;&s;ion or gift from <HI>&V;riah</HI> and it will go a great way to my &s;atisfaction, nay certainly there was never &s;uch a conce&s;&s;ion from <HI>Uriah</HI> or any Subject, that the King &s;hall kill him being an innocent. It is not good for the Com|mon-wealth that any have &s;uch a power, becau&s;e by &s;uch a wicked act the Commonwealth lo&s;eth a worthy member as was <HI>&V;riah;</HI> but that abominable fal&s;e foundation of the
<PB N="133" REF="74">
only way of in&s;tituting a Common-wealth by the popular election, that impo&s;&s;ible error leads him into many more; but &s;uppo&s;e <HI>&V;riah</HI> yielded &s;uch a power, yea if it had been done by &s;uch a con&s;ent as he expre&s;&s;ed, yet they had no pow|er over their own lives; and therefore could not impower him over them; e&s;pecially when embodied into a Com|mon-wealth; for his country hath a &s;hare in every Subjects life, and good &s;ubjects well-being, by which it is amended and bettered; &s;o that he mu&s;t needs do an injury to others by &s;uch an act; for it is wrong and again all ju&s;tice, that man &s;hould &s;uffer by weldoing. This may &s;uffice for the fir&s;t piece of that &s;entence, now we will examine the &s;e|cond.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XX. SECT. <HI>IV. Davids</HI> &s;in in murthering <HI>Uriah,</HI> a &s;in again&s;t God, becau&s;e an injury to man. St. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> explain|ed. <HI>David</HI> his &s;overaignty freed from the puni&s;h|ment of &s;in, but not from the guilt of it. Rom. <HI>13.4.</HI> the fir&s;t epi&s;tle of St. <HI>Peter 2.14.</HI> explain|ed. The former a&s;&s;ertions proved again&s;t Mr. <HI>Hobbs,</HI> by the authority of St. <HI>Ba&s;il,</HI> St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome,</HI> St. <HI>Hierom,</HI> and St. <HI>Augu&s;tin</HI> The authors &s;ence of the&s;e words, <HI>tibi &s;oli peccavi.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his va|riation from the authority and reading of <HI>England.</HI> The former conclu&s;ions recapitulated and a&s;&s;erted a|gain&s;t Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> from the meaning of this text.</HEAD>
<P>A <HI>And yet to God; becau&s;e</HI> David <HI>was Gods Subject, and prohibited all iniquity by the law of nature.]</HI> Well, now let us con&s;ider, why this was iniquity; for no other rea&s;on
<PB N="134" REF="75">
certainly but becau&s;e it was inju&s;tice done to another man. The law of nature pre&s;cribes all, (and nothing but) in ju&s;tice: if it be towards God it is called religion, which payes to God the duty which we owe him, and is &s;et down in the four fir&s;t commandements of the Decalogue; but all the ju&s;tice which is due to man, is &s;et down in the &s;ix latter. I mu&s;t then tell him, that that act of Murther in <HI>David</HI> was not a &s;in again&s;t God, but only out of regard that it was an injury to man; for, therefore the law of nature written in mens hearts, and the po&s;itive law of God was a|gain&s;t it, becau&s;e it was unju&s;t for man to do it; &s;o that the rea&s;on why it was an offence again&s;t God, being only, becau&s;e it was an injury to man, it mu&s;t follow that it can|not be an injury to God, but it mu&s;t likewi&s;e be an inju|ry to man. I, but (&s;aith he) <HI>it was again&s;t God, becau&s;e King</HI> David <HI>was Gods &s;ubject.</HI> Yet give me leave, although King <HI>David</HI> was Gods &s;ubject, yet it doth not follow that in murthering his fellow &s;ubjects he did no injury to them, no more than the Kings &s;ubjects, officers or Judges under him may be &s;aid in condemning innocent blood to injure only the King, and not the per&s;on whom he &s;o murthered: it is mo&s;t evident therefore, that that &s;in was again&s;t both God and man. But he brings &s;cripture for what he writes: <HI>which di&s;tinction,</HI> David <HI>him&s;elf when he repented the fact, evidently confirmed, &s;aying, To thee only have I &s;inned.</HI> Which text you may read <HI>P&s;alm.</HI> 51.4. and to under&s;tand the &s;ence of it, let us reflect upon the &s;tory of this <HI>P&s;alm,</HI> as it is recorded, with 2 <HI>Sam.</HI> 12. where we may ob&s;erve, that after he had committed the&s;e hainous &s;ins of adultery and murther, God &s;ent <HI>Nathan</HI> the <HI>Prophet</HI> to him, and he told <HI>David</HI> his own &s;tory, under a Parable of a Rich man, who took a poor mans lamb from him to entertain his friend with it. This was a picture of <HI>Davids</HI> crime; was not this inju&s;tice? Con&s;ider then in the 9. <HI>ver&s;e,</HI> where he acquaints the King with Gods &s;entence again&s;t him, he doth not lay to his charge only that he had offended God, but that he had killed <HI>&V;riah</HI> the <HI>Hittite</HI> with the &s;word, and had taken his wife to be his wife, and had &s;lain him with the &s;word of the Children of <HI>Ammon:</HI> &s;o that the
<PB N="135" REF="75">
&s;ins of <HI>David</HI> were again&s;t men; for though all &s;in is again&s;t God, even the tre&s;pa&s;s again&s;t men is therefore a &s;in, be|cau&s;e again&s;t Gods law; yet it is a &s;in again&s;t men, and therefore prohibited by Gods law becau&s;e unju&s;t to men. I &s;peak of all &s;uch &s;ins, which are <HI>&s;u&acirc; natur&acirc;</HI> in their own nature &s;ins, of which kind murther is; then let us look to the 14. <HI>ver&s;e</HI> of this <HI>P&s;alm.</HI> Deliver me from blood-guiltine&s;s O God. Blood-guiltine&s;s, what is that? Nothing but the guilt of that &s;in which he had committed by that murtherous act of killing <HI>&V;riah,</HI> and therefore as a murtherer is guilty of the crime, untill he is ab&s;olved of his Judge, and his only Judge God Almighty had acquitted him; he untill then was guilty of blood, of murthering <HI>&V;riah.</HI> Well then un|doubtedly that was an unju&s;t act, let Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> &s;ay what he will or can. But I will do him right, he goes not alone in this opinion; but hath St. <HI>Ambro&s;e,</HI> a per&s;on of great honour both for judgment and integrity, along with him; and becau&s;e I will urge this argument to the full, I will &s;ay he was no Court para&s;ite; one who would flatter Kings into &s;in, as was evident in that conte&s;t he had with the Emperour <HI>Theodo&s;ius,</HI> in which was apparent both an in|comparable <HI>Emperour,</HI> and a pious and zealous Prelate. This St. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> utters &s;ome things in his book called <HI>Apologia David</HI> like Mr. <HI>Hobbs,</HI> where in his tenth Chap. at the beginning he expounds the&s;e words <HI>[tibi &s;oli peccavi] Rex utique erat, nullis ip&s;e legibus tenebatur,</HI> I have &s;in|ned only to thee, for he was a King, he was held or con|fined by no laws; becau&s;e (&s;aith he) Kings are free from the bonds of laws, neither by any laws are they called to puni&s;hment, being &s;afe by the power of Empire. This a man would think abundantly full, but yet he never u&s;ed Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his Phra&s;e, to &s;ay he did not unju&s;tly. But his fir&s;t &s;peech mu&s;t be under&s;tood that he was not with held by any humane laws: for Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> confe&s;&s;eth that he is re&s;pon&s;able for the breach of divine laws, by the law of na|ture. Secondly, that &s;peech of his, that Kings are freed from the bonds of their faults; that mu&s;t be under&s;tood of &s;uch bonds, as impri&s;onments, or &s;uch puni&s;hments which by hu|mane laws are injoyned offenders; and that is clearly ex|pounded
<PB N="136" REF="76">
by his la&s;t &s;entence, that they are by no laws called to puni&s;hment, being &s;afe in the power of Empire, that is, &s;afe from the que&s;tioning of their &s;ubjects; &s;o that his whole &s;ence is this, That <HI>David</HI> as a King was not re&s;pon|&s;able for his &s;ubjects to any man, nor lyable to any puni&s;h|ment for them. I could &s;peak more to this, and &s;hew how that S. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> produced another expo&s;ition pre&s;ently after: but certainly neither he nor any man but Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> will &s;ay it was not inju&s;tice; it is <HI>&s;u&acirc; natur&acirc;</HI> unju&s;t, to puni&s;h with the greate&s;t puni&s;hment, death, an innocent per&s;on. Nor doth his being a King, make it le&s;s inju&s;tice, but rather ag|gravate it; becau&s;e his chief office under God, and for which he is con&s;tituted by God, is, to di&s;tribute ju&s;tice e|qually, and reward the vertuous, and puni&s;h the evil, as St. <HI>Paul</HI> excellently and clearly &s;peaks, <HI>Rom.</HI> 13.4. He is the mini&s;ter of God to thee for Good (that is, to thee who do&s;t that which is good, as he &s;peaks in the 3. <HI>ver&s;e</HI>) but if thou do&s;t evil be afraid, for he beareth not the &s;word in vain, for he is the mini&s;ter of God; a Revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. So likewi&s;e St. <HI>Peter</HI> 1. <HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 2.14. makes it their bu&s;ine&s;s to puni&s;h evil doers, and the prai&s;e of them who do well. Now if the&s;e be the contents of the commi&s;&s;ion from God to the&s;e his Deputies, they mu&s;t needs be guilty of inju&s;tice who puni&s;h <HI>citra condig|num,</HI> where there was no de&s;ert of it; and they who are Kings, &s;o much the more, by how much it is their par|ticular duty to take care of the contrary. I have now clear|ed the &s;ence of S. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> as I gue&s;s, but le&s;t any &s;cru|ple might remain from his authority, with any man, who might mi&s;take his &s;ence, I will therefore weigh down the Scales with the weights of others, his near contemporaries, of no le&s;s honour in Chri&s;tendom than him&s;elf. And the fir&s;t I &s;hall pre&s;ent you with, is St. <HI>Ba&s;il,</HI> the great, (&s;o he is call|ed) in his <HI>&s;cholia</HI> upon this ver&s;e of this <HI>P&s;alm: Tibi &s;oli peccavi c&ugrave;m multis &amp; magnis donis tuis &s;um po&s;itus:</HI> Since I enjoy many and great gifts of thine, but have returned con|trary things: he doth not &s;ay here that he had not &s;inned again&s;t <HI>Uriah;</HI> he had indeed offended again&s;t him, and a|gain&s;t his wife, but the greate&s;t prevarication was com|mitted
<PB N="137" REF="76">
again&s;t God him&s;elf, who had cho&s;en him, and con|&s;tituted him King, and therefore he rightly added, and done this evil in thy &s;ight; thus far St. <HI>Ba&s;il.</HI> The next which I &s;hall produce, &s;hall be St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> upon this <HI>P&s;alm,</HI> and this ver&s;e, and he agrees very much with St. <HI>Ba&s;il.</HI> To thee only have I &s;inned, Many (&s;aith he) and great benefits have I received from thee, but I have returned them with contrary things, for the&s;e things which by thy law are interdicted, I have not doubted to commit: neither doth he &s;ay, that I have not hurt <HI>Uriah,</HI> for he had both hurt him and his wife, but the greate&s;t iniquity was again&s;t God. Thus far St. <HI>chry&s;o&s;tum.</HI> Next con&s;ider St. <HI>Hierom; Tibi &s;ol&ugrave;m peccavi,</HI> to thee only have I &s;inned, for to thee every man &s;ins when he &s;ins, becau&s;e thou art only with|out &s;in, as the Apo&s;tle &s;peaks, <HI>Rom.</HI> 3.4. God is true but e|very man a lyar; or el&s;e <HI>David</HI> &s;aith, I have &s;inned and thou only art without &s;in, as &s;aith the Prophet <HI>I&s;aiah</HI> 53. Who did no &s;in nor was guile found in his mouth. St. <HI>Au|gustin</HI> likewi&s;e harps upon the &s;ame &s;tring. To thee only have I &s;inned, and done this evil in thy &s;ight, what is this, &s;aith that heavenly man? Had not he adulterated ano|thers wife and &s;lain her husband? Did not all men know what <HI>David</HI> had done? What is that he &s;aith then, to thee only have I &s;inned, and done this evil in thy &s;ight? (He an&s;wers) becau&s;e thou only art without &s;in; he is a ju&s;t pu|ni&s;her who h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">th nothing in him&s;elf to be puni&s;hed; he is a ju&s;t reprehender who hath nothing in him&s;elf to be repre|hended. Here you may &s;ee how holy and learned men (living near together about one time with St. <HI>Ambro&s;e,</HI> men famous in their generations, and to whom the Church of Chri&s;t owes exceeding much for the propagation of the Go&s;pel) gave their &s;en&s;e of this text of &s;cripture as well as he; and St. <HI>Augu&s;tin</HI> was one who honoured St. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> living and dead: yet you &s;ee varies from him in his judgment in this point. Give me leave to &s;hew my &s;en&s;e of the&s;e words and then conclude. And fir&s;t I will allow <HI>Mr. Hobbs</HI> his reading, <HI>to thee,</HI> which is not according to our tran&s;lation, which is <HI>again&s;t thee;</HI> and certainly by men learned in the <HI>Hebrew</HI> both among&s;t the ancient and modern writers, with
<PB N="138" REF="77">
a great content it is acknowledged to be true; yet it pro|fits his cau&s;e nothing to read it as he doth; in&s;omuch that <HI>Bellarmine</HI> in his Comment upon this <HI>P&s;alm,</HI> &s;aith, To thee only have I &s;inned, he doth not &s;ay, again&s;t thee only; he had offended again&s;t <HI>&V;riah,</HI> again&s;t <HI>Bath&s;heba,</HI> he had &s;canda|lized the people; but to thee only, as Judge, and none el&s;e can judge and condemn me, as he illu&s;trates it. So that although Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> varies from his own rule of &s;cripture, yet he gets nothing to his cau&s;e by it. But to proceed in ex|pounding; I ask leave and beg pardon of &s;uch eminent men from whom I may &s;eem to differ; for my part, I do not think that <HI>David</HI> here acts the part of a King, or &s;o much as thinks of his great Regality (if he did, it was to ag|gravate not to extenuate his &s;in) but of a penitent; and in his penitence is a pattern to other men, as well as Kings, how they &s;hould demean them&s;elves; even Kings in tho&s;e duties are reconciling them&s;elves to their King, in re&s;pect of whom they are poor and mean people; and if they &s;hould con&s;ider them&s;elves Kings, they &s;hould by this increa&s;e their humility, con&s;idering that he who owes &s;o much to God &s;hould be &s;o ungrateful and unmindful of him, The Prophet there|fore now con&s;idering his offence to God cryes out. To thee only have I &s;inned; before, <HI>Nathan</HI> the Prophet had vi&s;ited him, and told him of his faults, he thought he had &s;inned only to man, and therefore to hide his fir&s;t &s;in with <HI>Bath|&s;heba,</HI> he added another of murther, by which he thought his &s;hame of the other might be hid from men, which was po&s;&s;ible; but now clean contrary when he is acquainted with the wrath of God for his &s;in, now he cares not for his &s;in to men, &s;o he may be right with God, and to that end penned this <HI>P&s;alm,</HI> to be &s;ung in Churches; and to God utters tho&s;e lamentable complaints; that he is be&s;mea|red 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 mu&s;t be wa&s;hed, and wa&s;hed again; that he begs God to purge and make him clean, although with hy&s;op and &s;harp medicines. Here is the perfect character of a true penitent; many a man is &s;orry for his &s;in, becau&s;e it breeds him &s;hame and
<PB N="139" REF="77">
wordly evil; but this doth him no good: but King <HI>David</HI> is grieved for &s;in becau&s;e &s;in; becau&s;e again&s;t Gods law which he hath tran&s;gre&s;&s;ed; he cares not what this world thinks of him, &s;o God be appea&s;ed and reconciled to him; and therefore that this may be done, he only begs his pardon and thinks only of him, To thee only &amp;c. do thou acquit me, I care for nothing el&s;e. And &s;urely, this is the mo&s;t certain te&s;t of a true repentance, when a man grieves that he hath offended God, and values nothing but that offence; not that <HI>Bath&s;heba</HI> was a woman which he injured, but that he took the members of God and made them the members of an harlot; not that <HI>&V;riah</HI> was a man, and that a gallant per&s;on, but that he was the Image of God, which he de&s;troyed: tho&s;e and the like meditations are the i&s;&s;ues of true and hearty repentance; but yet con&s;i|der, (as I have &s;aid before) the&s;e things were &s;ins to God, and God is therefore offended with them becau&s;e they are breaches of his laws concerning man with man in parti|cular; you may find this mo&s;t emphatically expre&s;&s;ed by <HI>Nathan</HI> in the pronouncing Gods &s;entence again&s;t <HI>David,</HI> where the puni&s;hment is proportioned to the offence, 2 <HI>Sam.</HI> 12.10. Now therefore becau&s;e thou ha&s;t killed <HI>&V;riah</HI> the <HI>Hittite</HI> with the &s;word of the <HI>Ammonites,</HI> as it was expre&s;&s;ed in the 9. <HI>ver&s;e,</HI> therefore the &s;word &s;hall never depart from thy hou&s;e: then for his &s;in with <HI>Bath&s;heba, ver&s;e</HI> 11. and 12. I will take thy wives before thine eyes and give them to thy neighbour, and he &s;hall lye with them in the &s;ight of the &s;un, for thou did&s;t it &s;ecretly, but I will do this thing before all I&s;rael, and before the &s;un. Then, becau&s;e by this deed he had given great occa&s;ion to the enemies of the Lord to bla&s;pheme, his child by her was adjudged to death, as it is in the 14. <HI>ver&s;e.</HI> So that it is evident by his puni&s;h|ments that he &s;inned again&s;t men; and it is a mo&s;t vain thing to collect from hence that a King can do no inju&s;tice to his &s;ubjects, for certainly it is inju&s;tice in a King to but|cher barbarou&s;ly any man, which without danger he may &s;ave, how much more his own &s;ubjects which he is bound to pre&s;erve, and his vertuous &s;ubjects whom he ought to re|ward. I have been long in this: Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> hath another in|&s;tance
<PB N="140" REF="78">
for the lawfulne&s;s of &s;upremes to do any thing with|out inju&s;tice.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XX. SECT. <HI>V.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his instance of the Common-wealth of <HI>Athens</HI> examined.</HEAD>
<P><HI>IN the &s;ame manner the people of Athens, when they ba|ni&s;hed the mo&s;t potent of their Common-wealth for ten years, thought they committed no inju&s;tice.</HI> The Athe|nians thought &s;o; but doth Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> think &s;o? For although he brings this for an argument to prove the arbitrary power which Supremes have over their Subjects lives, yet the &s;corn he puts upon it within few lines (which I &s;hall &s;peedily mention) &s;hews his contempt of it; and no doubt, but the Athenians them&s;elves, al<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">hough in the doing of it were delighted with &s;uch acts of power, yet when it was done, and the lack of &s;uch a worthy per&s;on to a&s;&s;i&s;t at the helme of the State, did make them &s;en&s;ible of the unhappine&s;s of that act; they would repent of it and dete&s;t it, and find it is mo&s;t unju&s;t and im|prudent; unju&s;t, becau&s;e di&s;tributive ju&s;tice ought with all ca|re&s;&s;es and politick ble&s;&s;ings to reward vertuous men; but to bani&s;h them is a heavy puni&s;hment due to evil doers; and it is imprudent to bani&s;h &s;uch, for by that means the Common|wealth lo&s;eth his a&s;&s;i&s;tance and perhaps finds that man an unhappy enemy, who would have been a &s;tedfa&s;t friend. He goes on. <HI>And yet they never que&s;tioned what crime he had done, but what hurt he would do,</HI> No, they never que&s;tioned what he had done, or what he would do; for how could <HI>Ari&s;tides</HI> (who&s;e glory con&s;i&s;ted in ju&s;tice not in armes) be mi&s;tru&s;ted to endeavour hurt to the &s;tate? for that vertue (which he was &s;o honoured for,) is &s;o far from de&s;troying, that it is the very &s;oul and life of a Common|wealth, or rather I may term it, the &s;pirits, which under the &s;oul act with every part in the performance of their &s;e|veral
<PB N="141" REF="78">
duties, and where that is lacking, the inhabitants of a Common-wealth will be like walls built with loo&s;e &s;tones without mortar, which with ordinary &s;torms will fall a&s;under and peri&s;h. I will not trouble my &s;elf with the words which follow; briefly he in&s;tanceth in O&s;traci&s;m which was u&s;ed there, by which &s;ometimes an <HI>Ari&s;tides</HI> was ba|ni&s;hed for his vertue and ju&s;tice; &s;ometimes a &s;currilous Je&s;ter as <HI>Hyperbolus.</HI> Let us con&s;ider this O&s;traci&s;m, that is a legal act proper to that government, not a meer arbi|trary, but a legal priviledge granted the people, that when there was an occa&s;ion of any &s;uch danger, they had their votes in it. Now the propo&s;ition by him to be proved was that &s;uch <HI>an act as this might ju&s;tly be done by the &s;upreme only by his will,</HI> which can never by any Logick be inforced hence; and yet I can &s;ay further, that even the laws of for|raign nations may be cen&s;ured by &s;uch as are not &s;ubject to them, and have been in all ages without breach of duty or civility. I joyn this therefore with that other <HI>Gre|cian</HI> city famous for its politie, that of <HI>Lacedaemon,</HI> in which it was one of the <HI>arcana imperii,</HI> that when their country Tenants grew too numerous, that they feared they might endanger the City, they would in a night go out, and &s;lay thou&s;ands of them; this was a mo&s;t barbarous thing, for &s;ubjects lives &s;hould be tender to Magi&s;trates, and the lives of vertuous &s;ubjects pretious; and therefore I fear this <HI>Athenian</HI> cu&s;tom of O&s;traci&s;m is the wor&s;e, becau&s;e an <HI>Ari&s;tides</HI> was worth thou&s;ands of common people, and therefore think &s;uch a law was mo&s;t unworthy a wi&s;e &s;tate, and not fit to be acted in any, where there is no law for it.</P>
</DIV3>
<PB N="142" REF="79">
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XX. SECT. <HI>VI.</HI> This paragraph, giving liberty to a per&s;on ju&s;tly con|demned, to re&s;ist the execution of the &s;entence given again&s;t him, the grand incitement to rebellion; con|trary to the dictate of St. <HI>Paul,</HI> and practice of e|minent Martyrs.</HEAD>
<P>I Pa&s;s from this to page (111.) In the mid&s;t of that page having di&s;cour&s;ed of the liberty of &s;ubjects, how that they have right to any &s;uch thing which they have not pa&s;&s;ed away by covenant, he at the end of that page &s;eems to give in&s;tances thus. <HI>If the Soveraign command a man (though ju&s;tly condemned) to kill, wound, or maim him&s;elf; or not to re&s;i&s;t tho&s;e that a&s;&s;ault him; or to ab&s;tain from the u&s;e of food, air, medicine, or any other thing, without which he cannot live; yet hath that man the liberty to di&s;|obey.</HI> Truly in my judgement &s;ome pieces of this are great en|couragements to Trea&s;on; as that particle, <HI>to re&s;i&s;t them who a&s;&s;ault him.</HI> Certainly if a man may do it for his own defence, he may do it for others, who are men of a like condition in their humanitie, and it may be, in their &s;in; and then it mu&s;t follow where are many guilty per&s;ons they may lawfully combine and &s;tand to each other in their de|fence; and in order to that, do what mi&s;chief they can for their &s;afety. Now St. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;eemed to be of another mind when <HI>Act.</HI> 25.11. he told <HI>Fe&s;tus,</HI> if I have committed any thing worthy of death, I refu&s;e not to dye; it is a &s;ign of a rebellious &s;pirit to re&s;i&s;t authority, to which he &s;hould be &s;ubject; and for ought I know, the pretence of mo&s;t rebelli|ons in the world, is their own defence, again&s;t imagined per&s;onal dangers. Had his doctrine be true, the Crown of Martyrdom had lo&s;t tho&s;e thou&s;ands who filled the <HI>Roman Army,</HI> and could by this pretence have defended them&s;elves;
<PB N="143" REF="79">
they cho&s;e rather to water and fructifie the &s;eed of Gods word by their blood; they thought it an inju&s;t war, to defend their ju&s;t lives; how much more in an unju&s;t cau&s;e &s;hould men le&s;s dare to do it?</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XX. SECT. <HI>VII.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his in&s;titution of a Common-wealth again examined and cen&s;ured. The ab&s;urdity and evil con|&s;equences of his doctrine.</HEAD>
<P>WE pa&s;s now to his page 112. in the 7. line. <HI>Again, the con&s;ent of a Subject to Soveraign power, is con|tained in the&s;e words, I authori&s;e, or take upon me, all his actions.</HI> I have already and I think fully treated of the follies, weakne&s;s and wickedne&s;s of this imagination of his heretofore, which he makes the foundation of his whole Poli|tiques. He proceeds; <HI>in which there is no re&s;triction at all of his own former natural liberty.</HI> What an impious propo&s;i|tion is this? that he who had before affirmed, that man by nature had right to any goods, any life, any thing which conduced to his own contented life before a Common-wealth was in&s;tituted, hath now, by the&s;e words which in&s;titute and give form and being to his doctrine of a Common-wealth; the&s;e, not liberties only, but licen&s;es, but abominations mu&s;t not be abridged or re&s;trained. But mark his rea&s;on&mdash;<HI>for</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>by allowing him to kill me, I am not bound to kill my &s;elf when he commands me.</HI> So that it &s;eems, the au|thorizing he &s;peaks of is of the &s;upremes actions, not his com|mands; and then &s;urely his former propo&s;ition is not good, <HI>men are re&s;trained by nothing of the Soveraign commands, where his own intere&s;t is per&s;onally oppo&s;ed to it.</HI> If this be not in&s;ufferable doctrine in any well governed Common-wealth, I know not what is; for by this any man may act any thing which may conduce to his contented living; nay,
<PB N="144" REF="80">
what is more, he hath right to do it: and if &s;o, what a condition would a Common-wealth be in? a King accord|ing to his doctrine may without inju&s;tice kill any man which he thinks fit, and a &s;ubject hath right to kill him when he thinks it conduceth to his good; for naturally every man hath this right by his doctrine, and &s;o cannot be &s;uppo&s;ed by any contract to part from his natural right; all this is evident out of the beginning of the 14. Chap. where he defines the right of nature thus, <HI>The right of nature, which writers com|monly call</HI> jus naturale, <HI>is the liberty each man hath to u&s;e his own power, as he will him&s;elf, for the pre&s;ervation of his own nature; that is to &s;ay of his own life; and con&s;equent|ly of doing any thing which in his own judgement, and rea&s;on, he &s;hall conceive to be the apte&s;t means to conduce thereto.</HI> And there is much more to this purpo&s;e, of which I have already treated in my notes upon that Chap. So that it is clear by his doctrine, That the con&s;titution of a Common-wealth enables the Soveraign to act nothing by right, more than another man, becau&s;e that con&s;titution doth not re&s;train the right of nature, and the right of nature impowers every man to act any thing which &s;hall appear to him for his particular advantage, by his Book: I &s;hall treat no more of this now.</P>
</DIV3>
<PB N="145" REF="80">
<DIV3 N="8" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XX. SECT. <HI>VIII.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his contradictions di&s;covered and cen&s;u|red. His conclu&s;ions tending to disloyalty.</HEAD>
<P>I Will &s;tep to the next paragraph; but fir&s;t con&s;ider that in the beginning of this I la&s;t di&s;cour&s;ed about, he &s;aith, <HI>The con&s;ent of a &s;ubject to &s;overaigne power is contain|ed in the&s;e words, [I authori&s;e, and take upon me all his actions.</HI> Now in this he &s;aith, <HI>No man is bound by the words them&s;elves either to kill him&s;elf, or any other man;</HI> and con&s;equently the obligation a man may &s;ometimes have, (upon the command of the Soveraign) to execute any dangerous or di&s;honourable affair, dependeth not upon the words of our &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion, but on the intention, which is to be under&s;tood by the end thereof, Mark, Reader, how immediately he contradicts him&s;elf, fir&s;t his <HI>con&s;ent is con|tained in the&s;e words</HI> &amp;c. Secondly it is not contained in the words but <HI>in the intention which is to be under&s;tood by the end thereof.</HI> He indeed put them both together in the preceding page towards the bottom of that page, and there you may find him telling what the end is, <HI>Namely the peace of the &s;ubjects within them&s;elves and their de|fence again&s;t a common enemy.</HI> Now then &s;ince he gives the &s;ubject this latitude of interpreting the commands of his &s;overaign, it is not credible that he will judge his own ruine or hurt, or that of his Father, Wife, Children, dear Friends &s;hall conduce to the peace of the &s;ubjects with|in them&s;elves; &s;o that there then he hath &s;afe refuge for mi&s;chiefe by right, and he may refu&s;e to obey upon &s;uch grounds as he &s;peaks, and do it rightly.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="21" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="146" REF="81">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. XXI.</HI> Liberty given to criminals to a&s;&s;i&s;t one another again&s;t the &s;word of ju&s;tice, the greate&s;t incentive to the late rebellion. The murther of <HI>Charles</HI> the fir&s;t legitimated by Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his conclu&s;ions.</HEAD>
<DIV3 TYPE="section">
<P>I Wi&s;h my &s;elf at an end of this, but his gro&s;s errors make me &s;top at more particulars than I intended. Look down towards the conclu&s;ion of this page you &s;hall find that at the beginning of that paragraph he concluded it unju&s;t in the defence of another man to re&s;i&s;t the &s;word of the Common-wealth. But (&s;aith he) <HI>in ca&s;e a great many men together have already re&s;i&s;ted the &s;overaign power un|ju&s;tly, or committed &s;ome capital crime, for which every one of them expecteth death, whether have they not the libertie then to joyne together and a&s;&s;i&s;t and defend one ano|ther? Certainly they have; for they but defend their lives, which the guilty may as well do, as the innocent.</HI> Let the Reader con&s;ider here what a ju&s;tification this was of tho&s;e men who bore unju&s;t armes at that time when he writ this book in Engli&s;h. It is true he allows the fir&s;t ri&s;ing to be unju&s;t, but all that damnable pro&s;ecution of that war, even that act which I never think upon but with horror, the murther of king <HI>Charles</HI> the fir&s;t was lawful by him, for when they had drawn their &s;words in rebellion, their lives were forfeited, and then all the future pro&s;ecution was ju&s;t becau&s;e in defence of their lives. I but page. 113. (where I am at the bottom of that paragraph) he gives a fair pretence for what he &s;peaks: which is, <HI>The offer of pardon taketh from them to whom it is offered, the plea of &s;elf defence, and maketh their per&s;everance in a&s;&s;i&s;ting, or defending the re&s;t, unlawful.</HI> A goodly piece of nicetie! if a &s;overaign do not give his &s;ubjects pardon for their re|bellion,
<PB N="147" REF="81">
they may continue on; and only the fir&s;t act is unju&s;t; all other murthers, rapines, iniquities of men are not to be reckoned in the catalogue of unju&s;t actions; as if one &s;in preceding, which cau&s;eth the following, might al&s;o ju&s;tifie them: and for offering pardon, he knows they have an&s;wered, that that cannot &s;erve them, as long as there is power in the offended partie to make his revenge, and ju&s;tifie his proceeding again&s;t them; and unle&s;s they take away that, there is no &s;ecurity for them. The&s;e things I thought to have pa&s;&s;ed by; but being &s;o abomina|ble, it was nece&s;&s;ary to lay hold upon them, at the lea&s;t with this animadver&s;ion. And now I pa&s;s over twenty more, and leap to his 26. Chap. 148.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXII. SECT. <HI>I.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobs</HI> his endeavour to render the Chri&s;tian re|ligion &s;u&s;pected. Of the a&s;&s;urance we have of re|velations. The difference of a&s;&s;urance from the object, from the acts. A&s;&s;urance from &s;cience, from opinion, from faith. The a&s;&s;urance of faith greater than that of &s;cience. The a&s;&s;urance we have of the truth of Chri&s;tian religion by divine revelation, from the things them&s;elves revealed, from the manner of their delivery, and the per&s;ons who delivered them to us. The particulars of the crea|tion de&s;cribed by <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> not po&s;&s;ible to be known without divine revelation. An argument from rea&s;on to confirm the former a&s;sertion.</HEAD>
<P>WHich Chap. is entitled of Civil laws, but treats of all laws, and divers di&s;tinctions of them, but in this page about the middle of the page he enters into a di&s;cour&s;e of divine po&s;itive laws, which he di&s;tingui&s;heth
<PB N="148" REF="82">
from natural laws, <HI>that the one are eternal</HI> (I will cavil at no|thing) <HI>that is, he means, always con&s;i&s;ting with men to whom they are given; the other had a beginning; the one are univer&s;al to all men that have humane nature;</HI> but (he &s;aith) the po&s;itive <HI>are in&s;tituted in time, and to particular per&s;ons or nations, and declared for &s;uch by tho&s;e, whom God hath authori&s;ed to declare them. But</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>this authority of man to declare what be the&s;e po&s;itive laws of God how can it be known? God may command a man by a &s;upernatural way, to deliver laws to other men. But becau&s;e it is of the e&s;&s;ence of laws, that he who is to be obliged, be a&s;&s;ured of the authority of him that declareth it, which we cannot naturally take notice to be from God.</HI> I tran&s;cribe all this, becau&s;e the reader by it &s;hould under&s;tand from what ground he rai&s;eth two que&s;tions, which he an&s;wering unchri&s;tianly, will require a better &s;atisfaction from my pen. The que&s;tions are the&s;e. <HI>How can a man without &s;upernatural revelation be a&s;&s;ured of the revelation received by the declarer? and how can he be bound to obey them?</HI> Two noble que&s;tions to be di&s;puted again&s;t heathens, and becau&s;e upon all occa&s;ions he takes advantage to make him|&s;elf &s;eem &s;uch, <HI>(whether he be or no, God knows)</HI> I &s;hall endea|vour to refute him; But withall give the reader this cauti|on that throughout his Book he violently forceth him&s;elf to &s;uch di&s;putes as may render Chri&s;tian religion &s;u&s;pected, as if he had an ambition to make this, Bable &s;hall I &s;ay, or impious treati&s;e of his, to be authentick; for what ne|ce&s;&s;ity had he here to rai&s;e tho&s;e doubts? It had been enough for him and his whole de&s;ign to &s;hew that the holy Bible had manife&s;ted tho&s;e po&s;itive laws to us, and never to have rai&s;ed &s;uch &s;cruples whereby a man may doubt (as it &s;eems he doth) whether the&s;e laws are divine or not. Con&s;ider therefore his an&s;wer for the fir&s;t que&s;tion, <HI>how a man can be a&s;&s;ured of the revelation of another, without a revelati|on particularly to him&s;ef, it is evidently impo&s;&s;ible;</HI> and I an&s;wer it is po&s;&s;iible; we will try it out; and fir&s;t let us con&s;ider this leading term for this di&s;cour&s;e, which is <HI>[a&s;&s;u|red] how a man can be a&s;&s;ured;</HI> the power of that word mu&s;t be explained. There is a diver&s;ity of a&s;&s;urances, Ma|thematical,
<PB N="149" REF="82">
phy&s;ical, moral, all which have their &s;everal force, and differ only by degrees. In the fir&s;t kind we are a&s;&s;ured that two and two make four; and the like; in the &s;econd that fire will burn, who&s;e nature doth (if not hindred) break out into the act; in the third that when I &s;ee a debauched man &s;tay with a company of drunkards a long time at a Tavern I can be a&s;&s;ured that they will be inflamed with drink; &s;o like|wi&s;e when a pious man hears the bell tole to prayers, he will go to Church. Thus our a&s;&s;urance is varied, accord|ing to the object which it is bu&s;ied about. But there is another diver&s;ity drawn from the difference of this act, which produceth a&s;&s;urance; as thus, there is an a&s;&s;urance from &s;cience, from opinion, from faith. The certainty of &s;cience is drawn from the certainty of the medium by which it is proved, and is exceeding great; by &s;ome e&s;teemed greater than that of faith; at the lea&s;t of a greater evi|dence; although for my part I am not of that mind; for it being a mo&s;t clear and ab&s;olute truth that God is in|finitely <HI>verax</HI> as well as <HI>verus,</HI> true &s;peaking, as well as true being, and faith (I mean divine faith) being an ad|he&s;ion to what God &s;peaks, it is not po&s;&s;ible to be a fal&s;ehood, &amp; then there is the greate&s;t argumentative evidence that can be of the truth of &s;uch a propo&s;ition which God hath delivered: but I will not involve my &s;elf in niceties. That which is proper to my immediate di&s;cour&s;e is, that &s;cience is, from natural op|perations, of natural cau&s;es; faith (divine faith) from &s;upernatu|ral, from God; which mu&s;t be more certain in it &s;elf, &amp; by faith made more certain to us; opinion is only probable, which may be other; and this probability either relates to &s;cience, as it is probable &s;uch cau&s;es will produce &s;uch effects, or &s;uch effects proceed; from &s;uch cau&s;es or el&s;e it relates to faith, and it is then, when a good hone&s;t man &s;peaks any thing, it is by faith probable to be true; but yet it may be otherwi&s;e; only divine faith admitts of no fal&s;ehood in its &s;elf, and requires no doubting or he&s;itation in us. Now although this a&s;&s;urance of opinion and probability be the lea&s;t, yet it yields us &s;uch an a&s;&s;urance, as we build the greate&s;t moral and politick actions (which are practi&s;ed among&s;t us) upon it. As when a man is dead, his hand
<PB N="150" REF="83">
and &s;eale pa&s;&s;eth away his e&s;tate; witne&s;&s;es are dead likewi&s;e; the&s;e are probable arguments only; but being the greate&s;t that the &s;ubject que&s;tion can yield, the greate&s;t matters mu&s;t be regulated by &s;uch probable arguments. I can &s;ay the like of oathes, they have neither a Phy&s;ical certainty, nor do they produce a divine faith; but yet when we have hand and &s;eal, and Oath, Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> will not &s;ay I think, that we have no a&s;&s;urance. How then can he &s;ay that we have no a&s;&s;urance that the&s;e are divine revelations, which are delivered in the Bible? (for that is the &s;ence of the que&s;tion which he propo&s;eth) but that we have great a&s;&s;urance is that which I affirm. I &s;hall not here meddle with School nice yes, nor with any thing about infu&s;ed faith, but only the acquired faith, which we have of the&s;e truths. Many learned men have debated this que&s;tion with great variety of Learning, which may be peru&s;ed in their Comments upon the 3. of the &s;entences <HI>Di&s;t.</HI> 24. as likewi&s;e many times in <HI>Prolog.</HI> and 22. of <HI>Aquinas,</HI> que&s;tion, 1. as al&s;o in I^m^a^. <HI>&s;ecundae,</HI> with many particular treati&s;es to that purpo&s;e. I turn the reader to the&s;e places which with ea&s;e he may per|u&s;e, and find among&s;t them, what he reads not with me, who intend to deliver &s;uch things here, as they have &s;carce touched upon. My arguments &s;hall be drawn, fir&s;t from the things delivered in this book; Then from the manner of the delivery, and Thirdly from the per&s;ons who deli|vered the&s;e things; in all which I &s;hall not meddle with tho&s;e particular Books, or Chapters of Books which are controverted betwixt us and the Church of <HI>Rome;</HI> I think it incomparably handled by my much honoured and truly Re|verend Brother <HI>Iohn Lord</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Durham;</HI> but my de|&s;ign is to &s;hew that the bulke of Chri&s;tianity and our faith is delivered in &s;uch a manner, in re&s;pect of the things delivered, of the manner of the delivery, and of the per|&s;ons who delivered them, that it is mo&s;t rational for a man to a&s;&s;ure him&s;elf that the&s;e were divine revelations, if it be not ab&s;olutely impo&s;&s;ible that they &s;hould be other. I will begin with the things delivered; and fir&s;t with the beginning of the Bible, the fir&s;t book of <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> the 1. Chap. of <HI>Gene&s;is,</HI> where we find the Creation &s;o delivered,
<PB N="151" REF="83">
as it was not po&s;&s;ible for man to do it without revelation. Men might, and men have by rea&s;on (even Philo&s;ophers) gue&s;&s;ed and proved that the world was created; but to &s;ay when, and &s;et it down in &s;uch a method, as that a man may find the year in which it was done, this was never under|taken by any, nor could any man do it, but by divine revelation. Yet you may think, that <HI>Adam</HI> being made a perfect man, might know the in&s;tant when he fir&s;t appear|ed in the world, and communicate that to <HI>Seth,</HI> and he downward: but could <HI>Adam,</HI> without revelation, know, that he was made of earth? Nay could <HI>Adam,</HI> without reve|lation, know, how <HI>Evah</HI> was taken out of him, or all the works of God which were wrought in the 6. dayes be|fore he was made? this could not be, this &s;tory of the Creation mu&s;t need be a revelation, no man of him&s;elf could &s;earch it out. But I am afraid Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> will &s;ay, it is fal&s;e; no Chri&s;tian ever &s;aid it was &s;o, but I &s;uppo&s;e my &s;elf to have to do with an heathen, not an <HI>Athei&s;t</HI> but a <HI>Thei&s;t</HI> at the be&s;t. Well then, it is mo&s;t rea&s;onable for any man to think, this &s;tory to be true; becau&s;e it is rational for a man to think, that &s;ince God will and mu&s;t be wor&s;hipped by men, and it is impo&s;&s;ible for men to know, what wor|&s;hip is proper to be given him, unle&s;s he tells them; It is then mo&s;t rea&s;onable for a man to think, that God will pre|&s;cribe how that wor&s;hip is to be performed, and therefore cau&s;ed this whole book to be writ for mens in&s;truction; and in it &s;ets down this work of his creation, to &s;hew man the foundation of all his duty, from whence it is derived, that he owes God his being, &s;oul, and Body; that he &s;hould be humble, who was taken out of the du&s;t, and to du&s;t he mu&s;t return, that he that made him can de&s;troy him, and the like; which God being pretended to do no where el&s;e, it is mo&s;t rea&s;onable to think it is done here.</P>
</DIV3>
<PB N="152" REF="84">
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXII. SECT. <HI>II.</HI> The doctrine of the new Te&s;tament, and particularly the incarnation of our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, and the manner of it not po&s;&s;ible to be known without a revelation. The truth of the incarnation evicted from the miraculous Life and Actions of our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, and the prophecies of the Old Te&s;tament, and e&s;pecially of <HI>I&s;aias.</HI> The Jewes witne&s;&s;es of the truth of the Books of the Old Te&s;tament.</HEAD>
<P>SO then this being a truth fit for a man to know, it being impo&s;&s;ible for man to know it without a revela|tion, a man may ju&s;tly be a&s;&s;ured that it was revealed by God, and &s;o I will pa&s;s to the New Te&s;tament where we will con&s;ider the conception of the ble&s;&s;ed Virgin as rela|ted there, and &s;o not po&s;&s;ible to be recorded, but from a divine revelation. Men might be a&s;&s;ured from the Prophets who writ before of it, that there &s;hould be &s;uch a thing, and that it &s;hould be about that time; but that it &s;hould happen now, and that this &s;hould be the Virgin which &s;hould be the mother of our Saviour, that none could tell but by revelation, no not &s;he her &s;elf. It is true, when &s;he found her &s;elf with child, &s;he might wonder how that &s;hould come about, &s;ince &s;he knew not man; as &s;he an|&s;wered the Angel who foretold it to her <HI>Luke the</HI> 1. <HI>and the</HI> 24. but that it &s;hould be &s;o contrived and perfected as it was by the over&s;hadowing of the Highe&s;t, this &s;he could not have known, but by a revelation. But I doubt Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> will an&s;wer this was not &s;o, his wicked wit &s;eems to imagine &s;uch a thing, I will prove it therefore by the glorious fruit of her womb, which &s;hewed it &s;elf to ari&s;e from &s;uch a &s;tock, and living and dying as he did, he could not be le&s;s than de&s;cended from &s;uch a &s;upernatural generation.
<PB N="153" REF="84">
Well then, he was &s;o conceived as is taught; and this could not be taught but by divine revelation, therefore he who taught it had divine revelation. I mu&s;t not &s;pend time in particulars; look upon all the Prophecies in the whole Book of God, &s;o many, as their time is expired, we find them all fufilled; the Prophecies made to <HI>Abraham,</HI> of the children of <HI>I&s;raels</HI> long captivity in <HI>Aegypt,</HI> and their extraction thence, and plantation in the land of <HI>Canaan,</HI> of all the great tran&s;actions of the highe&s;t affairs of the world; The erection and de&s;truction of all the great Monarchies which were punctually fore|told and accompli&s;hed, and foretold long before; could the&s;e be foretold by any other way than by divine revelation? Cer|tainly it could not be; nor can the wit of man think how it &s;hould be done. <HI>Jaddus</HI> the high Prie&s;t &s;hewed <HI>Alexander</HI> his own &s;tory foretold by <HI>Daniel.</HI> Let us con&s;ider how the Pro|phets long before prophe&s;ied of Chri&s;t, how the Prophet <HI>I&s;aiah</HI> writ like an antedated Evangeli&s;t, differing only in the&s;e words [&s;hall and did] only in the time. Let us con&s;ider, how not only tho&s;e great and remarkable pa&s;&s;ages, of his birth, his miracles, his death, his re&s;urrection, (but even &s;uch little things as the piercing of his &s;ide, the parting of his garment, &amp; ca&s;ting lots for his ve&s;ture, his burial, were foretold hundreds of yeares before. Let Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> or any other heathen tell me how the&s;e could be foretold without divine revelation. But perhaps he will &s;ay, as before, the&s;e were not true books nor prophecies, but fained &s;ince Chri&s;tianity. No, even the Jewes them&s;elves yet remaining in the world do con&s;ent unto them, and are pre&s;erved by God, a glorious witne&s;s of the&s;e truths, who are the greate&s;t enemies of Chri&s;tianity.</P>
</DIV3>
<PB N="154" REF="85">
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXII. SECT. <HI>III.</HI> The former a&s;sertion further proved from the piety of the doctrines taught in the &s;criptures, and excellency of the matter contained in them. The power of the word of God, and efficacy of Scripture above the reach of Philo&s;ophie.</HEAD>
<P>BUt then con&s;ider the doctrines taught here, they are &s;o full of religious piety to God, &s;o full of &s;uch excellent moral conver&s;ation betwixt men, that the wit of man could not invent them, there mu&s;t needs be divine revelation in them; there was never any thing delivered by men, meer men, with|out divine revelation, that had not imperfections in it; he who reads the Philo&s;ophers may find it. I do not love to rake their Dunghills, and &s;hew their filth; but the duties taught in this book are &s;o divine, and &s;o like God, from whence they came, that they are able to make a man ab&s;olutely good if practi&s;ed. Wherefore as a tree may be known by its fruits, as the heart of man by his language; &s;o the&s;e Books may be known to be Gods by the heavenline&s;s of the matters delive|red in them; which have &s;uch a power of &s;anctity in them, as is able to make &s;uch as receive them of a more Godly di&s;|po&s;ition than other men; yea than them&s;elves, at o|ther times, before they received the&s;e doctrines. I could treat of a &s;trange Metamorpho&s;is in <HI>Saul</HI> to <HI>Paul,</HI> who was a per&s;ecutor, a de&s;troyer, and when converted with this doctrine accounted it joy to &s;uffer and be per&s;ecuted for this cau&s;e. As al&s;o of King <HI>David,</HI> who to hide the &s;hame of his adultery, committed Murther, and &s;lept &s;ecurely in his &s;in; yet when awakened from that &s;tupidity he was in, and taught his &s;tate by the Prophet <HI>Nathan,</HI> he cares for no &s;hame of this world, &s;o God be plea&s;ed, cares for nothing but the &s;hame of his &s;in, and made his penitence for it to be chaunted out in all ages, for all Churches in the 51. <HI>P&s;alm.</HI> So that there is a &s;trange power and force in the word of God
<PB N="155" REF="85">
to turn men to godline&s;s, which no other hath; And the great and mighty effects wrought by this &s;cripture, do fully evince it to be divine, having divine power annexed to them. Thus having &s;hewed that the doctrines contained in &s;cripture 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 a&s;&s;i&s;ted by the holy &s;pirit, we therefore may have a&s;&s;urance that they were &s;uch. I &s;hall come next to &s;hew how we may be further a&s;&s;ured from the manner of their delivery.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXII. SECT. <HI>IV.</HI> The &s;econd Argument from the difference of the Style of the Scriptures from the books of Philo&s;ophers. The propo&s;itions and conclu&s;ions in Scripture not &s;o much deduced from rea&s;on, as a&s;&s;erted from the Maje&s;ty of God, not di&s;puting or endeavouring to per&s;wade, but commanding to do. The rewards and puni&s;h|ments propo&s;ed in &s;cripture of eternal truth, impo&s;&s;i|ble to be propounded, or given but by God him&s;elf.</HEAD>
<P>LEt a man look upon all the doctrines of the Philo&s;o|phers concerning God, his e&s;&s;ence, his attributes, con|cerning the Creation, we &s;hall find that they laboured &s;till to prove what they &s;poke, and by rea&s;on to convince mans under&s;tanding. Only I mu&s;t confe&s;s, <HI>Tri&s;megi&s;tus</HI> in his Pomander makes his di&s;cour&s;e which is mo&s;t divine to be revelation (and four ought I know it may be &s;o, much of it) but otherwi&s;e they all go upon ratiocination; and the rea&s;on is, becau&s;e &s;uch things ought not to be a&s;&s;ented to which are not either proved or revealed by God, which is the mo&s;t invincible evidence that any truth can have. But now <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> and tho&s;e holy writers in&s;pired by God in their compiling tho&s;e holy Books only affirm this, and this with|out
<PB N="156" REF="86">
arguing the rea&s;ons of it, becau&s;e they were divine, not humane words; likewi&s;e in all tho&s;e moral duties, which concern men, they are writ with the maje&s;ty of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Do this or this, not di&s;puting, as <HI>Plato</HI> and <HI>Ari&s;totle,</HI> how it conduceth to the pre&s;ent happine&s;s, but exacting obedience. It is true when the Prophets di&s;puted with the Gentiles, or Apo&s;tles with Jewes or Gentiles who believed not their report, they confuted the one by rea&s;on, or out of their own authors, and the other out of the former Scriptures; becau&s;e all proofs mu&s;t be made <HI>ex conce&s;&s;is,</HI> and out of &s;uch premi&s;&s;es they would con|firm the&s;e Conclu&s;ions. God exacted a belief, and this he doth with the greate&s;t arguments and mo&s;t forcing that are po&s;&s;ible, by <HI>Praemium</HI> and <HI>Poena</HI> reward and puni&s;hment; but &s;uch as never King or Emperour either did or was able to propo&s;e, by eternal happine&s;s or mi&s;ery; which nothing can doe but God alone. And this is done to tho&s;e who will receive, or not receive his word. Well, the words contained here are delivered with &s;uch an exaction as never man pro|po&s;ed the &s;ame truths in; and required with &s;uch promi&s;es, as never man did meet with nor could perform; we mu&s;t needs therefore be a&s;&s;ured they are divine.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXII. SECT. <HI>V.</HI> The third Argument from the &s;anctity and integrity of the per&s;ons who delivered the&s;e truths. The mi|raculous conduct of the Children of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> by <HI>Mo&s;es.</HI> The objection of his a&s;&s;ertation, of dominion, an|&s;wered. The predictions of the Prophets not po&s;&s;i|ble without a divine revelation. The truth and cer|tainty of their predictions objected.</HEAD>
<P>ANd &s;o I come to the per&s;ons who delivered the&s;e truths to us, who will give us as full a&s;&s;urance as any thing el&s;e of
<PB N="157" REF="86">
the certainty. The per&s;ons were of mo&s;t eminent integrity, and affirmed that the&s;e writings were delivered them from God. I will begin with the fir&s;t. <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> a man who approved his con|ver&s;ation with God, and Gods approbation of him by mo&s;t cer|tain &s;igns; fir&s;t by tho&s;e mighty wonders which he wrought in <HI>Aegypt</HI> before <HI>Pharaoh,</HI> &amp; upon him and his in their journey; afterwards by his wonderful conduct of the Children of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> through the wilderne&s;s, the like of which was never known; The bringing water out of the rock, feeding that mighty Ho&s;t with bread and fle&s;h; the miraculous &s;topping the mouths of <HI>Korah,</HI> &amp;c. why &s;hould we imagine that this man &s;hould lye, and &s;ay, he received this law from God, when he did not? Yes, to make him&s;elf King among them. Indeed the rebells (la&s;t &s;poke of) did object that, but God confuted it by a miraculous de&s;troying them, and we &s;ee although whil&s;t he lived he went betwixt God and them, delivering prayers to God for them, and bringing Gods will to them, yet we find not that he acquired any high matters for him&s;elf; the Prie&s;thood which was to be a perpetual dignity he put <HI>Aaron</HI> into; the Politique government he bequeathed to <HI>Jo&s;uah;</HI> and we do not find him contriving more than an ordinary proportion for his Children, which &s;hews that he had no &s;elf end in any thing he did. Nay we may read in the 32. of <HI>Exodus,</HI> 10. when <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> interceded with God for favour to the Children of <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> God made him an&s;wer, <HI>let me alone that my wrath may wax hot again&s;t them, and that I may con&s;ume them, and I will make of thee a great Nation;</HI> Never|thele&s;s <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> was not bribed with this for his own intere&s;t to for&s;ake Gods glory: but pre&s;ently after pre&s;&s;eth God for his own honour to have pitty upon the <HI>I&s;raelites,</HI> as you may read <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 11. &amp;c. where methinks he did like <HI>Abraham</HI> offer his whole po&s;terity to Gods glory and honour; which &s;heweth that <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> had no <HI>&s;ini&s;ter</HI> ends in his actions, but only the glory of God; which certainly could not ri&s;e out of &s;uch a proud lye, as to take upon him divine revelations, where there were none.</P>
<P>Next let us con&s;ider the Prophets, they were men that adventured their lives and &s;uffered mi&s;eries for tho&s;e truths they foretold and taught; yea they were &s;ure of it; and
<PB N="158" REF="87">
they who followed their coun&s;els according to the&s;e revelati|ons which God made to them, it was well with them; and mi&s;chief followed them who did otherwi&s;e. Tho&s;e things which they foretold did come to pa&s;s accordingly, both con|cerning the Jewes and all other nations, yea the whole world; why &s;hould not we be a&s;&s;ured that the&s;e things came from God, which they &s;ay were revealed by him, &s;ince we &s;ee them true in all tho&s;e works which they fore&s;poke of?</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXII. SECT. <HI>VI.</HI> Of the doctrine of the Apostles, the efficacy of their preaching; The power of Tongues, their &s;ufferings and patience, not po&s;&s;ible but from divine in&s;pira|tion. A further a&s;&s;ertion of the &s;ame argument <HI>&agrave; po&s;teriori,</HI> &s;uch effect not producible but from a di|vine law.</HEAD>
<P>IF we de&s;cend to the Apo&s;tles we &s;hall find they were a &s;ort of men of mean extraction and education; how could it be po&s;&s;ible that they unle&s;s by revelation, &s;hould attain to &s;uch an efficacy of preaching, as to be able to convince the whole world, and preach this divine Philo&s;ophy? How came they by the power of Tongues to be able to travel through the world, and preach to every man in his own language, but by the &s;upernatural a&s;&s;i&s;tance of the Holy Gho&s;t? Why would they undertake the work through &s;uch cruel per&s;ecutions foretold them, that they &s;hould be as &s;heep among&s;t wolves, but that it was a duty enjoyned them from the Holy Gho&s;t? and they were &s;ure that he who promi&s;ed it, would make good their reward in heaven hereafter, for here they were to have mi&s;eries. Truly I know not what can be oppo&s;ed again&s;t this, but that both from the matters delivered, rom the manner that they are delivered by, and from the per&s;ons who delivered them, we have as great an a&s;&s;urance that the&s;e truths were
<PB N="159" REF="87">
revealed to them by God, as can be wrought by humane faith. Yea but let us con&s;ider further, and it is &s;cientifical <HI>&agrave; po&s;teri|ori,</HI> from the effect to the cau&s;e; for if it be not po&s;&s;ible that the&s;e effects &s;hould come from any cau&s;e but God, as indeed I think it not po&s;&s;ible, then it is demon&s;trated that the&s;e mu&s;t be revelations, and we have a mighty a&s;&s;urance of them.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXII. SECT. <HI>VII.</HI> Another argument, <HI>ad hominem,</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his a&s;&s;u|rance of his being born at <HI>Malmsbury,</HI> not comparable to this of the verity of the holy &s;criptures. Some doubts of the place of Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his birth, from the erring of his doctrines from Chri&s;tianity. The atte&s;tation of the Go&s;pel from the &s;ufferings of the Saints and Martyrs. The encrea&s;e and continuance of it in de&s;pite of per&s;ecution. The Scriptures not po&s;&s;ible to be written by bad men, in regard their de&s;ign is to de&s;troy the Kingdom of Satan. Good men would not obtrude a Lye upon the world. Faith re&s;olved into divine revelation. The re&s;t is a preparation to this faith, and conclu&s;ion of this point.</HEAD>
<P>LEt Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> tell me, what a&s;&s;urance he hath of any thing? He &s;aith in the beginning of this Book that he is <HI>Thomas Hobbs</HI> of <HI>Malmsbury;</HI> I think he is as &s;ure of this as of any thing; but I am much &s;urer, and &s;o may any man be, that this Scripture was writ by divine revelation, than he can be of that; fir&s;t for his place, that he was of <HI>Malmsbury</HI> which is a town in <HI>Wilt&s;hire,</HI> where Chri&s;tianity is profe&s;&s;ed, where men are a&s;&s;ured of the Scrip|tures that they are by divine revelation, How &s;hould it breed &s;uch a mon&s;ter, who would bring all their hopes of heaven, their faith in Gods promi&s;es to be dubious? as if they were not promi&s;ed. But he is <HI>Thomas Hobbs,</HI> how knows he that? perhaps his mother told him &s;o, and the midwife; I know not
<PB N="160" REF="88">
whether after he came to the years of di&s;cretion, he ever talked with them; but if he did, it is but a weak Te&s;timony in re&s;pect of ours which was and is affirmed by &s;uch divine and incomparable per&s;ons as the Apo&s;tles and Prophets were. His Mother, and the Midwife, although true per&s;ons, yet were apt to be deceived, and it may be he was a &s;uppo&s;ititious Child; how oft have &s;uch things been done? when contrariwi&s;e the&s;e men who have delivered infalible truths many ages before they came to pa&s;s, cannot be conceived to have any Error. I, but per|haps, he will &s;ay, he is like his father in his countenance, in his &s;peech; certainly not &s;o like, as the&s;e truths are to that incom|parable e&s;&s;ence, which we call God; than which nothing more fully expre&s;&s;ed the&s;e divine perfections, unle&s;s it was his per&s;o|nal word. I, but his Chri&s;tening is regi&s;tred in the Church Book of <HI>Malmsbury,</HI> a good legal evidence; and perhaps he enjoyed his fathers e&s;tate by this; I know not, but certainly there is a po&s;&s;ibility of Error in it, becau&s;e the Church Book may be counterfeited, and many a man hath intruded into o|ther mens e&s;tates by unju&s;t means; but our evidence is record|ed (may I &s;ay) or ingraven in the&s;e volumes which have been atte&s;ted in every age &s;ince the fir&s;t 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 &s;teal them and counterfeit them, but the&s;e are &s;ubject to no corruption, but by the providence of God have been, and will be pre&s;erved &s;o long as the world &s;tands, and endures. So I think evidently that it appears that we have as full an a&s;&s;urance that the&s;e Scriptures are Divine, as men can have of any thing in this world which they re|ceive by hear-&s;ay. Nay let us go further, &amp; examine whether we have not a Demon&s;tration from the effect to the cau&s;e, we know &s;uch a man was our friend by his voice when he &s;peaks, another by his &s;tyle, as the report is of St. <HI>Thomas Moore</HI> with <HI>Era&s;mus, aut Era&s;mus aut Diabolus.</HI> Yea Critiques every where di&s;|cerne Authors by their Styles; may not we, think you, di&s;cern God by the&s;e heavenly writings, which are more than humane? When we hear a man di&s;cour&s;ing of high points in Philo&s;ophy learnedly, we know &s;uch an effect cannot proceed from a Country-education at the Cart and Plough, it requires another &s;tudy and indu&s;try. When the Scripture teacheth us
<PB N="161" REF="88">
things higher than the natural wit of man can reach to, as I have &s;hewed it mu&s;t needs come from a higher &s;train than our natural Condition could deliver to us. I will conclude with one word; The Scriptures mu&s;t be writ by good or ill men; ill men could not do it, it teacheth tho&s;e doctrines which de&s;troy the Devil, and his Kingdom, all evil; if good men writ it, they would not lye to &s;ay they were in&s;pired by God when they were not; they would not deliver &s;uch things for a&s;&s;ured truths which none could know but God, if God did not teach it them. Upon the&s;e invincible Grounds I think I may &s;ay that we have a mighty a&s;&s;urance that the&s;e are divine revelations, which he wickedly affirms we have no a&s;&s;u|rance of. But it may be objected, if the demon&s;tration be &s;o evident, why do not all men receive it? for the under|&s;tanding is made after &s;uch a manner, as the Eye, when you &s;hew it colours, the Eye mu&s;t &s;ee them; &s;o &s;hew by demon&s;tration a truth to the under&s;tanding, it mu&s;t needs a&s;&s;ent. For my part I do not apprehend that man hath liberty in his under&s;tanding to accept or refu&s;e truths which are laid open to it, neither do I think that which is called <HI>liberum arbitrium</HI> is only a freedom of the will but a re|&s;ult out of them both; however it is not in the under|&s;tanding alone, nor is this belief of ours that the&s;e things are revealed only an act of the under&s;tanding, but of the will which refu&s;eth to heare the voice of the Charmer charme he never &s;o wi&s;ely. Sometimes a malitious Will will not permit a man to &s;tudy, and think of the&s;e argu|ments, which the more he &s;tudyeth, the more he will approve: &s;ometimes when he hath &s;tudyed them it will make him &s;eek further, and being not delighted with that rea&s;on which is propo&s;ed, it will not be &s;atisfied with it; &s;o that there is a &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to the&s;e rea&s;ons offered, which is nece&s;&s;ary to our a&s;&s;ent to them. And certainly that is much by &s;uch arguments as &s;hew the happine&s;s men have in being under Gods Government; for then men will &s;eek what and wherein he will ble&s;s them, and when he finds that the&s;e Scriptures, and the&s;e only, are rational for a man to think are his own dictates, he will willingly
<PB N="162" REF="89">
&s;ubmit to them. But contrariwi&s;e when a proud man &s;hall think, that he and he only is <HI>faber</HI> not <HI>fortunae</HI> only but of his own happine&s;s, and that he need not &s;eek to God for a&s;&s;i&s;tance, then he &s;ligh<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">s all the&s;e di&s;cour&s;es and li&s;tens not to them. But &s;till a man may &s;ay, it &s;eems that re&s;olution of our faith is into this way of arguing. I an&s;wer noe, our faith is re&s;olved into the divine revelations, that God hath &s;aid this, or that; this is but a preparation for that foundation; when a wi&s;e and vertuous man tells me any thing, I believe it for the e&s;teem of him, and that is my la&s;t re&s;olution of that faith becau&s;e &s;uch a man &s;peaks it: but before this I mu&s;t be prepared for this, with an ac|quaintance that this is &s;uch a man and I mu&s;t know he &s;peaketh it. The&s;e preparatoy Acts are nece&s;&s;ary for the introduction of that Act of faith in him; but faith in him is the foundation of my belief in that &s;entence, it is evidently &s;o in this Ca&s;e, we believe the&s;e divine truths ab&s;olutely, and the la&s;t re&s;olution of them is into this, that God hath revealed them; but yet it may be enquired, whether the&s;e Arguments be nece&s;&s;ary to our a&s;&s;ent to the&s;e divine principles, or not. Certainly to a man who &s;hould be converted from Pagani&s;me, <HI>&V;t prudenter credat,</HI> that he be not carryed about with winds of Doctrine, it is fit, he &s;hould have the&s;e or &s;ome other equivalent. Arguments to induce him to them: But to a man born in the Church, and bred up in the Chri&s;tian religion, it is comfortable to his faith when he finds it attended with &s;uch invincible rea&s;ons, and he is able to under&s;tand them; But if not, &s;implicity of faith and obedience to God will be ble&s;&s;ed by him. It will not be expected that I &s;hould engage in more niceties of this kind. I hope it appears that we have a&s;&s;urance of the&s;e divine revelations. It was therefore not only a bold, but impious and wicked affirmation of him to &s;ay it is <HI>evidently impos&s;ible for a man to be a&s;&s;ured of the revelation to another without a revelation particularly made to him&s;elf.</HI> But he proceeds to an&s;wer &s;ome &s;eeming proofes brought to affirm the a&s;&s;urance of the&s;e revelations, I will put them down in order and examine his an&s;wer. The fir&s;t is drawn from miracles and is thus &s;et down in the place la&s;t cited.</P>
</DIV3>
<PB N="163" REF="89">
<DIV3 N="8" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXII. SECT. <HI>VIII.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his an&s;wer to the fir&s;t proof retorted: Miracles defined.</HEAD>
<P><HI>FOR though a man may be induced to believe &s;uch reve|lation, from the Miracles they &s;ee him d,]</HI> that is the fir&s;t Objection) he an&s;wers <HI>[Miracles are marvellous wores: but that which is marvellous to one, may not be &s;o to another]</HI> This an&s;wer of his (to &s;peak <HI>ad hominem</HI>) doth not become him, as I &s;hewed in my fir&s;t piece page 19. He had &s;aid that <HI>Concerning the worlds magnitude and beginning he was content with that doctrine which the Scripture per&s;waded and the fame of the&s;e miracles which confirm them, the Countreys cu&s;tom and the due reverence to the Laws.</HI> There you will allow Miracles to confirm them, that is the Scriptures, why now &s;hould you not be content with <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">hem? They are now, when you writ this, as good, as famous as evident, as they were then, when you writ the other. Well, we will examine the force of Miracles, and &s;ee what content they can give a a rational man; and before I go fur|ther, we will con&s;ider what we under&s;tand by this word <HI>Miracle.</HI> We do conceive a <HI>Miracle</HI> to be a work above the reach and power of nature, and extraordinary; not on|ly a &s;trange and wonderful thing to the common ob&s;ervation of men, but above the power of all tho&s;e things which God hath made produceable by natural cau&s;es, &s;o that it is not on|ly &s;trange that nature &s;hould do it, but impo&s;&s;ible it &s;hould produce this effect, which is <HI>miraculous.</HI> And when I &s;ay This <HI>miraculous effect,</HI> I mean by it, not the work only, as
<PB N="164" REF="90">
to cure a lame man; (&s;uch a man perhaps may be cured by natural means phy&s;ically applied) but to cure him at a di|&s;tance, with a word &s;peaking, <HI>is miraculous;</HI> and is a work beyond natures power: So that then we under&s;tand by a Mi|racle, what is either in its &s;elf or in the manner of doing be|yond Nature. The la&s;t term is <HI>extraordinary,</HI> there are ma|ny works beyond the power of Nature, which are ordinarily wrought by God in a mo&s;t ordinate way, in an infallibly &s;ettled cour&s;e, as they relate to Heaven; which are the giving his Graces to &s;uch as are penitent, or pray, or which ob&s;erve their duties in the u&s;e of the Sacraments, with the like, which being ordinate by his &s;acred Covenants are mo&s;t certain; and being &s;o, although above Nature, yet are no <HI>Miracles</HI> be|cau&s;e certain and ordinate.</P>
</DIV3>
<PB N="165" REF="90">
<DIV3 N="9" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXII. SECT. <HI>IX.</HI> Miracles produced to confirm an untruth are a Lye, and bla&s;phemy again&s;t God: This Propo&s;ition confirmed. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his confederacy with the Devil. <HI>Matth. 4.3.</HI> explained. Our ble&s;&s;ed Saviours u&s;e of Mira|cles, for the confirmation of his Go&s;pel. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his Logick de&s;ired. The apprehen&s;ions of men alter not the nature of Miracles.</HEAD>
<P>THus the Nature of Miracles being explained. I think it appears clearly, that becau&s;e nothing but the God of Nature who made this nature, and could have made another, can act beyond or be&s;ide that order which he hath &s;ettled things in; therefore he mu&s;t needs be the Author of the&s;e effects which are above the reach of Nature, of which kind <HI>Miracles</HI> are. And thus if he &s;hould produce them for the confirmation of fal&s;hood, it would be as apparent a Lye, as any fal&s;e Propo&s;ition delivered by words; which certainly were abominable bla&s;phemy in any man to affirm.</P>
<P>The force of this Argument will appear from the Devil, who was and is as able a Logician as Mr. <HI>Hobbs;</HI> and al|though he di&s;&s;emble and labours to make men believe there is no &s;uch thing; yet I doubt they two do underhand confe|derate too much together. How&s;oever let us con&s;ider an Argument of the Devils, by which he required an a&s;&s;urance of our Saviour's being the Son of God, and con&s;equently God, <HI>Matth.</HI> 4.3. where the Devil tempting him, &s;aid, <HI>If thou be the Son of God command that the&s;e &s;tones he made
<PB N="166" REF="91">
bread.</HI> A man might have objected, &s;uppo&s;e he &s;hould com|mand, and the effect follow, how would this prove him the Son of God? An Angel, or a meer man a&s;&s;i&s;ted by God might have done this. But con&s;ider now if he had done it upon the Que&s;tion, and had not been the Son of God, be|cau&s;e it mu&s;t be done by the extraordinary power of God, not by his ordinary power, therefore God in doing it mu&s;t have confirmed a lye, which it is not po&s;&s;ible for God to do, and upon the &s;trength of this Argument of the Devils, we may be a&s;&s;ured, that Miracles u&s;ed to prove any Conclu&s;ion are an invincible Argument; for the Devil is abundantly able to di&s;pute And therefore in the la&s;t ver&s;e of Saint <HI>Mar</HI>'s Go&s;pel, it is reported that after Chri&s;t had given Comm<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;&s;i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">n to the Eleven, <HI>they went forth and preached every where t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">e Lord working with them, and confirming the word w<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters"> &s;igns following;</HI> where we may ob&s;erve as the Devil urged it for an Argument, &s;o our Saviour u&s;ed it for an Argument in the planting of the Church; which is enough for proof of this Conclu&s;ion, that the Miracles wrought by our Saviour and his Apo&s;tles here, were &s;uch Arguments as did enforce be|lief of what they &s;pake I could expatiate in this noble Theme of Miracles, and fall upon divers mo&s;t Schola&s;tick di&s;cour&s;es; but rather chu&s;e to apply my &s;elf clo&s;e to him who an&s;wers, <HI>[That what is wonderful to one may not be &s;o to another.]</HI> The force of which an&s;wer lies in this, (That there may be many counterfeit Miracles, which may appear true to one and may be found fal&s;e by another; and therefore becau&s;e men may be deceived they have no a&s;&s;urance from them. To this I can &s;ay that Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> is not &s;o good a Lo|gician here as the Devil; for the Devil di&s;puted from the real force of the Argument, but Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> draws his An&s;wer from the apprehen&s;ion of the Hearer or Spectator; when it thunders man a man is bu&s;ie &amp; hears it not, Doth it not there|fore thunder, becau&s;e he doth not hear it? The Sun ari&s;eth and &s;hineth out in the morning when I am in bed and &s;ee it not, Doth it therefore not &s;hine becau&s;e I di&s;cern it not? When a man who hath weak Eys or troubled with the Jaundice comes into a Room, many colours are there which he perceives
<PB N="167" REF="91">
not; or if he do, they appear yellow to his Eyes, Are they therefore yellow? But this and no other is his con&s;equence again&s;t Miracles, becau&s;e &s;ome apprehend them not, there|fore they are not, or do not &s;end out that proof which na|turally flows from them. Many fallacious Arguments are u&s;ed; (He hath u&s;ed many,) and becau&s;e they are fallacies, Are therefore perfect Demon&s;trations not good? His An|&s;wer therefore is not Logical in &s;aying that the&s;e things ap|pear marvellous to one, which do not to another. Let a man con&s;ider the po&s;&s;ibility, or rather impo&s;&s;ibility which Nature hath to do &s;uch a work, and if he be not learned enough to di&s;cu&s;s with a Cau&s;e, let him con&s;ult with Learned men who are able to judge of it, and he &s;hall by that find whether God hath in an extraordinary manner any hand in it or no; but the An&s;wer which he makes may be returned to all Arguments, what&s;oever one under&s;tands another doth not therefore they are not good, nor give a&s;&s;urance. And <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">o I have fini&s;hed the fir&s;t Argument which he framed again&s;t him&s;elf and an&s;wered weakly.</P>
</DIV3>
<PB N="168" REF="92">
<DIV3 N="10" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXII. SECT. <HI>X.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his &s;econd Argument examined; The truth of Divine revelation to the Apo&s;tles, a&s;&s;erted from the gift of Tongues.</HEAD>
<P>AND I pa&s;s to his &s;econd Argument and An&s;wer, which is at the bottom of that page; and the Argu|ment is drawn to prove that the&s;e were Divine revelations from the Sanctity of the Per&s;ons who delivered it. He an|&s;wers that <HI>[that may be feigned.]</HI> I reply, It is improbable, which were enough: but I think I may go further and &s;ay it is impo&s;&s;ible: for the fir&s;t clau&s;e, that it is improbable, we may di&s;cern Rea&s;on for it. Fir&s;t, in the Per&s;ons the Apo|&s;tles who delivered the&s;e Revelations, and affirmed they were &s;uch, it is not probable they &s;hould be counterfeited; all counterfeiting is for &s;ome end, &s;ome worldly end (for a man cannot think to get Heaven by counterfeiting and lying) but the Apo&s;tles could have no worldly end in what they did, the a&s;&s;erting of the&s;e Revelations being the ready way to mi&s;eries and unhappine&s;s, which was fore|told by their great Ma&s;ter, our mo&s;t ble&s;&s;ed Saviour. We have &s;een in this di&s;tracted world in which we have lived, now and then a man proud with an imagined Enthu&s;ia&s;me, per&s;evere in an abominable lye even to death: but for &s;o ma|ny to do it, and &s;uffer for the relation of the &s;ame &s;tory, it cannot be imagined. And then con&s;ider that they were men ble&s;&s;ed by God, in having the&s;e Revelations, and the relating them: I &s;ay <HI>relating them:</HI> for becau&s;e the Doctrine was to be divulged to all Nations by them, God a&s;&s;i&s;ted them with the gift of Tongues, by which they were able &s;uddenly to re|late in their own Language to every Nation the wonderful things which concerned their &s;alvation; And from hence I will draw the impo&s;&s;ibility of their feigning their &s;an|ctity in the delivery of the&s;e Revelations; for as the Re|velation was from God, &s;o the very delivery of them
<PB N="169" REF="92">
by the power of Tongues, was from God, who cannot countenance and make good a lye; But yet certainly al|though their might be a po&s;&s;ibility of being other, (I grant that for Arguments &s;ake which I allow not) yet when there is no probability of the contrary, we have great a&s;&s;urance of that truth and his an&s;wer is mo&s;t wicked, as well as weak drawn from a po&s;&s;ibility of feigning and counterfeiting in the Apo&s;tles.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="11" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXII. SECT. <HI>XI.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his third Argument from the wi&s;dom of the Apo&s;tles confirmed: The miraculous con&s;ent of men to the revelations published by them; An Argument from the propagation of Chri&s;tianity again&s;t the oppo&s;ition of the whole world: A &s;erious application and vow for Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his conver&s;ion.</HEAD>
<P>A Third Argument which he endeavours to put off, is drawn, from the <HI>extraordinary wi&s;dome, or extraordi|nary felicity of his actions, all which (&s;aith he) are marks of Gods extraordinary favour.</HI> His an&s;wer to this is at the bot|tom of that page thus, <HI>The vi&s;ible felicities of this world are mo&s;t often the work of God by natural and ordinary cau&s;es. And therefore no man can infallibly know by natural rea&s;on, that a|nother has had a &s;upernatural revelation of Gods will but on|ly a belief, everyone (as the &s;igns thereof &s;hall appear greater or le&s;&s;er) a firmer or weaker belief.</HI> Thus far he. I now an&s;wer to the fir&s;t, which concerns their wi&s;dome; I do not remem|ber that I have read the wi&s;dome of the&s;e men to be produced for proof of their revelations; yet becau&s;e he has put it down and given one an&s;wer to it, I will urge &s;omething for it, that it was and is a great convincing argument, that &s;uch poor igno|rant illiterate fi&s;hermen &s;hould attain, or rather be en|dued from above with &s;uch wi&s;dome, as to be able to confute the greate&s;t and be&s;t &s;tudied Philo&s;ophers, and reduce them to
<PB N="170" REF="93">
con&s;ent to their revelations; this mu&s;t need prove that the&s;e men were a&s;&s;i&s;ted by &s;ome knowledg above Nature. But let that pa&s;s &s;ince he makes no an&s;wer: but for the other, the &s;uc|ce&s;s of Chri&s;tianity, that is a mo&s;t rational argument; and his an&s;wer confutes him&s;elf, for whereas he &s;aith <HI>[the vi&s;ible felici|ties of this World are mo&s;t often the work of God by natural &amp; or|dinate cau&s;es]</HI> I retort it to him, that the felicities of this world hapning to the&s;e men were nothing but that general propaga|tion of the Go&s;pel, which was wrought again&s;t the force and power of all natural cau&s;es; all the Emperours, Kings, and Princes of this World fighting again&s;t, and &s;uppre&s;&s;ing it, with all the force and tyranny which they were able to u&s;e, &s;o that their &s;trength grew by oppre&s;&s;ion, &amp; <HI>Sanguis Martyrum</HI> was <HI>Semen Eccle&s;iae.</HI> And M. <HI>Hobbs</HI> cannot think, that that was a natural &s;eed. And &s;o I will conclude this di&s;cour&s;e for this time, hoping that God will &s;o a&s;&s;i&s;t him that he may &s;ee his own error, and with his own hand blot out all the&s;e un|worthy doubts which he hath ca&s;t upon Chri&s;tianity.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="12" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXII. SECT. <HI>XII.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his &s;econd Que&s;tion propounded, and di&s;|cu&s;&s;ed; his a&s;&s;umption not clear; the Argument changed and the Reader eluded by him. His manife&s;t declen&s;ion of the divine po&s;itive Law, and impo&s;ure of humane Laws in oppo&s;ition to them, cen&s;ured. The Law of Nature commands obedience to the po&s;itive law of God. The preten&s;ions of all Nations to divine in&s;titution, ob|&s;erved.</HEAD>
<P>ANd here I thought to have knocked off with the &s;atis|faction of the fir&s;t Quaerie; but as I &s;aid before he made two enquiries, the fir&s;t concerning the a&s;&s;urance of the&s;e revelations; I have &s;poke to that. The &s;econd is <HI>[how a
<PB N="171" REF="93">
man can be bound to obey the Laws &s;o revealed] This</HI> (he &s;aith,) <HI>is not &s;o hard, for if the Laws declared be not again&s;t the Law of Nature, which is undoubtedly Gods Law, and he undertake to obey it, he is bound by his own act.</HI> Thus far Mr. <HI>Hobbs:</HI> but indeed he utters (in my judgment) a mo&s;t ob|&s;cure doctrine, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">r if clear, he &s;peaks very weakly. 'Tis ob|&s;cure, for although the Law of Nature do oblige, yet it is not apparent to every man, what this Law of Nature is; no not to learned men; for in many ca&s;es it is di&s;puted, vvhether &s;uch or &s;uch actions are according to the Lavv of Nature or no; And therefore although the major propo&s;ition be un|que&s;tionably true, that the Lavv of Nature is in&s;tituted by God, yet the a&s;&s;uming of a Minor to it, [this is the Lavv of Nature] may be full of di&s;pute, and from thence it vvill be hard to conclude. Again con&s;ider, that vvhen the que&s;ti|on vvas put in the former page, it vvas concerning the obe|dience to the revealed lavvs of God, hovv a man may be bound to obey them, of vvhich he affirmed that vve could have no a&s;&s;urance, and that I have immediately before re|futed: but novv his vvhole di&s;cour&s;e runs upon mans obe|dience to humane Lavvs. Thus the Notion and Conceipt &s;huffled and changed, a Reader is di&s;tracted, and vvhil&s;t he finds &s;omething &s;eemingly proved, he thinks the undertaken propo&s;ition is clear: for vvhere hath he &s;atisfied, yea but &s;eem|ingly, this Que&s;tion, <HI>How a man can be bound to obey the Revelations? But</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>if he undertake to obey a Law which is not against the Law of Nature, he is bound by his own Act.</HI> That is, that Act by vvhich (he &s;aith rather than thinks) he in&s;tituted a &s;upreme, and that Act only reflects up|on humane Lavvs e&s;tabli&s;hed by the &s;upreme vvhich he in&s;ti|tuted. But I do not finde this expre&s;&s;ed there in that lati|tude he novv formes it, but rather I thought that he vvould have &s;uppo&s;ed that the &s;upreme &s;hould be obeyed in &s;uch things as cro&s;s not the Lavv of God vvhat&s;oever, either na|tural or po&s;itive, but it &s;eems novv he mu&s;t be obeyed in all vvhich is not again&s;t the Lavv of Nature onely; he vvould have the Scriptures and po&s;itive Lavvs laid a&s;ide. By this if a King &s;hall command us not to be baptized, not to
<PB N="172" REF="94">
receive the Communion, or, like <HI>Darius</HI> not to pray to God, for a certain time, not to repent <HI>&amp;c.</HI> (vvhich are not acts of the Lavv of Nature, but po&s;itive Lavvs) vve &s;hould not doe them, vvhich mu&s;t needs be mo&s;t odious to any Chri&s;tian man. But indeed had not Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> di&s;tingui&s;hed the&s;e tvvo the po&s;itive, and natural Lavvs of God before in the former page, and rai&s;ed the&s;e doubts, to di&s;grace the po|&s;itive laws of God, I could have an&s;wered that there is no Law more Natural, than that we &s;hould obey the po&s;itive Laws of God; for he being the &s;upreme power, mu&s;t needs have that authority to make Laws for the government of men; and this is univer&s;ally received. All Nations in the World pretend to have divine Laws for their direction, I mean, po&s;itive divine Laws; onely Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> denyeth it clearly in this place. Let us examine what follows.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="13" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXII. SECT. <HI>XIII.</HI> Obedience founded upon the belief, or acknowledgment of his power that commands. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his complacency in quarrelling with Religion. The want of rea&s;on in his proofs di&s;covered, and cen&s;ured. Faith commanded by God, urged by promi&s;&s;ory and penal Laws. The dread|ful puni&s;hment of &s;uch as believe not, or di&s;turb other mens belief with frivolous arguments. God the &s;earch|er of hearts and puni&s;her of evil thoughts contrary to Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his Doctrine.</HEAD>
<P><HI>HE is bound,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>to obey it but not bound to believe it.</HI> A &s;trange propo&s;ition: for take his particle <HI>[i]</HI> how you plea&s;e, for obedience to divine or humane Laws, he can be bound to obey none, when he hath no belief: for he cannot have an obligation to divine Laws, unle&s;s he believe they are given by God, nor can he perform obedience to humane
<PB N="173" REF="94">
Laws, unle&s;s he have a belief that they are made by the &s;u|preme power. So that obedience in all kinds &s;uppo&s;eth a belief of that authority which commands. But again con|&s;ider, what he means by this word, belief, <HI>He is bound to o|bey, but not to believe.</HI> Certainly (as I &s;aid,) he mu&s;t believe the authority that commands, and 'tis as true, that he mu&s;t believe that that authority commands this Act, or el&s;e he can have no ground for his obedience. This man had a mind to be quarrelling at Religion, but could not find ex|pre&s;&s;ions to do it. But he proves his conclu&s;ion, for (&s;aith he) <HI>Mens belief, and interiour cogitations, are not &s;ubject to the commands, but only to the operation of God ordinary, or extraordinary.</HI> The vaine&s;t and weake&s;t Argument that e|ver was urged. Fir&s;t, in Logick it cannot follow; becau&s;e they are &s;ubject to the operations of God, they therefore are not &s;ubject to commands, as Charity, and all the re&s;traint of exorbitant lu&s;ts are &s;ubject to his operations, are they not therefore &s;ubject to commands? This is a pitiful infe|rence, but then con&s;ider further; that faith, and the cogitati|ons of men are commanded by God, that faith is com|manded fir&s;t, <HI>Heb.</HI> 11.6. <HI>Without faith it is impo&s;&s;ible to plea&s;e God; for he that cometh to God mu&s;t believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them who diligently &s;eek him.</HI> Now it is nece&s;&s;ary that he who requires us to come, mu&s;t in that exaction require &s;uch things as are nece&s;&s;ary to ob|tain it; and therefore faith without which Heaven cannot be attained. And God hath given a ble&s;&s;ed promi&s;&s;ory Law that he will ble&s;s &s;uch as do believe; and penal al&s;o, that he will puni&s;h &s;uch as do not believe. For the fir&s;t, <HI>John</HI> 3.15, 16. <HI>Who&s;oever believeth in him,</HI> (that is in Chri&s;t) <HI>&s;hould not peri&s;h but have eternal life.</HI> The &s;ame is added in <HI>the</HI> 16 <HI>ver&s;e. God &s;o loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Son, that who&s;oever believeth on him &s;hould not pe|ri&s;h but have everla&s;ting life.</HI> Here is a Law made concern|ing happine&s;s, an eternal Law concerning an eternal life, all terms indefinite. The &s;ame is repeated in the 18 <HI>ver&s;e</HI> of the &s;ame Chap. but with the addition of the penal Law, <HI>He that believeth not is condemned already.</HI> As likew&s;e our
<PB N="174" REF="95">
Saviour, <HI>Mark</HI> 16.16. <HI>He that believeth and is baptized &s;hall be &s;aved, but he that believeth not, &s;hall be damned;</HI> and this is no more but a promi&s;e performed by God, which was made <HI>Deut.</HI> 18.15. urged by St. <HI>Peter</HI> Acts 3.22. <HI>A Pro|phet &s;hall the Lord your God rai&s;e up unto you of your Bre|thren, like unto me, him &s;hall you hear in all things what&s;oever he &s;hall &s;ay unto you.</HI> (v 23.) <HI>And it &s;hall come to pa&s;s that every Soul which will not hear that Prophet &s;hall be de&s;troyed from among the People.</HI> Let Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> and his Followers read the&s;e three words and tremble, <HI>Condemned, Damned, De&s;troyed</HI> who believes not, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> What &s;hall &s;uch be who have not only this privative infidelilty, but a po&s;itive, which oppo&s;eth and di&s;turbs the faith of &s;uch as do be|lieve, with fooli&s;h and unnece&s;&s;ary Arguments? Faith is commanded and exacted by God, upon a dreadful penalty. So likewi&s;e <HI>John</HI> 3.23. <HI>This is his commandement that we &s;hould believe on the name of his Son Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</HI> There in expre&s;s terms, this belief is commanded: and as I have &s;hewed, obedience could not be given to other Laws, if faith did not preceed, which is the fir&s;t &s;tep towards Heaven. I need not &s;peak of other cogitations of the Heart, as Pride, Self-conceitedne&s;s, Covetous, de&s;iring others goods, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> are all prohibited by God, and he will puni&s;h them. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> was therefore to blame very much in &s;aying that faith and the interiour cogitations are not &s;ubject to Gods commands; had they been humane Laws of which he &s;poke it had been &s;omewhat to the purpo&s;e: men cannot know, and therefore cannot puni&s;h the interiour cogitations, and &s;o not make Laws for them; but God knows and &s;earcheth the heart and reins, and will puni&s;h them, and therefore it is fit for him to give commands concerning them.</P>
</DIV3>
<PB N="175" REF="95">
<DIV3 N="14" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXII. SECT. <HI>XIV.</HI> External and inferiour Acts &s;ubject to divine regulati|on. Faith, the fulfilling of that Law which com|manded it. Vain-glory and fear equally impeding practical Faith.</HEAD>
<P>BUt it &s;eems there is more in this argument of his, where he &s;aith, <HI>but only to the operation of God, ordinary, or extraordinary.</HI> I have &s;poken &s;omewhat to this a little be|fore, where I &s;hewed that other vertues which cannot be denyed to be commanded, are &s;ubject to the operations of God, who worketh both to will and to doe; who creates and pre&s;erves: and although he gives the will, yet if he goe not on in the operation, it will never come to per|fection; &s;o that by this con&s;equence God can command nothing becau&s;e he cooperates in the performance. He pro|ceeds with the &s;ame propo&s;ition, in other terms, and I will follow him. <HI>Faith of &s;upernatural Law</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>is not a fulfilling, but only an a&s;&s;enting to the &s;ame.</HI> Faith of that &s;u|pernatural Law (which concerns Faith) mu&s;t needs be a fulfilling of it, (if it be &s;uch as is according to the Law of Faith, as St. <HI>Paul</HI> phra&s;eth it <HI>Rom.</HI> 3.27) <HI>But only</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>an a&s;&s;enting to it.</HI> What if it be but only an a&s;&s;enting to it, (yet I can &s;hew other operations of faith be&s;ides that) yet if that a&s;&s;enting be the act which God re|quires in his command of faith, faith is the fulfilling of that Law which exacts it. And yet give me leave to add one note more, Although faith were a meer act of the un|der&s;tanding, an a&s;&s;ent (as he terms it) yet becau&s;e this a&s;&s;ent is impeded by many vices in the Soul, which untill they are ma&s;tered, the Soul cannot break out into a full and com|pleat a&s;&s;ent unto the divine propo&s;itions, it comes in regard
<PB N="176" REF="96">
of them under this notion of a command. You may ob|&s;erve, <HI>John</HI> 12.43, 43. <HI>Neverthele&s;s among the chief Ru|lers many believed, but becau&s;e of the Phari&s;ees they did not confe&s;s him, le&s;t they &s;hould be put out of the Synagogue; for they loved the prai&s;e of men, more than the prai&s;e of God.</HI> Mark, in this they are &s;aid to believe, being convinced in their under&s;tandings of the truth of the doctrine, they had a credulity of the things, but vain-glory hindred them from practi&s;ing accordingly, <HI>the prai&s;e of men;</HI> as likewi&s;e a wicked love of it, and I may add another pa&s;&s;ion, <HI>fear,</HI> out of that Phra&s;e <HI>becau&s;e of the Phari&s;ees, i. e.</HI> becau&s;e they feared them; and it is the &s;ame which he &s;peaks of the Parents to him who was cured of the blindne&s;s, <HI>John</HI> 9.22. <HI>The&s;e words &s;poke his Parents becau&s;e they feared the Jewes. The&s;e words,</HI> that is, that &s;hifting of the con|fe&s;&s;ion of Chri&s;t; &s;o that unworthy fear, love, pride, are impediments to faith. I know it may be objected here, that it is &s;poke of the confe&s;&s;ion of faith, not the act or habit of faith; and the&s;e other things may hinder the&s;e outward acts of faith which do not choak its being, and nature. I an&s;wer, it is true; but withall it cannot be a true and right faith which is a&s;hamed, or afraid to expre&s;s it &s;elf; for a true faith of divine perfections, is &s;uch as mu&s;t be|lieve the divine perfections infinitely excellent, and his veraci|ty &s;o likewi&s;e; and therefore he mu&s;t needs be confident that when he honours him, God will ble&s;s him, and &s;o can|not fear any thing in this world. This I hope may &s;uffice for the &s;atisfaction of the Reader in this.</P>
</DIV3>
<PB N="177" REF="96">
<DIV3 N="15" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXII. SECT. <HI>XV.</HI> Faith a duty to God again&s;t Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his a&s;&s;ertion; his con&s;tant endeavours to a&s;per&s;e the duties of Chri|&s;tianity. Miracles the ordinate means of faith. The u&s;e of the means nece&s;&s;ary to the attaining of the end.</HEAD>
<P><HI>HE goes on, and &s;aith, And not a duty that we exhibite to God, but a gift which God freely giveth to whom he plea&s;eth.</HI> Faith is not a duty which we exhibite to God! &s;uch a language as was never heard from a Chri|&s;tian, no not from a Jew, a Turk, or an Heathen if he were not an Athei&s;t. If he thought there were a God, he mu&s;t needs think that faith is due to him. Who would fear him, tru&s;t in him, if he doth not believe his promi|&s;es and threats? If he think he is the chief good, he mu&s;t think him true in all his &s;ayings; that they are according to his intentions; and that he is able to make good what he intends. Who can honour him, but he that believes he is, or would honour him but he that believes he is a re|warder of them who &s;eek him? It is the duty which he who hath, cannot lack the re&s;t; and he who hath not, doth no|thing upright. But it &s;eems he utters his mind clearly in this &s;entence which he did more ob&s;curely otherwhere, la|bouring throughout this di&s;cour&s;e to weaken our faith. Well let us go on, <HI>but,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>it is a gift which God freely giveth to whom he plea&s;eth:</HI> what therefore no command concerning it? he may &s;ay the &s;ame of Hope and Charity; and indeed of all the things of this World; the Earth is the Lords, and all that is in it, and to whom he plea&s;eth he giveth it, but is there therefore no command concerning the&s;e things? Con&s;ider, Reader, that although faith be Gods gift, yet God gives it according to tho&s;e rules which he
<PB N="179" REF="97">
hath &s;et down: faith is introduced by hearing, by &s;uch &s;etled wayes as God hath appointed to produce it: and there|fore I do think that no man living can &s;hew me faith, where that faith was not wrought by God in his ordinary way of working: and therefore one part of his di&s;tinction which he u&s;ed before, either by Gods operation ordinary or extra|ordinary, might have been &s;pared, if applyed to the immedi|ate operation. I know the conver&s;ion of St. <HI>Paul</HI> may be objected, and the like, where God wrought his faith by a miraculous manife&s;tation of him&s;elf to him: yet con&s;ider that the conver&s;ion of St. <HI>Paul</HI> was produced immediatly by that miracle which was in a mo&s;t &s;etled cour&s;e of Gods working b<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> hearing and &s;eeing; for hearing the word, or reading it, &s;eeing &s;ome vi&s;ion, or miracle, are mo&s;t ordi|nate means by which God be&s;toweth that ble&s;&s;ing upon his &s;ervants, by preaching, by vi&s;ions, by miracles. And I do not believe that any man in the world can per&s;wade me that he hath a right and religious faith, who never heard or &s;aw any thing which did per&s;wade him to it. Again, con&s;ider that there are three things, which make a gift profitable be|&s;ides; the giving, the receiving and the right u&s;e of it: the fir&s;t only concerns God, the two latter men. Now &s;uppo&s;e that the Sun (which alone can do it) &s;hould &s;hine, if men will remain in their pri&s;on, keeping the doors and windows &s;hut, they &s;hall not be able to &s;ee by that gift of light; yea if he open the windows of his hou&s;e, and &s;hut tho&s;e of his body, he &s;hall not &s;ee. Out of the&s;e ari&s;eth the faultine&s;s of infidelity, that men &s;hut out that means which God gives them to believe; they will not hear or read the word of God, they &s;corn his miracles, and all tho&s;e glorious reve|lations which have been made to his &s;ervants. When the hands of God are open to give, and the hands of men not &s;o to receive, and when he &s;ows his &s;eed of righteou&s;ne&s;s, and the plea&s;ures and the cares of the World choak it, then the duty of faith is &s;ubject to a command although given by God.</P>
</DIV3>
<PB N="178" REF="97">
<DIV3 N="16" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXII. SECT. <HI>XVI.</HI> &V;nbelief the greate&s;t breach of Gods Law. St. <HI>John 3.18,</HI> and <HI>19.</HI> explained. The ju&s;tice of God in the con|demnation of men for want of faith. The ca&s;e of <HI>Abraham,</HI> Gene&s;is <HI>17.10.</HI> elucidated. The power of Parents a&s;&s;erted.</HEAD>
<P>HE proceeds, <HI>As al&s;o unbelief is not a breach of any of his Laws, but a rejection of them all.</HI> This was witty, and a good way of arguing; <HI>contrariorum eadem e&s;t ratio,</HI> contraries do illu&s;trate one the other. But con&s;ider Reader, is not the rejection of a Law, a breach of a Law? Suppo&s;e a man &s;hould think (as &s;ome have) that no &s;u|preme hath power to make Laws for life and death; he &s;teals, and by the Law concerning Thievery, is to be execu|ted; doth his rejection of that Law make his felony no breach of that law, which is again&s;t it? Certainly it is the great|e&s;t breach, it tears the Law in pieces; and is the greate&s;t vio|lation of it that may be. To this purpo&s;e our Saviour mo&s;t clearly, <HI>John</HI> 3.18. <HI>He who believeth not, is condemned already, becau&s;e he hath not believed in the Name of the only be|gotten Son of God.</HI> So that according to Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his Tenent here is a condemnation, but no ju&s;t one, becau&s;e, not for the breach of &s;ome Law. There mu&s;t be therefore &s;ome divine Law exacting faith, which this infidelity doth break. But then Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> would reply to our Saviour, that faith is a gift, and why do&s;t thou puni&s;h me for the want of that which is only a gift? Read the 19 <HI>ver&s;e,</HI> and our Savi|our doth an&s;wer him, And this is the condemnation that light is come into the World, and men love darkne&s;s rather than light; the light is the light of faith, and Gods graces which he gives to men, by which they may apprehend di|vine truths: which yet they do not, becau&s;e they love dark|ne&s;s rather than light; love not this light of faith, which
<PB N="180" REF="98">
di&s;covers to them the obliquity of their &s;inful worldly de|&s;ires. So that it is apparent that although God gives this light, his grace; yet men preferring the world before it, it is unprofitable. This was the ca&s;e of the&s;e Jews which our Saviour &s;poke to, <HI>Iohn</HI> 5.44. <HI>How can ye believe which re|cieve honour from one another, and &s;eek not the honour which cometh from God.</HI> So that mens preferring worldly things before the things of God, cau&s;eth them not to re|ceive or make u&s;e of Gods revelations. But Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> hath Scripture for what he writes, <HI>Gen.</HI> 17.10. <HI>This is the Covenant which thou &s;halt ob&s;erve between me and thee, and thy &s;eed after thee Now</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>Abrahams &s;eed had not this revelation, nor were yet in being; yet they are a party to the covenant, and bound to obey what Abraham &s;hould de|clare to them for Gods Law.</HI> It is true (what he &s;aith) that <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;eed had not the revelation, nor were yet in being; yet they are a party in this Covenant. But what can be deduced further from this, than that which is the or|dinary condition of contracts? A man gives his e&s;tate to a|nother, and to his po&s;terity for ever, upon a condition that they &s;hall pay &s;uch and &s;uch acknowledgments, which if they perform that e&s;tate &s;hall be theirs; but if not, the con|tract &s;hall be void. Yes, &s;aith Mr. <HI>Hobbs,</HI> there is more, <HI>they are bound to obey what&s;oever</HI> Abraham <HI>&s;hould declare for Gods Law</HI> I &s;ee nothing in the&s;e words which enforce any &s;uch thing: but only the ob&s;ervation of circumci&s;ion: thi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> God calls his Covenant, being a &s;ign thereof, and this Covenant con&s;i&s;teth in this, that God would be <HI>Abrahams</HI> God, and his &s;eeds after him, and that he would give them the Land of <HI>Canaan</HI> for an everla&s;ting po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion. The meaning of all which, was, that he would in near and dear re&s;pects fa|vour and protect them, as you may read in the 7 <HI>and</HI> 8 <HI>ver&s;es</HI> of that Chapter. So that here in this is no more implyed, but that if they ob&s;erve circumci&s;ion God would ble&s;s them; there is no mention of accepting for Gods Laws what&s;oever <HI>Abraham</HI> &s;hould deliver; and therefore he might have &s;pared his following di&s;cour&s;e [<HI>which</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>they could not be but in virtue of the obedience they owed to their Parents; who
<PB N="181" REF="98">
(if they be &s;ubject to no other earthly power, as here in the ca&s;e of</HI> Abraham) <HI>have &s;overaign power over their Children and &s;ervants.</HI> This I &s;ay might have been &s;pared, for if the Cove|nant went no further than I have expre&s;&s;ed, (as without doubt it did not) there needs no &s;overaign power to be forced to it. But I am of his mind that they who are Parents, (where is no other e&s;tabli&s;hed &s;overaignty) have that &s;upreme power over their children and &s;ervants: which one conclu&s;ion will confute the whole body of his Politiques, as I intend to &s;hew hereafter.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="17" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXII. SECT. <HI>XVII.</HI> The obedience of <HI>Abrahams</HI> Family to Gods Laws, depen|ded upon that to him, as Father of the Family. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his con&s;equences drawn from this propo&s;ition not rightly deduced. His con&s;tant varying from the Engli&s;h tran&s;lation ob&s;erved, and cen&s;ured. Rea&s;on a|gain&s;t former deductions. The intire obedience of the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI> to the dictates of <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> rather from the conference of his divine in&s;piration, as a Prophet, than his &s;overaign power. The Authority of &s;crip|ture depends not upon the declaration of the &s;overaign. The wor&s;hippers of <HI>Baal</HI> not excu&s;ed from the com|mand of the King of <HI>I&s;rael.</HI> The rea&s;ons of Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his former a&s;&s;ertion di&s;proved. The com|mands of the &s;overaign ju&s;tly oppo&s;ed, when contrary to the Chri&s;tian faith. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his Atheistical conclu&s;ions cen&s;ured.</HEAD>
<P>BUt he hath another piece of Scripture which you may read, <HI>Gen</HI> 18.18, 19. <HI>Again where God &s;aith to</HI> A|braham, <HI>In thee &s;hall all Nations of the Earth be ble&s;&s;ed: for
<PB N="182" REF="99">
I know thou wilt command thy Children, and thy hou&s;e after thee to keep the way of the Lord, and to ob&s;erve righteou&s;|ne&s;s and judgment; It is manife&s;t the obedience of his family, who had no revelation, depended on their former obligation to obey their Soveraign.</HI> Thus far Mr. <HI>Hobbs.</HI> I an&s;wer, 'tis true that this obedience of <HI>Abrahams</HI> family to him&s;elf, de|pends upon their filial obedience to him as their Father, and his commanding them depends upon his &s;overaign power o|ver them as their Father But what? can it be collected hence, that if <HI>Abraham</HI> had commanded di&s;hone&s;t things, <HI>i. e.</HI> &s;uch actions as were again&s;t any will of God, revealed any other way to them, that they &s;hould have obeyed him? Certainly no; nay, the contrary is here intimated, for there|fore God promi&s;ed to ble&s;s him and his po&s;terity, becau&s;e he did know that <HI>Abraham</HI> would command them vertuous things, <HI>to keep the way of the Lord.</HI> But mark here, Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> &s;till varyes from the Engli&s;h lection, and that to the wor&s;e; for it is not what he writes, to keep, but, <HI>he will command them, and they &s;hall keep the way of the Lord.</HI> So that the &s;en&s;e is; becau&s;e God fore&s;aw his fatherly care, and their filial duty in the&s;e righteous actions, he would ble&s;s them. He pro&s;ecutes this conclu&s;ion with another Scrip|ture thus; <HI>At mount</HI> Sinai, Mo&s;es <HI>only went up to God, the people were forbidden to approach on pain of death; yet were they bound to obey all that</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>declared unto them for Gods Law.</HI> Upon what ground, <HI>but on this &s;ubmi&s;sion of their own,</HI> Exod. 20. <HI>Speak thou to us, and we will hear thee; but let not God &s;peak to us le&s;t we die? By which two places,</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>it &s;ufficiently appears that in a Common-wealth a Subject that has no certain and a&s;&s;ured revelation, particularly to him|&s;elf concerning the will of God, is to obey for &s;uch the com|mand of the Common-wealth.</HI> (That is, by his Logick, the &s;overaign of the Common-wealth.) How this conclu&s;ion can be drawn out of the&s;e two places of Scripture, I cannot i|magine. Why it &s;hould not, I &s;hall give the&s;e rea&s;ons. Fir&s;t, that although the&s;e two particular ca&s;es were to be under|&s;tood, as he conceits; yet they are but particular ca&s;es, which concerned tho&s;e only affairs which were under their proper
<PB N="183" REF="99">
management; and there is no one word which points at them, to make them pre&s;idents for others, or to give an uni|ver&s;al rule for all others. Secondly, whereas he &s;aith that in a Common-wealth a Subject &s;hould do thus (as he &s;ets down in one of his in&s;tances,) to wit, that of <HI>Abraham,</HI> there was no Common-wealth; &s;etled, 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 <HI>I&s;rae|lites</HI> under <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> was, as yet, not a pefect e&s;tabli&s;hed Com|mon-wealth, but only <HI>in fieri,</HI> the Common-wealth was in moulding, the Laws for the government were in making. Then con&s;ider, in <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> his ca&s;e (for I have writ enough concerning the other the People &s;aid they would hear <HI>Mo&s;es;</HI> and good rea&s;on for it becau&s;e they di&s;cerned that he had conver&s;ation with God; that Gods terrour was &s;o great that no man dur&s;t injure him by doubting his Laws, who had &s;uch near conver&s;e with God, as he had, when called up to the top of the Mount; and therefore might be tru&s;ted on his relation. And therefore it &s;eems their promi&s;e of hearkning to what&s;oever <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> &s;hould deliver for Gods Law, was to him, as a Prophet, rather than as a King; which indeed was (in that regard) more to be con&s;idered. And certainly tho&s;e dictates of the holy Scripture for our practi|ces which are delivered by King <HI>David</HI> or <HI>Solomon,</HI> have not that great obligation upon us as they were Kings, but Pro|phets; nor are the books which are Scripture and comman|ded to be &s;o received among&s;t us, therefore of divine au|thourity, becau&s;e Kings declare them to be &s;uch; but con|trariwi&s;e, Kings declare them to be &s;uch, becau&s;e they are &s;uch. And, (good Reader) con&s;ider further, that this rea&s;on of Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> might have excu&s;ed all the wor&s;hippers of <HI>Baal:</HI> all the idolatries and abominations committed in the reign of <HI>Jeroboam,</HI> and the re&s;t of tho&s;e wicked Kings over <HI>I&s;rael.</HI> For if the People were to receive that, and that only for the word of God, which their &s;upremes authorized, then they authorizing tho&s;e, and only tho&s;e commands which were directed to tho&s;e impieties, were &s;o to be accepted and obeyed, unle&s;s they had particular revelation (which
<PB N="184" REF="100">
in general, the common people never had) and then how could God ju&s;tly puni&s;h them for violating tho&s;e Laws which he had given them (as he did often) when their Kings exacted otherwayes? But he gives rea&s;on for what he hath delivered; <HI>for</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>if men were at liberty, to take for Gods commandements, their own dreams, and fancies, or the dreams, and fancies of private men; &s;carce two men would a|gree upon what is Gods commandements; and yet in re&s;pect of them, every man would de&s;pi&s;e the commandement of the Common wealth.</HI> Alas poor man, what a dream and fancy hath he vainly uttered! this is like to what he affirmed before, <HI>that we have no a&s;&s;urance of revelations, unle&s;s we had par|ticular revelations our &s;elves.</HI> And what I oppo&s;ed to that will &s;erve for this; Were all tho&s;e Councils, all tho&s;e Fathers, all the con&s;ent of the Chri&s;tian Church, nothing but dreams? all the blood of holy Martyrs nothing but fancies? yea the blood of Chri&s;t whereby he hath &s;ubdued all the Kings of this Chri&s;tian World, nothing but dreams and fancyes? which yet are tho&s;e Medium's by which men oppo&s;e Kings, (and ought to do it) when they command contrary to our Chri|&s;tian Faith. Certainly Mr. <HI>Hobos</HI> &s;aid right when he affirm|ed, <HI>That private men mu&s;t not oppo&s;e their dreams or fancies to the Laws of the Land wherein they live.</HI> But under that Notion, he doth ami&s;s, when he terms our a&s;&s;ent to the revealed vvill of God (clearly and intelligently apprehended) a dream or fancy. But becau&s;e he terms it the Lavv of the Common-vvealth, vvhich hath &s;ome &s;en&s;e according to his impo&s;&s;ible principles, <HI>viz.</HI> That the &s;upreme repre&s;ents the vvhole, I vvill tell him it is a phra&s;e of &s;peech never u&s;ed by any Author before: for a Common-vvealth con&s;i&s;ts in the ordination of all the members of it, &s;upreme and inferiour; the &s;upreme is &s;overaign, the inferiour are &s;ubjects; but by a common vvealth here he only under&s;tands the &s;overaign. But let us proceed vvith him; out of the former confuted pre|mi&s;&s;es he dravvs this conclu&s;ion: <HI>I conclude therefore, that in all things not contrary to the Moral Law, (that is to &s;ay, to the Law of Nature) all &s;ubjects are bound to obey that for di|vine Law, which is declared to be &s;o, by the Laws of the Common-wealth.</HI>
<PB N="185" REF="100">
Certainly the Moral Lavv, or the Lavv of Nature, doth not bid us be baptized, or receive the holy Com|munion, nay it doth not command us to make a profe&s;&s;ion of our faith in Je&s;us Chri&s;t. The Law of Nature did not command <HI>Daniel, Shedrack, Me&s;hack,</HI> and <HI>Abednego,</HI> to refu&s;e the voluptuous meat which <HI>Nebuchadnezar</HI> allowed them, and fed upon pul&s;e and water; but the fear that they &s;hould break the Law of God by obeying the King; I mean, the po&s;itive Law which God had not writ in their Natures, but in Tables; &s;o that this conclu&s;ion of his was mo&s;t Heatheni&s;h.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="18" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXII. SECT. <HI>XVIII.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his further rea&s;ons to prove the former a&s;|&s;ertions examined and cen&s;ured. His diminution of the authority of the divine po&s;itive Law, and constant vilifying of &s;cripture cen&s;ured. The Law of Nature re&s;trained by the divine po&s;itive Law. Obedience in Religious dutyes not founded in the command of the &s;overaign, but of God. The per&s;wa&s;ion of the <HI>Turks,</HI> that the <HI>Alcoran</HI> contains the Law of God, not the command of the Grand <HI>Signiour</HI> cau&s;es their confor|mity to it. The difference betwen the commands and acts of Chri&s;tian Princes, and their &s;ubjects, from tho&s;e of other Religions. All other Societies, as that of Theeves, illegitimate combinations. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his doctrine abhorrent to Chri&s;tianity.</HEAD>
<P>BUT he labours further to prove it. <HI>Which al&s;o</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>is evident to any mans rea&s;on; for what&s;oever is not a|gain&s;t the Law of Nature, may be made Law in the Name of them that have the Soveraign power; and there is no
<PB N="186" REF="101">
rea&s;on men &s;hould be the le&s;s obliged by it, when it is propound|ed in the Name of God.</HI> I an&s;wer, that what&s;oever is not a|gain&s;t the Law of Nature, may be made Law by God, <HI>i. e.</HI> his po&s;itive Law; but many Laws are limited, not only by Gods Laws of Nature, but his po&s;itive Laws likewi&s;e, which have as great force as the other to whom&s;oever they are revealed. (Now I am in the 150 page) let the Reader con&s;ider again, how he takes occa&s;ion to le&s;&s;en the authority of Scripture. I am per&s;waded he can produce no Chri&s;tian writer from our Saviours time downward, that ever delivered &s;o unworthy a conceipt of the po&s;itive Law of God: it is as if he &s;hould &s;ay, we &s;hould obey a Con&s;tables command again&s;t the Kings command by Statute; for the difference is much le&s;s betwixt the King and a Con&s;table, than betwixt the greate&s;t King in the World and God. The common Law which I con|ceive to be an unwritten tradition, is like the Law of Na|ture, the Statute Law like the po&s;itive Laws: It is lawful (not con&s;idering a &s;tatute) for a man to act any thing not again&s;t the common Law, but if a po&s;itive, <HI>i e.</HI> a &s;tatute Law in|tervene, it is no longer lawful by any private power to act that, which otherwi&s;e had been lawful. Thus until a po|&s;itive Law of God interpo&s;e, what&s;oever is not again&s;t the Law of Nature is lawful; but when that po&s;itive Law is manife&s;t, it is nece&s;&s;ary that that likewi&s;e be obeyed; and no humane Law of mans making can have right to di&s;pen&s;e with it. He proceeds <HI>[be&s;ides, there is no place in the world, where men are permitted to pretend other commandements of God, than are declared for &s;uch by the Common-wealth. Chri|&s;tian States puni&s;h tho&s;e that revolt from Chri&s;tian Religion, and all other States, tho&s;e that &s;et up any religion by them forbidden. For in what&s;oever is not regulated by the Common-wealth 'tis e|quity (which is the Law of Nature, and therefore an eternal Law of God, that every man equally enjoy his Liberty.]</HI> Here is an Argument drawn <HI>&agrave; facto ad jus;</HI> Becau&s;e this is done, therefore it is rightly done; and an equal weight put upon the acts of Heathens, and wor&s;hippers of the Sun, Moon, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> with that of Chri&s;tians who only wor&s;hip the true God. As if becau&s;e Kings ju&s;tly puni&s;h tho&s;e who violate
<PB N="187" REF="101">
the Laws of tho&s;e Kingdomes which they are intru&s;ted with, therefore Thieves ju&s;tly may de&s;troy &s;uch as break the Laws of their Combination, when indeed the fir&s;t are ju&s;t, but the other mo&s;t unju&s;t The ca&s;e &s;eems to be the &s;ame here; for all tho&s;e are combinations of Thieves, who rob God of his due honour required by him, &amp; the Chri&s;tians only act by the Law of God. So that here we may di&s;cern a great difference in the right of the two actings of the Chri|&s;tian and the Heathen; but then con&s;ider what is the ground of them both, we &s;hall find it different from what Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> delivers. He conceiveth the rea&s;on to be this, why de|linquents are puni&s;hed, becau&s;e they &s;werve from the Law of the &s;upreme: but it is clearly otherwi&s;e; The Chri&s;ti|an doth not therefore receive the holy Communion, or re|pent of his &s;in, or do &s;uch like heavenly duties, becau&s;e the &s;upreme Magi&s;trate requires them, but becau&s;e he finds tho&s;e duties exacted by God in his po&s;itive Laws; and if the Magi&s;trate &s;hall controul it, he knows God mu&s;t be obey|ed before man, when he requires contrary to God. And the &s;ame rea&s;on per&s;vvades the <HI>Turk</HI> concerning his <HI>Alcoran,</HI> vvhich he vainly imagineth to be the divine Lavv; and if the Grand <HI>Signior</HI> him&s;elf do contradict that Lavv they vvill not obey him, upon that rea&s;on. And &s;urely the &s;ame Argu|ment prevails vvith all other Nations vvho have their Reli|gion by tradition; it is not the Lavv of man, but the imagi|ned Lavv of God vvhich they &s;ubject them&s;elves unto in di|vine performances. And therefore though &s;overaigns puni&s;h &s;uch tran&s;gre&s;&s;ions vvhich are again&s;t tho&s;e Lavvs vvhich they have e&s;tabli&s;hed for divine; yet it is therefore becau&s;e they are e&s;teemed divine. Therefore they made &s;uch Lavvs, not that they could think that they ought to be e&s;teemed di|vine becau&s;e they e&s;tabli&s;hed them. I vvill add but one ob|&s;ervation more, vvhich is this; That although he &s;aith, that all Nations practi&s;e this, that is, that they allovv only &s;uch divine Lavvs, vvhich they have e&s;tabli&s;hed to be &s;uch; yet I be|lieve no Nation in the World, (no Chri&s;tian I am a&s;&s;ured) would have allowed this doctrine to be publi&s;hed, but only &s;uch as were in that di&s;tracted condition as our poor Nation
<PB N="188" REF="102">
was when he publi&s;hed it. For &s;ince every Chri&s;tian King|dome profe&s;&s;eth a conformity to divine Law, it cannot be imagined that they dur&s;t obtrude &s;uch an impo&s;&s;ible thing to be credited as that they could make divine Laws, but only confirm and exact an obedience to them. Nay, I can think the &s;ame of all, even Heathen Nations. So that it is a conclu&s;ion abhorring to Chri&s;tianity, yea humane Nature where&s;oever it is planted with any Religion. For &s;ince all do conceive God to be an infinite able and wi&s;e Governour even of Kings, &s;upremes, and kingdomes, how can they think it &s;afe for them out of humane obedience to &s;ubject his rules to the controul of his Subjects, which all Kings and Potentates are? I have handled this Paragraph <HI>verbatim,</HI> and although there are many more expre&s;&s;ions (in this ca&s;e) which may de&s;erve cen&s;ure, yet I pa&s;s them over, and in|deed did think here to have concluded his Politiques, and &s;o not to have pa&s;&s;ed any further cen&s;ure upon them in this place. But there are &s;ome egregious errors hereafter which mu&s;t not be pa&s;&s;ed over with &s;ilence. I will al&s;o skip o|ver his twenty &s;eventh and twenty eighth Chapters, as con|taining things in general le&s;s malitious, and I will enter upon his twenty ninth Chapter which he intitles</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="23" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="189" REF="102">
<HEAD>Of tho&s;e things which weaken or tend to the di&s;&s;olution of a Common-wealth. CHAP. XXIII.</HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>I.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his &s;econd Paragraph purged. The &s;igni|fication of the word, Judge. Inferiour Judges apply the determinations of Laws concerning good and evil to particular per&s;ons and facts. Private men have <HI>ju|dicium rationis,</HI> and therefore may determine upon their own ratiocination. No man to intrude upon the office of a judge, but by deputation from the Sove|raign.</HEAD>
<P>THe fir&s;t of the&s;e I let pa&s;s, as having &s;poken &s;omething of it already materially, and begin with his &s;econd which he enters upon page 168. towards the bottom of that Page which begins thus. <HI>In the &s;econd place, I ob|&s;erve the di&s;ea&s;es of a Common-wealth, that proceed from the poy&s;on of &s;editious doctrines; whereof one is, that every private man is Judge of good and evil actions.</HI> To purge this do|ctrine from all poy&s;on, ob&s;erve fir&s;t; that this word, <HI>Judge,</HI> &s;ounds like a legal Officer, and truly (to &s;peak properly) I think the &s;upreme legi&s;lative power is the Judge of politick good and evil; the other &s;ubordinate Judges are only Judges of the application of the &s;upreme to particular ca&s;es; for in&s;tance thus. The legi&s;lative power commands that no man &s;hall &s;teal; if he do he &s;hall be thus and thus puni&s;hed; the Judge applyes this &s;entence of this evil to <HI>Titius,</HI> who is brought before him, and accu&s;ed of this crime; the le|gi&s;lative
<PB N="190" REF="103">
determins and judgeth, that it is evil in general; but the Judge upon his Bench determines, that this per&s;on is guilty of this evil; in neither of which a private man hath right to pa&s;s a conclu&s;ive &s;entence concerning other men. But yet give me leave to tell the Reader, that in both the&s;e he hath <HI>judicium rationis,</HI> a rational &s;entence in his own thoughts, as thus; before a Law is made, he judgeth that this would be fit to be made, and &s;o may di&s;cretely interpo&s;e with the legi&s;lative power to advi&s;e them to act according to tho&s;e rea&s;ons which appear to him as per&s;wa&s;ive, for el&s;e the Legi&s;lator will lack that great a&s;&s;i&s;tance which he may receive from the premonitions of prudent men, who, many times, (although they are not lifted up to the dignity of &s;uch as &s;it at the Helm) yet have either by &s;tudy or ex|perience equal abilities with them.</P>
<P>And in the &s;econd <HI>(viz.)</HI> the application, when a private man &s;hall &s;tand by at the pleading or hearing a cau&s;e, he perceiving that the Judge carries him&s;elf partially to one &s;ide, and doth pa&s;s his &s;entence accordingly, this private man can|not chu&s;e but judge in his Soul, that this was a wicked &s;en|tence; As contrarily when it is ju&s;tly carried with indifference, he may judge with him&s;elf that this was a righteous judgment. But the intruding into the Office of a Judg is altogether unfit without a &s;pecial deputation to it But &s;ince God hath plea&s;ed to give man that mo&s;t excellent faculty of ratiocination both in Natural and Political affairs, he &s;hall de&s;ert humanity who &s;hould deny him&s;elf the exerci&s;e of that ability. Nay he may indeavour (if he can) to avert that execution of that &s;en|tence, when it is wickedly pronounced; as was the ca&s;e of <HI>Daniel,</HI> in the unrighteous &s;entence decreed upon <HI>Su&s;anna;</HI> but &s;till not to u&s;urp a judicatory power without lawful au|thority. But, even in the&s;e ca&s;es, there mu&s;t be left <HI>judici|um rationis</HI> and <HI>di&s;cretionis,</HI> a power of rea&s;on and judicial di&s;cretion to think upon and con&s;ider, what is right: but he &s;eems to deny that truth concerning the private actions of that particular man whether it &s;hall be good to do this or that; for &s;o he proceeds.</P>
</DIV3>
<PB N="191" REF="103">
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXIII. SECT. <HI>II.</HI> The former a&s;&s;ertion of private ratiocination further cleared in Acts commanded again&s;t the Law of Nature, or the po&s;itive Laws of God. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his ar|gument retorted again&s;t him&s;elf.</HEAD>
<P><HI>THis is true,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>in the condition of meer Nature, where there are no civil Laws; and al&s;o under civil govern|ment, in &s;uch ca&s;es as are not determined by the Law.</HI> Con&s;ider now, Reader, that by the Law, he under&s;tands here the civil Law. Con&s;ider then that the Laws of any Nation may be again&s;t the Law of Nature; in which ca&s;e he him&s;elf hath limited the power of civil Laws. A man is commanded by the National Law to act again&s;t the Law of Nature, &s;hall not this private man judge it unfit for him to do that? And without que&s;tion, in many particulars, the po|&s;itive Law of God in Scripture is as clear to many men, as that Law written in mens hearts; and therefore in &s;uch ca&s;es there is no doubt but as God hath imparted to men the pow|er of rea&s;oning, &s;o he hath given men Laws by which they &s;hould regulate them&s;elves according to his directions, &amp; they mu&s;t and ought to u&s;e that rea&s;on in the guidance of their actions by his rules. But then, concerning the civil Laws them&s;elves, a man may judge in private of them, whether they are prudential or no; yea, every man who is ver&s;ed in Politicks, will judg and think &s;o of them, and &s;ometimes judge they are not prudent, and yet give no di&s;turbance to the peace of the Kingdome: but think it more prudent to be &s;ubject to an imprudent Law, than for it to hinder the end of all Laws, which is the peace and quiet of the Kingdom. But now con&s;ider further, <HI>Turpe e&s;t doctori cum culpa redar|guit ip&s;um.</HI> He hath writ a book of Politie, he hath cen&s;u|red all the civil Laws in the World, he is a private man, and
<PB N="192" REF="104">
hath (I believe) no legi&s;lative power; why &s;hould he take upon him to forbid others to act that which he him&s;elf doth in that very place where he forbids them? And yet give me leave to add one Note more; this judging he &s;peaks of mu&s;t be about his Actions in the future, whether, what he is about to do will be a good or an evil action. Is it po&s;&s;ible for a man to live hone&s;tly and not to judge of &s;uch actions wherein there is any &s;cruple whether they are good or evil? Suppo&s;e the civil law (as he would have it) were the only rule to walk by; yet every private man mu&s;t 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 ca&s;es, find work enough for all the wit he hath to regulate him&s;elf ac|cording to that rule: and although he calls this the poy&s;on of a Common-wealth; yet I dare boldly &s;ay it is that bread which doth mo&s;t whole&s;omly nouri&s;h, &s;upport and maintain a Common-wealth, <HI>(viz.)</HI> that every man &s;hould con&s;ider and judge what is legal, and fit for him to do. Let us go on with him.</P>
</DIV3>
<PB N="193" REF="104">
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXIII. SECT. <HI>III.</HI> Of the rule of Actions. The Law of Nature, the mea&s;ure of humane Actions, in oppo&s;ition to the Civil Laws, where the ca&s;e is contradi&s;tinct. In|&s;tances of Civil Laws commanding unju&s;t things; If the Civil Law command any thing again&s;t the Di|vine Law, or the principles of Faith and Rea&s;on. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his arrogancy in venting principles contrary to the received opinion of the whole World noted and cen&s;ured. The ca&s;e &s;tated and determi|ned. Good Men obedient to bad Laws, not in acting according to them, but by &s;uffering the pe|nalties inflicted by them.</HEAD>
<P><HI>B&V;t</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>otherwi&s;e, it is manife&s;t, that the mea|&s;ure of good and evil actions, is the Civil Law; and the Judge the Legi&s;lator, who is alwaies repre&s;entative of the Common-wealth.</HI> Here are two Propo&s;itions, I &s;hall handle them apart, they are both indi&s;creet, and very im|pertinent to the Que&s;tion The fir&s;t is, that the Civil Law is the mea&s;ure of our Actions the mea&s;ure is in|definite without any limitation: what not the Law of Na|ture? &s;hall not that be a mea&s;ure? How &s;hall a man be able to commit Trea&s;on then <HI>&s;e defendendo</HI> again&s;t the Civil Law? (which is one of his popular Aphori&s;ms de|livered in many places of this Book:) for if the Civil Law be the mea&s;ure of his actions, he mu&s;t not violate that for the pretence of the Law of Nature: I urge this <HI>ad hominem</HI> as an invincible argument again&s;t his wicked doctrine, but &s;ee it overthrown out of mo&s;t received prin|ciples; It is po&s;&s;ible that the Civil Laws may be wicked
<PB N="194" REF="105">
and di&s;hone&s;t, and &s;o again&s;t the Law of God; as even in this Nation, they have made &s;acrilegious Laws; &s;hall not I judge in my &s;elf whether it be fit for me to act according to the&s;e Laws? The Law made in Queen <HI>Maries</HI> days which &s;hed &s;o much innocent blood, it was fit for every man in that time to &s;uffer rather than to con|&s;pire with them. And therefore he mu&s;t be judge him|&s;elf what is vertuous for him to do; and that Law is not a rule to guide him &s;afely by. Let this &s;uffice for the fir&s;t propo&s;ition. The &s;econd is, <HI>And the Judge is the le|gi&s;lator, who is alwaies repre&s;entative of the Common-wealth.</HI> What an impo&s;&s;ible Judge for &s;uch doubts is here deli|vered? Make the legi&s;lator what you will, King, or Senate or what you plea&s;e; The que&s;tion to be determined may be whether it is fit for <HI>Titius,</HI> at this hour or in&s;tant, to act according to this Civil law concerning which the &s;cruple ari&s;eth? whether it be not again&s;t the Divine law? the du|ty is in&s;tant, now required; It is not po&s;&s;ible for this man to obtain leave to enquire of the legi&s;lator; or if he could, is it not probable that the legi&s;lator may not be at lei&s;ure to an&s;wer &s;uch doubts? It cannot be therefore that the le|gi&s;lator can be a proper Judge of &s;uch que&s;tions; <HI>Titius</HI> alone mu&s;t do it him&s;elf: neither indeed is it po&s;&s;ible for any legi&s;lator to fore&s;ee all &s;uch particular &s;cruples which may ari&s;e out of general rules; and therefore there is a nece&s;&s;ity for every man to be judge of good and evil, concerning his own particular actions what he &s;hould do. But he reduceth great mi&s;haps and ill con&s;e|quences which follow upon this doctrine, which mu&s;t be examined. <HI>From this fal&s;e doctrine</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>men are di&s;po|&s;ed to debate with them&s;elves, and di&s;pute the commands of the Common-wealth.</HI> And why not, good Reader? There is no man that hath rea&s;on with him when he &s;tudyeth a Law-book, or indeed any other (be&s;ides the holy Scripture) but he con&s;iders whether that law or di&s;cour&s;e be agreeing to the principles of Faith and Rea&s;on, whether it be con&s;onant with equity: if a man have not his judgement free to him&s;elf, how comes is about that Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> hopes to pre|vail
<PB N="195" REF="105">
with his di&s;cour&s;e again&s;t all the laws in the Chri&s;tian World, but that he him&s;elf thinks there is a freedome of judgement left among&s;t men to determine by their rea&s;on what is good or evil? But then he adds, <HI>[And after|wards to obey, or di&s;obey them as in their private judgment they &s;hall think fit, whereby the Common-wealth is di&s;tracted and weakned.]</HI> Certainly every man living will obey or di&s;obey as he thinks fit; and this is done by vertuous and good men without di&s;tracting or weakning the Common-wealth. For if a vertuous man find the Civil law con|tradicting Gods law either in Nature or Scripture, he can|not think it good <HI>moraliter</HI> for him to act according to its direction. But his oppo&s;ing of an e&s;tabli&s;hed law &s;hall be with &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to the penalty, not contending marti|ally again&s;t it, for the accommodation of this pre&s;ent con|tented being, which is his doctrine; and by this means the Common-wealth will &s;uffer no di&s;traction, but rather confirmation and e&s;tabli&s;hment; when a mans private evil &s;hall be patiently endured, rather than the peace of a kingdom &s;hall be di&s;quieted. I &s;peak no more of this becau&s;e the &s;ence is much the &s;ame with that doctrine which he cen&s;ured next and condemns.</P>
</DIV3>
<PB N="196" REF="106">
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXIII. SECT. <HI>IV.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his propo&s;ition everted. Con&s;cience defi|ned and di&s;tingui&s;hed. Of conclu&s;ions &s;econdarily or remotely deduced from the fir&s;t principles. No con&s;cience properly and strictly erroneous, but being &s;uch (according to the vulgar acception of the phra&s;e) however obliges. The ca&s;e put upon the mi&s;interpreta|tion of Scripture, &s;uppo&s;ed to prohibite &s;wearing, though for the confirmation of a truth, and the er|ror a&s;&s;erted to be obliging. Two objections an&s;wered and the propo&s;ition fully cleared; our Saviours com|mand of not &s;wearing at all, examined, and eluci|dated. Of promi&s;&s;ory or a&s;&s;ertory Oaths. The para|graph and que&s;tion concluded.</HEAD>
<P><HI>ANother Doctrine repugnant to Civil Society, is, That what&s;oever a man doth again&s;t his Con&s;cience is &s;in, and it dependeth on the pre&s;umption of making him&s;elf Judge of good and evil.</HI> Certainly the propo&s;ition is true, what&s;oever a man doth again&s;t his Con&s;cience is &s;in; for Con&s;cience includes in its Name and Nature Science, &s;o that there can be no Con&s;cience, without there be a knowledg of the condition and circum&s;tances to which his Con&s;cience is applyed. I would be loth to involve my &s;elf into many intricate Que&s;tions. But intreat the Reader to con&s;ider, that Con&s;cience is the conclu&s;ion of a practical Syllogi&s;me, in which the Major is either the Act of a principal law of Nature, or &s;ome general rule equivalent to it. To un|der&s;tand this, ob&s;erve, that there are two innate qualities in man, which the Philo&s;ophers call, <HI>Habitus Principiorum,</HI> habits of principles which do &s;o evidence them&s;elves that
<PB N="197" REF="106">
no rational man doth hear &s;uch truths clearly delivered, but he pre&s;ently a&s;&s;ents to them: that which is about &s;peculative things they term <HI>intellectus,</HI> becau&s;e it is in the prime operation of the under&s;tanding; of which Nature are the&s;e, That the whole is greater than a part; two and two make four: There is no man that heareth &s;uch propo|&s;itions clearly delivered who doth not pre&s;ently a&s;&s;ent to them. There is another quality which is called by them <HI>Syntere&s;is,</HI> which is the habit by which we readily a&s;&s;ent to practical things, as in the other to &s;peculative, of which Nature are the&s;e; That good is de&s;irable, evil to be e&s;chewed; God is to be obeyed in his commands, and the like. Now there is no man, who, as &s;oon as he hears the&s;e Axiomes clearly delivered, but doth without ambi|guity pre&s;ently yield an a&s;&s;ent to them. Out of the&s;e prin|ciples when a man makes true collections and deductions, that conclu&s;ion is Con&s;cience, as thus:</P>
<P>All evil is to be e&s;chewed;</P>
<P>Adultery is evil;</P>
<P>Therefore Adultery is to be e&s;chewed.</P>
<P>Such a man who thus argues, acts again&s;t his Con&s;ci|ence when he commits Adultery. But not only &s;o when a conclu&s;ion is immediately deduced out of <HI>Syntere&s;is;</HI> but that which is more remotely deduced out of it; as take the conclu&s;ion of the former &s;yllogi&s;me;</P>
<P>Adultery is to be e&s;chewed:</P>
<P>This particular Act, with this forbidden Woman, is A|dultery.</P>
<P>Therefore this is to be e&s;chewed.</P>
<P>Sure he who commits that &s;in acts again&s;t his Con&s;cience, and &s;o as far as any man can go, with right arguing, &s;o far his Con&s;cience obligeth him Now if we would ar|gue from &s;trong rea&s;on, a man may &s;ay, there is no &s;uch thing as an erroneous Con&s;cience, becau&s;e if it be not Science, it cannot be Con&s;cience, which &s;uppo&s;eth Science and a right drawing out the Conclu&s;ion, which proceeds from the&s;e evident principles; and then mo&s;t certainly Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> mu&s;t be in the wrong, who affirms that it is
<PB N="198" REF="107">
not &s;in to act again&s;t his Con&s;cience. But let us take Con&s;cience as in the u&s;ual way it is taken, not for the con|clu&s;ion of a direct and certain arguing, from the&s;e known and evident principles, (of which before:) but for that conclu&s;ion which any man, according to his ability, draws out of the&s;e principles although mi&s;taken, and not logi|cally or truly done. (I under&s;tand not by this word [logi|cally] the art of logick, but that natural ratiocination, of which the artificial is an a&s;&s;i&s;tant only.) Well then, the que&s;tion is, whether that a man who acts again&s;t that light which he hath, that &s;hews him this particular is unlawful, is &s;in in him who &s;o acts, although this light be not a true but a bare &s;hew of Con&s;cience; and not true Science, or deduction which mu&s;t be drawn from the principles of <HI>Syntere&s;is</HI> by true ratiocination? And certainly the opinion is mo&s;t right and true, and founded upon the &s;tronge&s;t principles of rea&s;on that can be. For it is a mo&s;t un|doubted Axiom which he hath delivered, that laws bind only by the force of their &s;ufficient promulgation. So that if they are made only, they exact no obedience until they be pro|claimed; nor then, unle&s;s the Proclamation be &s;uch as the obliged party may take notice of it; for no man can be bound to that which he cannot know; he cannot obey, unle&s;s he know what to obey; nor can he know, unle&s;s he have a Revelation to &s;hew it him; &s;o that, with|out que&s;tion, the very law of Nature could not bind, but that there is a <HI>Syntere&s;is</HI> that enlightens mans Soul, and makes the goodne&s;s of that law manife&s;t. Well then, this man mu&s;t needs &s;in who acts again&s;t that light he hath: put that ca&s;e which is common among&s;t us, A man by mi&s;under|&s;tanding the Scriptures thinks that they command him, not to &s;wear: therefore when he is convented before a Judge to atte&s;t a truth by that mo&s;t religious act, of calling God to witne&s;s what he &s;aith to be true, or to puni&s;h him, if it be fal&s;e; if this man &s;o conceive the&s;e places of Scripture, as if they &s;hould render his &s;wearing in any ca&s;e unlawful, if he do &s;wear, he &s;ins again&s;t that light he hath, and it may mo&s;t ju&s;tly be imputed to him for &s;in: for he who thinks, and believes it is the law of God which prohibits it, and
<PB N="199" REF="107">
yet will do otherwi&s;e, prefers men before God, this world before the other, which is the fountain from whence all ini|quity proceeds.</P>
<P>I know but two objections of any moment, which can be made again&s;t this conclu&s;ion, which I &s;hall &s;atisfie pre&s;ently. The fir&s;t is, if a man doth &s;in in acting again&s;t his erroneous Con&s;cience, then a man may &s;in in acting ac|cording to Gods commandements; becau&s;e that he may mi&s;take Gods command, and in doing &s;o when he acts ac|cording to the true meaning of Gods command he mu&s;t &s;in: which may &s;eem mo&s;t &s;trange at the fir&s;t view.</P>
<P>For an&s;wer I will con&s;ider this Phra&s;e, <HI>Act according to Gods command.</HI> To under&s;tand this know that he who o|beys <HI>Gods commands,</HI> mu&s;t do it as a man <HI>&s;cienter</HI> know|ingly. A man cannot pretend to obedience in any act which is done by chance, or ignorantly. Such acts there|fore which are done when a man thinks otherwi&s;e of the Law of God or the principles of the Law of Nature, than the truth is, though he do the Acts materially di|rected by them; yet erring in the principles which God hath given him for his guide (I mean the light of his un|der&s;tanding which &s;hould &s;hew him the vvay) he doth not act them formally vvell; he doth <HI>bonum,</HI> but not <HI>bene,</HI> a good act but not well, <HI>according to Gods law formally.</HI> As for a man to do a good act vvell, requires a completion of all circum&s;tances, he mu&s;t do it for a right end. In which fir&s;t qualification the erroneous man who acts again&s;t the light of his <HI>Syntere&s;is,</HI> mu&s;t needs mi&s;carry, becau&s;e he cannot think he acts for the glory of God, vvhen he thinks contrary to the revealed will of God: and indeed it might be &s;hevved hovv he erres in every circum&s;tance, <HI>Quis, Quid, Cui, Cur, Quomodo, Quando, (Quis.)</HI> What? the Creature go again&s;t the revealed will of the Creator?. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> But I de&s;i&s;t, the re&s;t are obvious. Well then, I an&s;wer this ob|jection, that he who acts the thing commanded again&s;t his erroneous Con&s;cience, although he do that vvhich is ma|terially good, yet in not doing it vvell he &s;ins.</P>
<P>The &s;econd objection is, that if he vvho hath an erro|neous
<PB N="200" REF="108">
Con&s;cience mu&s;t not act again&s;t it, &s;uch a man is ne|ce&s;&s;itated to &s;in; for he mu&s;t either act according to his Con&s;cience or again&s;t it; in either of which he &s;ins, as in the in&s;tance before given; A man who&s;e Con&s;cience tells him that he may not &s;wear, this man is brought before a Judge to give evidence in a Cau&s;e of moment, if he do it, or not do it, he &s;ins: but &s;urely the Nature of &s;in is &s;uch, that it is impo&s;&s;ible to &s;in in any act which he cannot choo&s;e but doe; for &s;in &s;uppo&s;eth a po&s;&s;ibility not to &s;in.</P>
<P>For an&s;wer to this I &s;hall &s;ay, that there is no impo&s;&s;ibi|lity in the ca&s;e propo&s;ed, for that man may lay a&s;ide his er|rour and con&s;ider that God hath given a command to &s;wear by his Name, <HI>Deut.</HI> 6.13. and el&s;ewhere; the words there are, <HI>thou &s;halt fear the Lord thy God and &s;erve him and &s;wear by his Name.</HI> Not that he commands us to &s;wear, but &s;uppo&s;ing &s;wearing to be nece&s;&s;ary in all politiques for the deciding controver&s;ies, he commands that when we &s;wear, we &s;hould &s;wear by his Name, becau&s;e it is a re|ligious act, and ought to be referred to none but him&s;elf only; yea God him&s;elf hath &s;worn, <HI>Gen.</HI> 22.16. <HI>By my &s;elf I have &s;worn, &s;aith the Lord,</HI> &s;o like wi&s;e <HI>P&s;alm</HI> 100.4. <HI>The Lord hath &s;worn,</HI> and many like places. It cannot therefore be ill in it &s;elf to &s;wear, nor can we think it a priviledge or prerogative of Gods to &s;wear: Holy men in all ages have done it: for you may find <HI>Abraham</HI> divers times, as <HI>Gen</HI> 21.22. <HI>He &s;ware in the Covenant with A|bimelech.</HI> So likewi&s;e <HI>I&s;aac,</HI> either with the &s;ame or ano|ther <HI>Abimelech, Gen.</HI> 26.31. I need not name more pla|ces of the &s;ame Nature. But to what&s;oever may be ob|jected of this kind out of the Old Te&s;tament, the&s;e may reply, that our Saviour hath in&s;tituted a New Law (<HI>Mat.</HI> 5.33.) where in the 34 <HI>ver&s;e</HI> he &s;aith, <HI>But I &s;ay unto you, &s;wear not at all;</HI> It is true he &s;o requires them. But let us con&s;ider that St. <HI>Paul</HI> (who&s;e life and actions after his con|ver&s;ion are &s;o eminently excellent, and without blame) di|ver&s;e time &s;wears, yea in his Epi&s;tles, which were a greater fault than in ordinary di&s;cour&s;e, becau&s;e 'twas done upon
<PB N="201" REF="108">
con&s;ideration. Nay, in tho&s;e Epi&s;tles which he was directed by the Holy Gho&s;t to write, for the good of the Church of Chri&s;t. So you may ob&s;erve <HI>Rom</HI> 1.9. God is my wit|ne&s;s: &s;o likewi&s;e, 2. <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.23. I call God for record upon my Soul. <HI>Phil</HI> 1.8. God is my record. And now it is not po&s;&s;ible for any man to think, that &s;o vertuous a man in a premeditated act, as an Epi&s;tle writ for a publick good, and in that act, guided by the holy Gho&s;t, &s;hould commit a &s;in again&s;t that Chri&s;t, who&s;e Go&s;pel and Laws he preach|ed and taught every where, with hazard of his life, if that Law were to be under&s;tood in that latitude and ex|tent in which it is taken. Any man who con&s;iders this, mu&s;t needs ca&s;t about to &s;ee, if learned men, (who through|out the whole Chri&s;tian World have practi&s;ed with St. <HI>Paul</HI>) have given any &s;uch expo&s;ition upon the&s;e words of our Saviour as may con&s;i&s;t with the univer&s;al practice of mankind, and doing that he may find this fully explained &s;o, as fit to &s;hew our Saviours de&s;ign, which was not in this to controul the practice of his &s;ervants. The diffi|culty will lye in the&s;e two Phra&s;es, the Negative in the (34) <HI>ver&s;e,</HI> and the Affirmative in the (37) <HI>ver&s;e.</HI> Fir&s;t for the Negative, <HI>&s;weare not at all;</HI> to apprehend this con&s;ider, that the&s;e univer&s;al, as al&s;o indefinite terms are with much caution to be extended, and to be expounded in Scripture according to that con&s;ent they have with other places, and the Analogie of Faith. In the 21 <HI>ver&s;e</HI> of this 5 <HI>Chap.</HI> of St. <HI>Matthew,</HI> it is &s;aid, <HI>thou &s;halt not kill,</HI> and le&s;t &s;ome &s;hould &s;ay, there is no univer&s;al &s;ign preceding as in my Text, con&s;ider the following words which make it as large as this in my Text, <HI>Who&s;oever killeth &s;hall be in dan|ger of the judgement.</HI> And yet &s;urely it is lawful for an Executioner to hang according to the Law of the Land, and &s;o to kill any man who is condemned, when he hath re|ceived a command to do it. So likewi&s;e it is lawful for a Souldier in defence of his Country, and for any private man to kill any private man in defence of him&s;elf. So likewi&s;e the &s;ame we may &s;ay of our Saviours words, <HI>John</HI> 10. and the 8. All that ever came before me, were
<PB N="202" REF="109">
Thieves and Robbers. Here are as full and large words as po&s;&s;ibly can be; but a man may &s;ay, what were the Pa|triarchs, the Prophets, and St. <HI>John</HI> the Bapti&s;t Thieves and Robbers? Certainly no; it is ea&s;ie to ob&s;erve many more of the like Nature, and I think one an&s;wer will &s;erve them all; thou &s;halt not kill voluntarily, but upon nece&s;&s;ity, or command, (that is) a Natural or Moral nece&s;&s;ity, for a command from lawful Superiours introduceth a Moral ne|ce&s;&s;itie of obeying. And &s;o for that in St. <HI>Iohn,</HI> all that came of them&s;elves, un&s;ent by God, were Thieves and Robbers. But <HI>Iohn</HI> the Bapti&s;t, the Patriarchs, and the Prophets were men &s;ent from God. And &s;o for tho&s;e Swearers, &s;wear not all, that is, of your &s;elves, unle&s;s you are commanded by Superiour Powers, unle&s;s to confirm &s;ome great and con&s;iderable truth; which way all vertu|ous and holy men have ever under&s;tood this Text, as their practice a&s;&s;ures us; and &s;o that place in St <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ames</HI> the 5. mu&s;t abide the &s;ame expo&s;ition. And although much more may be &s;aid for the expo&s;ition of thi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> Negative command of our Saviours; yet I conceive that this is &s;ufficient, and &s;o pa&s;s to the Affirmative precept in the (37) <HI>ver&s;e, But let your communication be yea, yea, nay, nay, for what&s;oever is more than the&s;e cometh of evil.</HI> Here it <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">eems that as our Saviour before forbad &s;wearing by his Negative, <HI>&s;wear not at all,</HI> &s;o here he in&s;inuates the &s;ame by his Affirmative, <HI>but let your communication be yea, yea, and nay, nay;</HI> and he gives a rea&s;on for it, for what is more than the&s;e com|eth of evil. Thus the Argument being enforced, I an&s;wer clearly, that in the Tran&s;lation of the Engli&s;h there is a full glo&s;s upon the Text which expounds it clearly; for &s;o it is read <HI>[let your communication]</HI> which intimates that their com|mon conver&s;ation &s;hould not be powdred with Oathes, which is far di&s;tant from tho&s;e ju&s;t occa&s;ions where oathes are exacted by the commands of Superiours, or the ur|gency of &s;ome great and weighty bu&s;ine&s;s which needs a &s;trong affirmation to a&s;&s;ure the credulity of it; and the O|riginal which is (<GAP DESC="foreign">) enforceth no more but let your Speech be yea, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> And the rea&s;on which is added in the
<PB N="203" REF="109">
Text makes this interpretation good (for what is more than the&s;e cometh of evil;) it is not &s;in, <HI>it is not Evil, but cometh of Evil;</HI> which is evident, for no man &s;wears in conver&s;ation, but either becau&s;e he doubts his own repu|tation, if he do not &s;wear, or becau&s;e other men are di|&s;tru&s;tful, both which ari&s;e out of the evil of humane fal&s;|hood, which makes him apt to lye. This Text being thu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> opened let us con&s;ider what will re&s;ult out of it, in the Negative fir&s;t, and then out of the Affirmative pre|cept; In the Negative we may find that it is oppo&s;ed to a practice of the Jews, who (by &s;ome tradition or other) imagined that it was no &s;in to &s;wear, but to &s;wear fal&s;ly on|ly. So that if a man performed his promi&s;e which he &s;wore he would do, it was no &s;in; and it &s;eems there|fore to be &s;poken only of promi&s;&s;ory Oaths, not of &s;uch which were made to give Te&s;timony of matters of fact; if &s;o, then there is no prohibition of &s;uch Oaths which are for the deci&s;ion of controver&s;ies, commonly called A&s;&s;ertory Oaths; and then again, it may ju&s;tly be con|ceived, that they (that is the Jews) thought (out of &s;ome tradition or other) that it was only unlawful to &s;wear by God but not by the Creature, for our Saviours in&s;tan|ces are only in them, <HI>Thou &s;halt not &s;wear by Heaven, by Earth, by Ieru&s;alem, by the Gold of the Altar, or thy Head.</HI> Which he &s;heweth relatively to reach even the Creator him&s;elf: &s;o that for the&s;e con&s;iderations it mu&s;t be under|&s;tood that it excludes not a&s;&s;ertory Oaths vvhich decide controver&s;ies, that it extends not to &s;uch Oaths vvhere God is religiou&s;ly called to witne&s;s any thing. And then for the &s;econd the affirmative precept, it reacheth to our Communication and common conference one with another, that Gods mo&s;t Sacred Name be not &s;lightly or in vain taken by us; but that either &s;ome great bu&s;ine&s;s more than ordinary, or el&s;e &s;ome &s;upreme power mu&s;t exact it from us. So then this being thus expounded, it mu&s;t needs appear that in this ca&s;e, a man may ju&s;tly depo&s;e his errour, and he cannot be nece&s;&s;itated to &s;in, when he hath an er|rour in his Con&s;cience. And truly it is an excellent rule
<PB N="204" REF="110">
for the practice of a mans life, when he &s;hall find a ge|neral practice of good and holy men in all Ages to practi&s;e any thing which he is offended at, to &s;uppre&s;s that aver&s;e|ne&s;s in him&s;elf, and with &s;tudy and pains to ca&s;t about which way he may reconcile him&s;elf to that common practice, and not without &s;trong and evident grounds (which will hardly be po&s;&s;ible) oppo&s;e that which the uni|ver&s;al practice makes us know, that the univer&s;al Church un|der&s;tood as they practi&s;ed; for if there be an Error in &s;uch a practice, a man may find &s;omething to excu&s;e him&s;elf with <HI>er|ravimus cum patribus;</HI> but in the other, nothing but pride and &s;elf conceipt, which makes him oppo&s;e the&s;e pra|ctices: and &s;urely in the&s;e ca&s;es it is a &s;afe rule for any man when he finds a place of Scripture which &s;eemingly oppo&s;eth the univer&s;al doctrine of the Church, which is and hath been &s;o heretofore, to look about how that Scripture may be expounded according to the Analogy of faith and good manners or u&s;age of the Catholick Church, which then mu&s;t be the &s;en&s;e, and the other (though more apparent at the fir&s;t) not the true meaning; and by this means he &s;hall not act contrary to his Con&s;cience, but if he do, he mu&s;t &s;in.</P>
</DIV3>
<PB N="205" REF="110">
<DIV3 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXIII. SECT. <HI>V.</HI> Every man Judge of his own Actions, whether accord|ing to the po&s;itive Divine Laws, or the Law of Nature. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his con&s;equencies ob&s;erved and cen&s;ured. His ab&s;urd expre&s;&s;ion of a publick Con&s;cience rejected. Opinion and Con&s;cience di&s;tin|gui&s;hed. Thoughts not po&s;&s;ibly to be regulated by humane Laws. The external manage of Opinion. The proper &s;ubject of Regulation. The nece&s;&s;ity of di&s;traction from diver&s;ity of Opinions unle&s;s ob|truded upon others. This Argument retorted <HI>ad hominem.</HI></HEAD>
<P>HE proceeds, <HI>And it dependeth on the pre&s;umption of making him&s;elf Judge of good and evil.</HI> It doth (&s;ay I) for &s;o every man will be, in what concerns his own practice; and mu&s;t needs be &s;o, for el&s;e how can he judge that he doth right or no unle&s;s he may judge it? and if there were no Law but what he &s;peaks of, the Ci|vil, he mu&s;t judge whether his actions be according to that or no when he acts: But Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> acknowledgeth a &s;uperiour Law to that, to wit, the Law of Nature, and I have &s;hewed another the po&s;itive Law of God, and he mu&s;t in both the&s;e u&s;e <HI>judicium privatum,</HI> his private judge|ment, whether his actions accord or no with the&s;e &s;upe|riour Laws. Now in all the&s;e he mu&s;t judge and be re|&s;pon&s;ible for that judgement, whether he judge by &s;uch rules as ought to guide a prudent man: but he gives a rea&s;on for what he &s;peaks, <HI>for a mans Con&s;cience and his Judgement is the &s;ame thing: and as the judgement, &s;o al&s;o the Con&s;cience may be erroneous.</HI>
<PB N="206" REF="111">
This doth not follow, becau&s;e he may erre therefore he &s;hould not be guided by it. A man may have a fal&s;e light &s;hewed, or his eyes may be weak, as our eyes, who are old men, are; mu&s;t he therefore not make u&s;e of that light and &s;ight which he hath? Nay rather he mu&s;t be more careful in the diligent u&s;ing of his eyes, and more &s;eriou&s;ly examining the light which is offered to them. But in all the&s;e offers of rea&s;on which he makes in this Ca&s;e, they may be applyed to that judgement which he mu&s;t make concerning the Law of Nature, or the Civil Law (which he allows a man mu&s;t judge) whether his acti|ons be according to them, and what is the meaning of them as well as what is the meaning of the po&s;itive Law of God, and he mu&s;t and will, if he be a vertuous man, act accordingly. <HI>Therefore</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>though he that is &s;ubject to no Civil Law, &s;inneth in all he doth again&s;t his Con&s;cience, becau&s;e he hath no other rule to follow but his own rea&s;on; yet it is not &s;o with him that lives in a Com|mon-wealth, becau&s;e the Law is the publick Con&s;cience, by which he hath already undertaken to be guided.</HI> I cannot find how to apply this di&s;cour&s;e clo&s;ely to the que&s;tion, for he who is not imbodied in a Common-wealth (&s;aith he) is ruled by his rea&s;on, (but hark you) that rea&s;on ought to be ruled by the Law of Nature, according to his own doctrine; and according to mine, by what&s;oever is a known po&s;itive Law of God. Likewi&s;e, although there is no Civil Law. And I will tell him farther that no Ci|vil or Politick Law can have power to bind him to the breach of any of the&s;e, and therefore what he &s;peaks of a publick Con&s;cience is an unheard of Language, and not pro|per to be applyed to Con&s;cience, and mo&s;t undoubtedly only educeable out of that before unheard of, and mo&s;t im|po&s;&s;ible principle of con&s;tituting a &s;upreme, which hath been abundantly confuted in my former di&s;cour&s;es. Let the Reader take notice that I am now in page the (169.) <HI>(Otherwi&s;e in &s;uch diver&s;ity as there is of private. Con&s;ci|ences, which are but private Opinions, the Common-wealth mu&s;t needs be di&s;tracted, and no man dare to obey the &s;o|veraign
<PB N="207" REF="111">
power farther than it &s;hall &s;eem good in his own eyes.)</HI> In this clau&s;e he &s;ets down the mi&s;chiefs (as he thinks) which may happen to a Common-wealth by di|ver&s;ities of Con&s;ciences, or Opinions. But before I pro|ceed I will take notice of a mi&s;take whereof he is guilty, when he &s;aith, <HI>That private Con&s;ciences are but private O|pinions.</HI> To this I &s;ay there may be &s;uch Con&s;ciences which ari&s;e only out of private Opinions, which ought to be over&s;wayed with the greater weight of publick Au|thority: but there are other Con&s;ciences which are drawn out of the evident Law of Nature, or clear text of Scrip|ture; the&s;e are &s;o &s;trong foundations to build Con&s;cience upon, that a Con&s;cience erected upon one or both of them cannot be &s;haken, by that which he calls a publick Con&s;cience: how&s;oever, it is an improper Phra&s;e u&s;ed by him to call Con&s;cience, Opinion, or Science; for it is ra|ther a Conclu&s;ion deduced out of either, as I have &s;hew|ed. But then when he is angry in the&s;e Politicks with di|ver&s;ities of Con&s;ciences or Opinions (as he terms them) I would fain have him con&s;ider, how any Common-wealth &s;hould be able to make a Law to regulate mens thoughts, for they can judge of them only by outward acts, it is on|ly God who can &s;earch the hearts and reins, and therefore he only can make Laws for them. Men may confine the external manage of Opinions and Con&s;ciences, which is fit the legi&s;lative &s;hould do, in all &s;uch things which might impede or trouble the well government of a Common-wealth, and puni&s;h the expre&s;&s;ion of them: but let all the power in the World make what Laws they can, men will think what appears mo&s;t rea&s;onable to their under|&s;tandings: thoughts are far from the controul of any <HI>Le|viathan</HI> wha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;oever. And although it is true in &s;ome part, that di&s;tractions in Common-wealths ari&s;e from di|ver&s;ity of Opinions; yet it is not true what he &s;aith, the Common wealth mu&s;t needs be di&s;tracted by them; for &s;o long as they are but Opinions, they do no harm but to tho&s;e Per&s;ons who have them; but if they ju&s;tify their Opinions to the withdrawing others or them&s;elves from
<PB N="208" REF="112">
obedience than they are dangerous. And therefore the <HI>Le|viathan</HI> although he cannot know mens Con&s;ciences, and therefore not judge of them, mu&s;t not make Laws for them: yet becau&s;e he can know and judge of the out|ward act, which may di&s;turb the peace, he mu&s;t be &s;evere both in making Laws again&s;t, and puni&s;hing tho&s;e faults: yet I cannot chu&s;e but wonder, how he who dares pub|li&s;h &s;o many doctrines again&s;t all the <HI>Leviathans</HI> in the World, &s;hould not allow others the liberty of thinking a|gain&s;t them.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXIII. SECT. <HI>VI.</HI> Faith and &s;anctity both in&s;pired and acquired. Free|will and grace co-operating to the &s;alvation of Men. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his Arguments again&s;t this Opinion re|futed. Faith and &s;anctity entitle not any man to go|vernment. The means of &s;alvation mo&s;t certain. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his Arguments again&s;t the former a&s;&s;ertion retorted.</HEAD>
<P>HE proceeds in another Paragraph, <HI>It hath been al&s;o commonly taught, that faith and &s;anctity are not to be attained by &s;tudy and rea&s;on, but by &s;upernatural in&s;pira|tion or infu&s;ion.</HI> I will not trouble my &s;elf to turn Au|thours where to find a defender of this propo&s;ition, but &s;et down my judgement and then an&s;wer his cavil at it: my judgement is, that faith and &s;anctity are both in&s;pi|red and acquired; faith is the Gift of God, as the A|po&s;tle &s;peaketh, <HI>Eph.</HI> 2.8. &s;o likewi&s;e &s;anctification, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.30. and yet they are acquired; and in the Parable of the Talents <HI>Mat.</HI> 25. we may ob&s;erve, that the u&s;e of Gods gifts is ble&s;&s;ed by Almighty God with a further en|largement; multitudes of Scriptures might be produced,
<PB N="209" REF="112">
which would but dull the Reader. So that in this ca&s;e it is no otherwi&s;e than it is with almo&s;t all the affairs in the World; neither the gra&s;s, nor the plants grow without light and influence from the Heavens; nor can the Hea|vens make them grow unle&s;s there be a &s;pecifical vertue in the Plant to adapt that influence to that particular opera|tion which is in it. Neither can the Heavens without the Earth, nor the Earth without the Heavens, bring forth the lea&s;t fruit, according to that Heavenly &s;peech of St. <HI>Ber|nard, Table liberum arbitrium, non erit quod &s;alvetur; Tolle gratiam, non erit unde.</HI> Take away free choice, and there will be nothing which can be &s;aved (for no inferiour thing without that faculty is capable of Heaven, that being like the &s;pecifical vertue of Plants which co-operates with the general influence from above:) but take away grace there is no means by which the&s;e &s;upernatural acts &s;hould be performed; that being the influence by which it is en|abled to produce the&s;e ble&s;&s;ed acts of faith and &s;anctity. So that I &s;ay, faith and &s;anctity are both infu&s;ed and acquired. Now we will inquire into his exceptions again&s;t the ab|&s;urdity of this opinion (as he conceives,) [<HI>which granted,</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>I &s;ee not why any man &s;hould render a rea&s;on of his faith.]</HI> If the Opinion were, as he &s;ets it down, I can tell him why? that is for the &s;atisfaction of others: but he goes on, <HI>Or why, every Chri&s;tian &s;hould not be al&s;o a Prophet.</HI> I will tell him, becau&s;e faith and &s;anctity, and prophecy are divers things, which may and do oft exi&s;t apart; and therefore one of them may be, and is oft with|out the other. Again he &s;aith, <HI>Or why any man &s;hould take the Law of his Country rather than his own in&s;piration, for the rule of his actions.</HI> I an&s;wer, becau&s;e there are many vain &s;ugge&s;tions into the Soul of Man, which are often apt to per&s;wade a man that they are in&s;pirations by God; and therefore we are commanded to try the Spirits, and ex|amine tho&s;e &s;ugge&s;tions whether they agree with &s;uch &s;tand|ing rules which ought to guide our actions, among&s;t which the National law is one. He goes on, <HI>And thus</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>we fall again into the fault of taking upon us to judge of good
<PB N="210" REF="113">
and evil.</HI> I an&s;wer as before, there is no man but will judge of good and evil, if he be an hone&s;t man and guide his actions by that judgement, but yet as a private man, if he be &s;uch He again, <HI>[Or to make Judges of it, &s;uch private men as pretend to be &s;upernaturally in&s;pired, to the di&s;&s;olution of all Civil Government.]</HI> I &s;ee no con&s;equence in this, for although a man may be in&s;pired, and can know he is &s;o; yet that in&s;piration can only &s;erve his own turn, un|le&s;s he can produce arguments to make me a&s;&s;ured of it likewi&s;e; and then although a man may be in&s;pired with faith and &s;anctity, which is the matter in di&s;pute; yet that hath nothing to do with the direction of any other mans actions, unle&s;s he can produce &s;ome urging argument to a&s;&s;ure us that he is in&s;pired, with authority to direct us, which anothers faith and &s;anctity cannot do; for men may be faithful and holy, and yet have no Authority to govern. He goes on thus, to &s;hew by di&s;cour&s;e that faith and &s;anctity are not infu&s;ed thus <HI>[Faith comes by hear|ing, and hearing by tho&s;e accidents which guides us, into the pre&s;ence of them who &s;peak to us.]</HI> Faith comes by hearing, but it is by hearing the word of God, which is <HI>Vehi|culum Spiritus,</HI> and brings the Spirit with it; for certain|ly as Heaven is more nece&s;&s;ary to us, and of greater con|&s;equence than all the things of this world; &s;o the means of obtaining it are, without doubt, more certain than any thing in the world. And therefore faith, and the means of getting faith which is mo&s;t ordinately by hearing, and no doubt but reading likewi&s;e, which are the means by which men may be acquainted with the will of God; &s;o likewi&s;e [<HI>hearing comes by tho&s;e accidents</HI> (as he &s;peaks rightly) <HI>which guide us into the pre&s;ence of them that &s;peak to us.]</HI> What can be deduced out of this, but that a man u&s;ing &s;uch means as hearing, and &s;uch accidents as bring him into that pre&s;ence; God ble&s;&s;eth them and pours into them tho&s;e graces which enable them with faith and &s;ancti|fication. I but (&s;aith he) <HI>which accidents are all contri|ved by God Almighty; and yet are not &s;upernatural, but only, for the great number of them that concurr to every effect,
<PB N="211" REF="113">
unob&s;ervable.]</HI> All this is nothing to the purpo&s;e, that is, to prove that faith and &s;anctity are not infu&s;ed: for whe|ther God contrives tho&s;e means, or man, which beget faith, or whether tho&s;e means which bring us to hearing be natural, or &s;upernatural, yet God ble&s;&s;eth them; our eyes are natural which &s;ee it; our ears are natural which hear tho&s;e things, which bring us to faith and &s;anctity; yea our under&s;tanding is natural which apprehends them, but God ble&s;&s;eth both the one and the other (as his ho|ly will hath appointed) with &s;upernatural graces. He goes on. <HI>[Faith, and Sanctity, are indeed not very frequent.]</HI> Let that be granted: <HI>[but yet they are not Miracles.]</HI> And that is true likewi&s;e, for Miracles, as they are &s;upernatu|ral, &s;o they are things beyond the ordinate and &s;et way of Gods working; which the&s;e holy operations of his are not, but mo&s;t congruous to his &s;et and pre&s;cribed way of acting them, upon &s;uch productions according to his Covenants. He proceeds <HI>[but are brought to pa&s;s by education, di&s;cipline, correction, and other natural wayes, by which God worketh them in his elect, at &s;uch time as he thinketh fit]</HI> It is true; and yet the&s;e are wayes of Gods pre&s;cribing, and which he ble&s;&s;eth; therefore he adds <HI>[And the&s;e three O|pinions, pernicious to Peace and Government, have in this part of the World proceeded chiefly from the Tongues and Pens of unlearned divines; who joyning the words of holy Scripture together otherwi&s;e than is agreeable to rea&s;on, do what they can, to make men think, that &s;anctity, and natu|ral rea&s;on cannot &s;tand together.]</HI> Give me leave, Reader, to retort this di&s;cour&s;e to his Per&s;on, who not long &s;ince in the 26 <HI>Chap.</HI> page 149. maketh faith not a duty, but a gift of God, and &s;aith <HI>it is barely an operation of God's, as likewi&s;e internal &s;anctity.</HI> And there put me to the trouble of proving mans concurrence in the&s;e acts; and I may a&s;&s;uredly affirm, that he is there exceeding guilty of what he chargeth ignorant Divines with here, <HI>(viz.)</HI> incongru|ous putting places of Scripture together, and as much as in him lies to make men believe that &s;anctity and natural rea&s;on cannot &s;tand together; for if faith be only a
<PB N="212" REF="114">
gift and no act in the receiver, or u&s;e of it, <HI>in&s;omuch as no command can be given concerning that or &s;anctity,</HI> as he &s;peaks there, certainly natural rea&s;on hath nothing to do with it; and as there I was forced to prove the concur|rence of man in the&s;e Heavenly duties, &s;o here to ju&s;tifie his former doctrine, I mu&s;t prove the co-operation of God which he &s;eems to deny. Let the Reader put that with this, and he &s;hall find the affirmative part true, and the negative fal&s;e in both.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXIII. SECT. <HI>VII.</HI> Soveraigns obliged by the po&s;itive Laws of God. The Laws of Nations, The Law Natural, The Royal Laws, or Laws of government obligatory to the &s;overaign. The &s;overaign free from penal Laws.</HEAD>
<P>A <HI>Fourth opinion, repugnant to the Nature of a Com|mon-wealth, is this, That he that hath the &s;overaign power is &s;ubject to the Civil Laws.</HI> Truly I conceive by this Gentleman that he imagines. Soveraigns to be &s;trange things, which mu&s;t be <HI>&s;ubject to none, but the Law of Na|ture,</HI> for &s;o he expounds it pre&s;ently, not to the po&s;itive Law of God, which having (by him) no a&s;&s;urance that it is &s;uch, but from the &s;upreme, he can no further be ob|liged by it, than he plea&s;eth. And &s;o that Devili&s;h &s;peech of that wicked woman to her imperial Son, would be made good, <HI>Quod libet, licet.</HI> But this term <HI>[Subject]</HI> troubles me to find out what he means thereby, if he mean not, to be guided by it, or el&s;e he offends; without all doubt he ought to be ruled by the po&s;itive Law of God, and not only by the Natural Law, he ought to be ruled, that is, guided by his own Civil Laws, which he hath made, or given life unto. For how can he expect an ob&s;ervance from others, who will not keep his Laws him&s;elf? But if
<PB N="213" REF="114">
he means by <HI>Subject,</HI> &s;ubject to penalty; that cannot be, I am confident, in a well contrived Common-wealth; be|cau&s;e all penalty for breach intimates an inferiority, and as he rightly &s;peaks aftewards, <HI>He who puni&s;heth, either bo|dily, or with &s;hame, or with what&s;oever, is in that act &s;upe|rior to him who is puni&s;hed.</HI> But his di&s;pute is out of his own principles, which have been twenty times confuted, that is, <HI>He that is &s;ubject to the Law, is &s;ubject to the Common-wealth, that is, to the Soveraign repre&s;entative, that is, to him&s;elf.</HI> This is a weak argument becau&s;e he is not the repre&s;entative of the Common-wealth, but the head, and rules it. One word more, there may be Laws in a Common-wealth for Kings, and for Subjects, he mu&s;t be guided by the&s;e which are the Royal Laws, the Laws of governing, although not by the&s;e which are inferiour, and Laws for Subjects; he mu&s;t be allow|ed tho&s;e prerogatives which are not fit for Subjects to have: But yet he ought to ob&s;erve the rules of govern|ing. This, I conceive, is enough for what he hath de|livered in that Paragraph. He begins another thus.</P>
</DIV3>
<PB N="214" REF="115">
<DIV3 N="8" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXIII. SECT. <HI>VIII.</HI> Propriety derived from the &s;overaign of &s;overaigns. The quiet enjoyment of E&s;tates. The rea&s;on accord|ing to Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> of the imbodying of men. The propriety of the Subjects. The foundation of the publick interest. It excludes not the prerogative of the &s;overaign. The title of the King of <HI>England</HI> in many ca&s;es decided by the Judges. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his indulgence to the late u&s;urped power ob&s;erved.</HEAD>
<P>A <HI>Fifth doctrine, which tendeth to the di&s;&s;olution of a Common-wealth, is that every private man has an ab|&s;olute propriety in his goods; &s;uch as excludeth the right of the &s;overaign.</HI> I do not know what he means by this term <HI>[ab&s;olute.]</HI> Certainly both private and publick men have their rights depending upon the Soveraign of Sove|raigns; and all they have is at his di&s;po&s;e. But other|wayes certainly it tends to the di&s;&s;olution of a Common-wealth, to deny an ab&s;olute propriety in private men, and to affirm that in no Common-wealth a Subject can have &s;uch propriety, for it being the rea&s;on, (according to his own Philo&s;ophy) why they imbodied them&s;elves into a Common-wealth, that &s;o they might enjoy the fruits of their labours peaceably, not only plough and &s;ow peace|ably, but reap the fruits of that pains they take, and call it there own: It cannot be denyed, that that ju&s;tly can be denyed them; and if it be they are in &s;uch a &s;tate as they were without the fruits of their vertuous labours. It is true in the Ea&s;tern Monarchies, I read they have not in|heritances as they have here, but <HI>pro termino vitae,</HI> and then all return to that &s;ea out of which they came, but it is o|therwi&s;e in our European Countryes throught, and the
<PB N="215" REF="115">
Laws of every Nation are ju&s;tly to be ob&s;erved; but &s;till according to that right which each per&s;on hath: and this propriety is &s;o naturally dear unto every man, as there can be no wi&s;er Laws made for the publick than &s;uch, as private men &s;hall be bettered by them, for then every man will more indu&s;triou&s;ly endeavour the publick good, when his private benefit re&s;ults out of it. <HI>I but</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>&s;uch as excludeth the right of the Soveraign.</HI> Indeed I think in that he &s;aid more rightly than he meant; for cer|tainly the Soveraign hath a right of a Soveraign, over all his kingdom, or dominion; nay, the propriety of a So|veraign (that is his legal propriety) over his Subjects, is over their e&s;tates, to determine their Controver&s;ies, to have do|minion over their Per&s;ons, legally to puni&s;h, according to his ju&s;t prerogative. But the title of propriety in his e&s;tate, is belonging to the &s;ubject in all &s;uch things as are not included in the &s;upremes legal prerogative. So that when he has granted Laws which do limit the extent of his power, and indulge the vertuous indu&s;try of his &s;ubjects, he cannot ju&s;tly infringe them and call that his right, which he hath conde&s;cended not to u&s;e. And upon this rea&s;on, with us, the Title of the King in many occa&s;ions is decided by the Judges in point of Propriety And therefore he did ill in publi&s;hing this book in Engli<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">h, (&s;o that it principally concerns us,) and at that time when the liberties and pro|prieties of the Subject were &s;o abominably invaded by the u&s;urped powers, as if he would provoke them to out-do them|&s;elves, and oppre&s;s more, and more lawfully, than was pre|tended. He proceeds.</P>
</DIV3>
<PB N="216" REF="116">
<DIV3 N="9" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXIII. SECT. <HI>IX.</HI> The &s;overaign protects the &s;ubject in the enjoyment of that right and Propriety which the Law gives him. The rights of &s;overaignty, not of propriety nece&s;&s;ary for the performance of the royal Office, and pro|tection of &s;ubjects. Publick nece&s;&s;ity ju&s;tifies the inva&s;ion of propriety. The partition of the &s;overaign|ty among the Optimates not de&s;tructive of it, accor|ding to Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his own tenents. The <HI>re&s;pon&s;a prudent&ucirc;m</HI> of high e&s;teem among all Nations.</HEAD>
<P><HI>E&V;ery man has indeed a propriety that excludes the right of every other Subject.</HI> This is granted upon all &s;ides, <HI>and</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>he has it only from the &s;overaign power; without the protection whereof,</HI> (now I am in Page 170.) <HI>every other man &s;hould have equal right to the &s;ame.</HI> This is not truly &s;poke; for the protection of the &s;overaign doth not make, or give right to any thing, but enables him to u&s;e the &s;ame; the law gives the right &amp; the &s;overaign protects us in the enjoying that which the Law hath given. But I wonder at his meaning in what follows, which is, <HI>But if the right of the Soveraign al&s;o be excluded, he cannot perform the Office they have put him into.</HI> That mu&s;t be under&s;tood of the right of the Soveraignty, but not of propriety: if he be not allowed the prerogatives belonging to &s;overaignty, he cannot protect them; but if he be denyed the right of propriety, he cannot well de&s;troy them; but &s;urely may protect them with his ju&s;tice, and with his power. He expounds him&s;elf <HI>[which is to defend them both from forraign Enemies, and from the injuries of one ano|ther; and con&s;equently there is no longer a Common wealth]</HI>
<PB N="217" REF="116">
A &s;trange inference, unle&s;s he have right to their E&s;tates he cannot defend them <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Surely many Soveraigns have defended and do defend their &s;ubjects, and yet have not propriety to their E&s;tates. He who hath a propriety in an e&s;tate may u&s;e it how he will to his own advantage or content. But this Supremes cannot do with their &s;ub|jects ju&s;tly; there may be a ca&s;e of extremity, where <HI>Sa|lus Reipublicae</HI> mu&s;t be <HI>&s;uprema lex;</HI> put the ca&s;e an Enemy invades the Kingdome, the land of &s;ome particular &s;ubject lyes fit to make a Fort of; the King by force takes it for the publick benefit; not out of propriety that it belongs to him&s;elf, but that it belongs to the Common-wealth, to who&s;e publick benefit all private intere&s;ts and proprieties mu&s;t &s;ubmit. But I may term the right of &s;uch accidents to be an univer&s;ality rather than a pro|priety, the univer&s;al right of the Common-wealth, not the particular right of one or another. That which fol|lows to this purpo&s;e, receives the &s;ame an&s;wer, <HI>In offices of judicature and the like.</HI> I pa&s;s to a <HI>&s;ixth Doctrine which,</HI> (he &s;aith) <HI>is plainly and directly again&s;t the e&s;&s;ence of a Common-wealth: and 'tis this, that the &s;overaign power may be divided.</HI> What he means by divi&s;ion, I cannot readily apprehend; if he means that it may not be divided into &s;undry per&s;ons, then he hath overthrown him&s;elf, when he con&s;titutes other Government be&s;ides Monarchy, as A|ri&s;tocracy, and Democracy, which are in divers per&s;ons, but united; if he means (which he &s;eems to do by his following di&s;cour&s;e) two &s;everal Kings in the &s;ame king|dome, I think it cannot &s;ub&s;i&s;t, becau&s;e of di&s;tractions as he intimates; but the fountain of the errour, I think is not well derived from the Lawyers, <HI>who,</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>en|deavour to make the Laws depend upon their own learning, and not upon the legi&s;lative power.</HI> Which way this &s;hould conduce to the dependance of the Law upon their learn|ing, I &s;ee not; he him&s;elf hath di&s;cour&s;ed that the <HI>re|&s;pon&s;a prudentum</HI> were alwayes in high e&s;teem among the Romans, as the opinion of the Judges are among&s;t us; and all men have a great reverence of them in all Nations.
<PB N="218" REF="117">
But the&s;e <HI>re&s;pon&s;a</HI> declare what is Law, and they will cea&s;e to be <HI>prudentes,</HI> when they abu&s;e the Law. He be|gins another Paragraph.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="10" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXIII. SECT. <HI>X.</HI> The Paragraph a&s;&s;erted. Not the form of Government, but the execution of good Laws makes a Nation hap|py. The hi&s;tory of the Grecians and Romans vin|dicated again&s;t Mr. <HI>Hobbs.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his Precepts in his <HI>Leviathan;</HI> much more &s;eductive and encouraging to rebellion than the forementioned Hi&s;tories. The abu&s;e of good things ought not to take away the u&s;e of them.</HEAD>
<P><HI>AND as fal&s;e doctrine &s;o oftentimes the example of diffe|rent government in a Neighbouring Nation, di&s;po&s;eth men to the alteration of the form already &s;etled.</HI> In this truly I am of his mind; for when men &s;ee a neigh|bour pro&s;per in that kind of life he leads, he is apt to pry into the wayes by which he &s;o thrives, and then taking the &s;ame cour&s;e hopes to find it as beneficial to him|&s;elf, as it hath proved to the other. I approve the di&s;|cour&s;e throughout, and therefore need not tran&s;cribe any more. But yet would have been glad to have read &s;ome way, by which this evil, being known, might be hindred or avoided, and truly I can think upon none but by ma|king our &s;elves more indu&s;trious than our Neighbours, by better rewarding vertue and indu&s;try, and puni&s;hing vice and &s;loth than they. There is &s;carce that people who&s;e fundamental principles are not &s;uch as may make the Kingdom happy under that government, if they were u&s;ed to the be&s;t advantage; &s;o that it is not the form of
<PB N="219" REF="117">
Government only, but the di&s;po&s;ure in that form which felicitates a Nation, and &s;o the making and execution of good Laws at home will redre&s;s the inconvenience which comes from a Neighbouring Nation. He enters upon a new Paragraph, <HI>[And as to rebellion in particular a|gain&s;t Monarchy, one of the mo&s;t frequent cau&s;es of it, is the reading the Books of policie, and Hi&s;tories of the An|tient Greeks and Romans.]</HI> I wonder he had not put in the Old Te&s;tament likewi&s;e; but certainly he is out in it: for the&s;e Books (he &s;peaks of) do teach Kings and Su|premes how to govern and avoid tho&s;e Rocks upon which their predece&s;&s;ors have been &s;plit; they teach Subjects to avoid all rebellion, the mo&s;t happy and pro&s;perous of which brings confu&s;ion if not de&s;truction to that Nation where they are, and very frequently ruine to them&s;elves and their Families, who are Ring-leaders in &s;uch actions; But if books which encourage to rebellion mu&s;t be laid a&s;ide, then let <HI>Leviathan</HI> be buried in &s;ilence; which I have, and &s;hall &s;hew &s;hortly, not by example only, but precept to ju&s;tify more rebellion than ever any Author did; <HI>I but,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>(from which (that is the&s;e books) young men, and all others as are unprovided of the antidote of &s;olid rea&s;on, receiving a &s;trong and delightful impre&s;&s;ion of the great ex|ploits of War atchieved by the conductors of their Armies, receive withal a plea&s;ing Idea of all they have done be&s;ides.]</HI> I think this may be done, and that the&s;e excellent &s;tories which relate the gallant and exemplary virtues of many, may, yea mu&s;t likewi&s;e with them record the vices of others yea, many times the faults of vertuous men, without which ne|ver man lived, but our ever ble&s;&s;ed Saviour. But what then? &s;hall the Bee lo&s;e its hony, becau&s;e the Spider may &s;uck poy&s;on out of the &s;ame flower? &s;hall we avoid the Sun-&s;hine becau&s;e many are &s;corched by it? By this means we &s;hould avoid all good things, for there are none &s;o good but fooli&s;h and wicked men have made ill u&s;e of them; even the mercies of God and all his glori|ous attributes have by &s;ome been applyed to evil. This Argument follows not therefore, becau&s;e weak and ignorant
<PB N="220" REF="118">
men have ill dige&s;ted the&s;e excellent meats, therefore bet|ter &s;tomachs &s;hould not u&s;e them; without doubt the&s;e &s;tories have abundance in them to &s;hew vertuous men how to lead their lives, and expo&s;e them and lay them down <HI>pro focis &amp; aris,</HI> which his &s;elf-&s;eeking doctrine will not allow. And yet the&s;e had been the mo&s;t proper dictates from him, who writes Politicks as conducing more to the publick good than any &s;elf-pre&s;ervation which he &s;o much labours for. But a little after he proceeds to &s;hew their folly who make ill u&s;e of them, which I allow; but pre|&s;ently again he in the bottom of that page &s;eems to ar|gue thus.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="11" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXIII. SECT. <HI>XI.</HI> Truth de&s;ired in this Paragraph. Tyrants di&s;tingui&s;hed. An &V;&s;urper ju&s;tly killed by any &s;ubjects for the deliverance of his lawful Soveraign. Lawful &s;ove|raigns not to be depo&s;ed or murthered for their ill government, but left to the ju&s;tice of God. The for|mer conclu&s;ion a&s;&s;erted. A further vindication of the Books and Hi&s;tories of the Grecians and Ro|mans.</HEAD>
<P><HI>FRom the reading (I &s;ay) of &s;uch books, men have un|dertaken to kill their Kings.</HI> Surely I believe among all the declarations that &s;uch Traitors have made, never any one made his &s;tudy of &s;uch writers ju&s;tify tho&s;e horrid acts; <HI>Becau&s;e</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>the Greek and Latine writers in their books and di&s;cour&s;es of Policy</HI> (I am now in the 171 p.) <HI>make it lawful and laudable for any man &s;o to do; provided be|fore he do it, he call him Tyrant.</HI> I would have wi&s;hed that he had named his Authours, for then I could have di&s;cerned whe|ther he had abu&s;ed them or no; to turn and examine all Authours
<PB N="221" REF="118">
were too tedious for me; yet &s;omething I may &s;ay in ge|neral, that I believe no man of honour for learning and po|licy, did either among&s;t the Greeks or Romans affirm, that if he hath called a Monarch a Tyrant, it is laudable for him to kill him; for certainly no man can found the ju&s;ti|fication of &s;uch a Villany upon his fooli&s;h calling him &s;uch, but his being &s;uch. Now, as I remember, they make Tyrants of two &s;orts; &s;uch as invade the king|dome and u&s;urp it from the right owner; and no doubt but any of tho&s;e Subjects that owe obedience to their lawful King, may vindicate him and their fellow &s;ubjects from that unju&s;t inva&s;ion. The other way of Tyran|ny is by &s;uch a man who is a lawful King, by his &s;ucce&s;&s;ion or election according to the Laws of the Realm, but go|verns arbitrary by his will, not the Law: Now becau&s;e his right of title and po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, puts him above the reach of legal (though he can never be out of the reach of pri|vate) judgement; and &s;eeing it is not lawful for a man to kill any one upon a private judgement, therefore it can|not <HI>(ex abundanti)</HI> be lawful to kill him, but leave him, <HI>Deo ultori:</HI> &s;o that if he find &s;uch doctrine among&s;t the Greeks and Romans, he may rationally judge them ami&s;s, and it is no more rea&s;onable for men to be barred the great happine&s;s of the wi&s;dome contained in the&s;e books, becau&s;e fools make ill u&s;e of them, than to barr men a &s;ober and healthful u&s;e of wine becau&s;e vitious men abu&s;e it by drunkenne&s;s. He goes on [<HI>from the &s;ame books</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>they that live under a Monarchy conceive &s;uch an opinion, that the &s;ubjects in a popular. Common|wealth enjoy liberty; but that in a Monarchy they are all &s;laves.]</HI> I wonder why he &s;hould impute this to the Greek and Latine, more than to the Italians, Germans, or Dutch &s;tories. Certainly mo&s;t people when they find their own condition hard, are willing to change, and think any other would be better; and it is the &s;ame with all other Common-wealths, as well as Monarchies; And therefore he truly added what follows [<HI>I &s;ay, that they who live under a Monarchy conceive &s;uch an opinion;
<PB N="222" REF="119">
not they that live under popular government: for they find no &s;uch matter.</HI> But as I &s;aid before why this &s;hould be im|puted to the Romans, and Grecians only; not to the Ita|lians, Germans, and others who live equally with them in Common-wealths, I cannot di&s;cerne; and therefore cannot chu&s;e but be offended with that which follows mo&s;t hyperbolically fal&s;e.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="12" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXIII. SECT. <HI>XII.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his impo&s;&s;ible remedy to a &s;uppo&s;ititious di&s;|ea&s;e. The learning of the Grecians and Romanes a|gain vindicated. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his opinion of the nece&s;&s;ity of forbidding the u&s;e of the Greek and Ro|man Authors no where to be found but in Julian the Apo&s;tate.</HEAD>
<P><HI>IN &s;umme, I cannot imagine, how any thing can be more pre|judicial to a Monarchy, than the allowing of &s;uch Books to be publickly read, without pre&s;ently applying &s;uch corrctives of di&s;creet Ma&s;ters, as are fit to take away their venome.</HI> Here he &s;ets down a mon&s;trous di&s;ea&s;e and applyes an impo&s;&s;ible &s;alve: that is, that our Grammar Schools (where the&s;e books are taught) &s;hould be &s;upplyed throughout this large kingdome with men of Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his &s;uffici|ency; (for I think none el&s;e would &s;erve his turn) none el&s;e having di&s;covered this fault in the&s;e books, and yet in all the World who are delighted with learning, the&s;e books are taught in the initiation of &s;cholars, both Chri|&s;tian and others. Only, I remember <HI>Julian</HI> the Apo&s;tate made a Law by which he thought to have gotten as much ground upon Chri&s;tianity, as by any that he ever made, which was, that no Chri&s;tian &s;hould read any humanity-books, nor have them read to them. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> &s;hould
<PB N="223" REF="119">
have been his Chaplain What follows in that Para|graph is nothing but a comparing this di&s;ea&s;e in a com|mon-wealth with the biting of a mad Dog in an humane body, which I willingly enough a&s;&s;ent unto, and &s;o let it pa&s;s, and move to the next Pargraph which begins thus.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="13" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXIII. SECT. <HI>XIII.</HI> This Paragraph of Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> when the powers are made contra-di&s;tinct and oppo&s;ite to one another af|firmed from the Primitive practices. The decrees of the antient Councils not pa&s;&s;ed into Laws, till they were confirmed by the Emperour. The Authors rea|&s;on of this truth &s;uperadded.</HEAD>
<P><HI>AS there have been Doctors, that hold there be three Souls in a man; &s;o there be al&s;o that think there be more Souls (that is more &s;overaigns) than one, in a Common-wealth; and &s;et up a &s;upremacy again&s;t the &s;overaignty; Canons again&s;t Laws; and a Gho&s;tly Authority again&s;t the Civil.</HI> Certainly this word <HI>against,</HI> makes this faulty, and therefore we &s;hall find that in the primitive times de|crees of Councils them&s;elves grew not into laws, but by the confirmation of Emperours. But the con&s;ideration of this Paragraph I leave to the Doctors in the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> whom it principally concerns, but not us, who&s;e Eccle&s;ia&s;tick Laws are confirmed by the Civil, and there|fore need not this di&s;pute: And yet I can add one clau&s;e to confirm his conclu&s;ion (&s;tronger I think, than any he produced,) which is, that dominion is over per&s;ons not parts; he who hath dominion over the Soul hath dominion over the body, which is governed by the Soul; and he who hath dominion over the body hath likewi&s;e dominion over the Soul, without which it cannot act any obedience
<PB N="224" REF="120">
or di&s;obedience. And &s;o I let this alone for the pre&s;ent, and come to the next di&s;ea&s;e, which is page (172.)</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="14" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXIII. SECT. <HI>XIV.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his reflection upon the Government of <HI>England</HI> ob&s;erved and cen&s;ured; his parallel from the diver&s;ity of Souls not enforcing. The compari&s;on of leavyes of money not rightly applyed to the nutri|tive faculty. The power of conduct not well re&s;embled to the Motive faculty in the &s;oul.</HEAD>
<P>IN the mid&s;t of that page this di&s;ea&s;e begins thus. <HI>Some|times al&s;o in the meer Civil Government, there be more than one Soul; as when the power of leavying money, (which is the Nutritive faculty) has depended upon a general a&s;&s;em|bly; the power of conduct and command (which is the mo|tive faculty) on one man; and the power of making laws, (which is the rational faculty,) on the accidental con&s;ent not only of tho&s;e two, but al&s;o of a third.</HI> There he turns his &s;pleen again&s;t our Government in <HI>England,</HI> without name|ing it, but clearly intimating that &s;tate and condition which is fundamental to the con&s;titution of our King|dome. I cannot imagine why, unle&s;s he had a mind to provoke the then pre&s;ent U&s;urper to be mo&s;t tyranni|cal in his Government. For certainly this Government as e&s;tabli&s;hed in <HI>Magna Charta</HI> at the fir&s;t, was &s;etled with &s;o grave and weighty con&s;ideration, and &s;uch a &s;erious manner of confirmation, as never any but the Law of God delivered on Mount <HI>Sinai</HI> (with thunder and &s;uch a&s;toni&s;hments) and in it &s;elf &s;o prudent, that nothing can rea&s;onably more conduce to the perpetuity of a king|dome. But let us &s;ee what he &s;aith (<HI>there is</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>more than one Soul.</HI>) I think it would trouble his Philo|&s;ophy to an&s;wer the&s;e Arguments which are brought by
<PB N="225" REF="120">
tho&s;e Philo&s;ophers who a&s;&s;ert there are more in every man, as al&s;o to prove the contrary. But I let that alone, there is no enforcing that from this e&s;tabli&s;hment; for all the&s;e &s;everal operations (which he &s;peaks of) do ari&s;e from the &s;ame Soul, &s;o that the lowe&s;t, even the giving of mo|ney to our King, is by his Authority, and that power is en&s;ouled (as I may &s;peak) by him. But as he is the Soul by which his &s;ubjects are enabled to leavy &s;uch mo|ny for his nece&s;&s;ity and the nece&s;&s;ities of the king|dome; &s;o they are the body which mu&s;t act by this pow|er, he enables them, for without his a&s;&s;ent they cannot leavy that money from any but their own particular pur&s;es; this he compares to the Nutritive faculty, and indeed not ami&s;s; for as that faculty is di&s;per&s;ed throughout the whole man and each part of him which doth receive nouri&s;h|ment; &s;o the&s;e are di&s;per&s;ed throughout the whole king|dome, and indeed they in particular, and the whole king|dome in general receives nutriment in being protected in pro&s;perity and &s;afety, which the Monarch is enabled to do by the&s;e &s;upplies. But yet he is mi&s;taken in the ap|plication, when he calls this an act of the nutritive fa|culty, <HI>(viz.)</HI> to leavy money, that is afterwards an act of the King, who makes u&s;e of that a&s;&s;i&s;tance, to that pur|po&s;e; this in the fir&s;t act of bare leavying mony, looks like an act of exhau&s;ting or con&s;umption rather than nu|trition. But as wi&s;e nature di&s;po&s;ed tho&s;e contributions, which the &s;ingular parts &s;ometimes afford the fainting &s;tomach by a return to their advantage afterwards &s;o doth the wi&s;dome of a King make tho&s;e payrings from the o|ther parts produce their greater happine&s;s and plenty: but &s;till ob&s;erve, this is not as if there were many, but one Soul. All is acted by the &s;upreme power which enables the other to perform, what he doth. From hence he pa&s;&s;eth to the King, <HI>(The power of conduct and command is (which is the motive faculty on one man.)</HI> Why he &s;hould call this the motive faculty I do not perceive, &s;ince that is Philo&s;ophically &s;eated in the &s;en&s;itive or ani|mal part; but the power of conduct or command mu&s;t
<PB N="226" REF="121">
certainly be in the &s;upreme and rational part, for where that is, it commands and governs the &s;en&s;itive &s;o that they move or acquie&s;ce according to its conduct. But I would he had &s;et down what he means by this faculty and how far he meant it, there would then have been &s;omething to be under&s;tood. There is no doubt but the King hath the power of conducting even in tho&s;e things he named before and in tho&s;e which follow, none of which can be a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters">ed without him, and therefore ought to have a higher faculty allowed him than that of Motion.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="15" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXIII. SECT. <HI>XV.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his reflection upon the Hou&s;e of Lords and Commons in Parliament. His &s;uppo&s;ed danger for want of the con&s;ent of one or either of the&s;e refuted. All humane con&s;titutions &s;ubject to error. Govern|ment rightly &s;o &s;tiled, though without power to take away the lives or e&s;tates of Subjects. The &s;everal E|states in Parliament termed factious by Mr. <HI>Hobbs.</HI> No government ab&s;olutely and practically pure accord|ing to the definition of Politicians, but denominated from the predominant part. The &s;overaign not the repre&s;entative of the Common-wealth, no more than the head is of a man. His in&s;tance of the &V;nity in the holy Trinity impertinent. &V;nity in &s;ubordina|tion.</HEAD>
<P><HI>ANd the power of making Laws (which is the rational faculty) on the accidentall con&s;ent not only of tho&s;e two but al&s;o of a third.</HI> By the third he means the hou&s;e of Lords, and here be under&s;tands that the&s;e three ma<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">e the rational part, which without doubt was nece&s;&s;arily requi|red to the act of conduct, as before; but he attributes no|thing
<PB N="227" REF="121">
in particular to the Lords; let them vindicate them|&s;elves, and the Hou&s;e of Commons them&s;elves, I &s;hall only meddle with the inconveniences which ari&s;e out of this policie which he begins immediately to fall upon, <HI>this endangereth the Common-wealth, &s;ometimes for want of con&s;ent to good Laws</HI> This danger I never found, but many times the &s;top of evil Laws, which have been projected by private men, or perhaps might pa&s;s one hou&s;e, &amp; faults which have been ob|&s;erved by one which were not taken notice of by the other. A multitude of Councellors gives &s;afety to laws; a weaker under&s;tanding many times &s;ees that which a greater over|looked: that which appears lovely to &s;ome, may be known to be faulty by others. But certainly the&s;e two hou&s;es being compounded of men of all conditions who mu&s;t needs be acquainted with all the unhappine&s;&s;es in the Go|vernment, cannot but be thought mo&s;t fit to have the ex|aming and pa&s;&s;ing Laws for the Government. He goes on, <HI>but often for want of &s;uch nouri&s;hment as is mo&s;t nece&s;&s;ary to life and motion.]</HI> I doubt this can hardly be made out where the nece&s;&s;ity of &s;uch contributions &s;hall be made appear, but at &s;uch times when his rebellious principles have been infu&s;ed, for without doubt where &s;uch nece&s;&s;ities are the nece&s;&s;ities of the Kingdome, and the King lacks the &s;upplies proper to &s;uch motions as war defen&s;ive and offen&s;ive, the very &s;tate and condition of every man is endangered, and his doctrine of &s;elf-pre&s;er|vation will compel men to it, although they ca&s;t one eye upon the publick. But &s;uch things he will &s;ay have been done: it is true that the niggardline&s;s of the People to &s;uch expences have brought the kingdome to de&s;truction, I can call it no le&s;s; the &s;ame may be &s;aid of &s;ome Kings who&s;e too much frugality has made them lack both men and hearts to &s;erve their occa&s;ions. There is nothing humane that is not &s;ubject to error, and a po&s;&s;ibility of being mi&s;taken. But certainly this as little as any, becau&s;e this a&s;&s;embly (as he calls them) are men &s;elected for their e&s;tates and prudence, and becau&s;e they are prudent, it is likely they are able, and becau&s;e of their e&s;tates, it is
<PB N="228" REF="122">
rea&s;onable to think that they &s;hould be willing to give their be&s;t a&s;&s;i&s;tance to the publick good. He goes on, <HI>for although few perceive that &s;uch government, is not go|vernment, but divi&s;ion of the Common-wealth into three factions, and call it mixt Monarchie</HI> Indeed I think that never man did conceive that this Government is not Go|vernment. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> doth govern his &s;ervants, yet his government is limited with many more bounds than this is, and yet that is a government; he cannot take their cloaths from them, or their E&s;tates, much le&s;s their lives or limbs, yet he is their Governour. And though he &s;aith only a few did perceive, yet I think until he wrote this none did ever perceive three factions; factions do oppo&s;e one another, they are not joyned, neither do they co-operate in the &s;ame effect, as the&s;e do in all things which are done by them. And in this bu&s;ine&s;s it &s;eems not to be a co-operation of equal &s;hares in the work, but like an univer&s;al cau&s;e working with particular cau&s;es. The Sun with the &s;ame light &s;hines upon a Ro&s;e, a Violet, and a Primro&s;e. Yet with the&s;e particular &s;pecifical cau&s;es pro|duceth tho&s;e various effects with tho&s;e &s;everal &s;ubordinate powers to his, but they were not in&s;tituted for factions, nor are &s;uch, but &s;ubordinate to him, and to concurr with him in the legal &s;ettlement of that is good for the pub|lick it was therefore very ill phra&s;ed of him, to call <HI>the factions a mixt Monarchie.</HI> For my part I am of the O|pinion which I have expre&s;&s;ed before, that there is no Government in the World &s;o pure, that it hath no mix|ture in it, either Monarchy, Ari&s;tocracy, or Democracy, but the denomination in all the&s;e is from the predominant part; <HI>yet,</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>the truth is, that it is not one Inde|pendent Common-wealth, but three Independent factions.</HI> A|gain, factions; this needs not unle&s;s he can infu&s;e factions, which I hope, he &s;hall never be able to do either with this book or any other; <HI>and</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>not one repre&s;en|tative Per&s;on, but three.</HI> The vanity of this language I have heretofore &s;poken to. In a Monarchie the Monarch can|not be called the repre&s;entative Per&s;on of the Common-wealth,
<PB N="229" REF="122">
no more than the head can be termed the repre|&s;entative of man, he is the head of this body politick, and governs it, but not repre&s;ents it. He is &s;o fond of that conceipt (as indeed it is the foundation of his whole po|litie) that the error mixeth it &s;elf in almo&s;t every page. But let us go on with him. <HI>[In the kingdome of God there may be three Per&s;ons Independent, without breach of unity in God that reigneth.]</HI> Yes by him there may be twenty, a hundred, or a thou&s;and, and indeed are &s;o many; for as he makes a Per&s;on to be a man who repre&s;ents another as <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> did God (of which I have treated at large in my former part again&s;t him) certainly there was a thou&s;and &s;uch which repre&s;ented him in his Kingdome in this World; and therefore this in&s;tance is nothing to the purpo&s;e, e&s;pecially concerning the repre&s;entation here treated of. <HI>Yes</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>this is without breach of unity in God who reigneth.</HI> There can be no doubt of it, for though God be repre|&s;ented by a thou&s;and &s;everal men, his unity is the &s;ame. And I may &s;ay of a King though he be repre&s;ented in divers Provinces by divers Vice-royes, yet he is the &s;ame King and the only King. <HI>But where men reign that are &s;ubject to diver&s;ity of opinions</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>it cannot be &s;o.</HI> What doth he mean by that? I think that where divers men are &s;upremes that have divers opinions, there will be breach of Unity; For perfect Unity there is none &s;uch but in God, who being without compo&s;ition is ab&s;olutely not one on|ly in the concrete, as created things are, but Unity which nothing el&s;e is, as there is no one man who is &s;o at unity in him&s;elf, as not to differ from him&s;elf, now judging one thing, then another; yea at the &s;ame time, he may have combu&s;tion in him&s;elf by diver&s;ity of Arguments which a|ri&s;e in his thoughts at the &s;ame time &s;o that he cannot imagine any perfect Unity among&s;t men: but yet when there is a &s;ubordination, that reduceth them to the neare&s;t method of unity that may be; therefore where there &s;hall be many &s;upremes without &s;ubordination, there can be no unity: But where there is a &s;ubordination there
<PB N="230" REF="123">
we may find the greate&s;t unity that this &s;ubject is capa|ble of, which will appear by my an&s;wer to what follows.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="16" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXIII. SECT. <HI>XVI.</HI> The hou&s;e of Commons not the King repre&s;entative of the People. The King only the &s;overaign; the Peers the Councellors of the King. Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his un|worthy expre&s;&s;ion of there &s;overaigns cen&s;ured. The odiou&s;ne&s;s of his compari&s;on of t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">o men growing out of the &s;ides of another, ob&s;erved. The danger of cutting off tho&s;e &s;prouts, a&s;&s;imilated to the removal of the two hou&s;es of Parliament.</HEAD>
<P><HI>THerefore</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>if the King bear the Per&s;on of the People, and the general A&s;&s;embly al&s;o bear the Per&s;on of the People, and another A&s;&s;embly bear the Per&s;on of a part of the People, they are not one Per&s;on and one Soveraign, but three Per&s;ons and three Soveraigns.</HI> I an&s;wer, the King is not the repre&s;entative of the People, but their Sove|raign; neither doth he act any royal thing by their Au|thority, but by his own right; the Hou&s;e of Commons are the repre&s;entative of the People, that is, the Com|mon People, when by the Soveraign they are called, and elected by them <HI>pro tempore,</HI> during their &s;itting in Parlia|ment: and as their beginning is by the Kings Writ, &s;o their determination is by his di&s;mi&s;&s;ion. This &s;hews that although they may repre&s;ent the People, yet he, not they, are Soveraigns. The hou&s;e of Lords which he means by tho&s;e who repre&s;ent a part of the People, repre&s;ent no body, but their po&s;terity, for whom they act, other|wi&s;e they do that bu&s;ine&s;s the King calls them for, that is, to advi&s;e with him in the great and difficult affairs of the Kingdome; they are as Councellors not Soveraigns;
<PB N="231" REF="123">
he only Soveraign: and neither one hou&s;e nor other &s;its in their &s;phere, but when he calls them, nor &s;tayes after his di&s;mi&s;&s;ion; nor when they are there can act any ma|terial matter concerning the Kingdome, (only advi&s;e and inform) but what he who is their Supreme and So|veraign enables them to do. So then there is but one So|veraign in <HI>England;</HI> though he mo&s;t unworthily threw in &s;uch proud &s;peeches to make them three He proceeds, and I with him. <HI>To what di&s;ea&s;e in the Natural body of a man, I may exactly compare this irregularity of a Common-wealth, I know not. But I have &s;een a man, that had another man growing out of his &s;ide with an head, armes, brea&s;t and &s;tomach of his own; If he had had another man growing out of his other &s;ide, the compari&s;on might then have been exact.</HI> Thus he I an&s;wer, there is no need of this fancy of his to compare every publick di&s;ea&s;e with a natural, but if he had &s;tudied King CHARLES the fir&s;t his mo&s;t incomparable Book he would have found this compo&s;ure not to have been a di&s;ea&s;e, but a perfect con|&s;titution of a healthy body: but &s;ince he makes this compari&s;on, <HI>I</HI> &s;hall tell him, that in &s;uch a man take a|way or cut off that humane &s;prout which grows out of the principal man, even he will quickly dye. I doubt not, but believe confidently it would be &s;o with this politie.</P>
</DIV3>
<PB N="232" REF="124">
<DIV3 N="17" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXIII. SECT. <HI>XVII.</HI> The propriety of the &s;ubject again a&s;&s;erted again&s;t Mr. <HI>Hobbs.</HI> His objection of the difficulty of rai&s;ing mo|ney an&s;wered. The inconvenience of inve&s;ting all propriety in the Crown. The convenience and <HI>de|corum</HI> of rai&s;ing money in a parliamentary way. His late Maje&s;tie <HI>CHARLES</HI> the Fir&s;t, his incompara|ble e&s;&s;ay to this purpo&s;e recommended to the author of the <HI>Leviathan.</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> his di&s;affection to the government of this Kingdom cen&s;ured.</HEAD>
<P>I Am now in p. the (137.) where, after he hath confe&s;&s;ed that the&s;e di&s;ea&s;es which have been <HI>hitherto named are of the greate&s;t and mo&s;t pre&s;ent danger:</HI> (that is his phra&s;e) although a man would think that this form of Govern|ment that hath la&s;ted &s;o many hundreds of years could not be in &s;o &s;uddain or pre&s;ent danger; however he now en|ters upon others which, <HI>tho' le&s;s,</HI> are not unfit to be looked into. He begins, <HI>[as fir&s;t, the difficulty of rai&s;ing of mo|ney for the nece&s;&s;ary u&s;es of the Common-wealth; e&s;pecially in the approach of War,]</HI> I mu&s;t confe&s;s this is of dan|gerous con&s;equence. <HI>[This difficulty ari&s;eth from the Opi|nion, that every &s;ubject hath of a propriety in his lands and goods exclu&s;ive of the Soveraigns right to the u&s;e of the &s;ame.]</HI> I have heretofore taught that men have proprieties in their e&s;tates, yet in ca&s;es of nece&s;&s;ity, as in War, any mans hou&s;e may be made a fort, any mans land digged to make a trench, with multitudes of the like Nature, according to the nece&s;&s;ities and exigencies of the Common-wealth There|fore this propriety without nece&s;&s;ity cannot be dangerous, nay, a man may &s;ay, that without this propriety we &s;hould
<PB N="233" REF="124">
not have a legal, but arbitrary Government, and that which he him&s;elf hath &s;uppo&s;ed to be the rea&s;on why a Com|mon-wealth is in&s;tituted would be fru&s;trated, which is that men may peaceably &s;ow and reap, and enjoy the profits of their indu&s;trie; which if the &s;upreme might lawfully take away together with their e&s;tates for the &s;upport of his con|dition, it would quickly come to pa&s;s that an E&s;tate in|ve&s;ted in the Crown may be the prey of other Subjects, as it was with the Church revenue, which although in Queen ELIZABETHS time it was alienable to none but the Crown, yet we know that from thence it pa&s;&s;ed to mean Tenents, until King JAMES mo&s;t happily gave a &s;top unto it, by enacting that there &s;hould be none after|ward pa&s;&s;ed to the Crown: &s;o that this cannot fitly be termed a hinderance, without which a Common-wealth lo&s;eth the end for which it was in&s;tituted. But give me leave to &s;peak to the main propo&s;ition it &s;elf. Why &s;hould it be difficult to rai&s;e ju&s;t &s;ummes for the defence or good of the publick? every man hath an intere&s;t in it, and they are rea&s;onable creatures, which will con&s;ider both their own and the publick benefit. I, but he will &s;ay it hath been &s;o; let this be granted, it is true that all &s;ins and wickedne&s;&s;es have been too, and certainly this is a mighty great one. But let him con&s;ider, whether this way of their con&s;ent to the performance of this duty be not a decent way of doing it. For fir&s;t, we may con&s;i|der that few Per&s;ons of great e&s;tate do know their own e&s;tate, much le&s;s a Monarch of a great kingdom. How then can he be able to give a ju&s;t e&s;teem of every private mans e&s;tate to proportion him ju&s;tly to that &s;ervice? this cannot be done but by &s;uch Per&s;ons who are univer&s;ally acquainted with the generality; and without an equality upon &s;ome legal mea&s;ure the Tax will be unju&s;t and the execution (no doubt) wor&s;e. Secondly as to the making a Tax for &s;uch a &s;upply the Commonaltie are nece&s;&s;ary, for by them the Collection will be more &s;peedy than by any other means, and therefore I think it a difficulty which may ea&s;ily be taken away, by letting them &s;ee, what
<PB N="234" REF="125">
nece&s;&s;ity there is of &s;uch an aid, (I mean not to meddle with the&s;e di&s;putes,) and then no doubt but they will be &s;o prudent in the execution of their tru&s;t, as to give a proper a&s;&s;i&s;tance, or el&s;e they are mad or wor&s;e. I will con|clude this point with that pa&s;&s;age in tho&s;e incomparable di|rections which that ever to be honored King CHARLES the Fir&s;t gave his &s;on in his own words (which none el&s;e can imitate nearly, much le&s;s match) &s;peaking of the Laws of this land which he &s;hould govern by, &s;aith, <HI>[Which by an admirable temperance give very much to &s;ubjects indu&s;try, liberty and happine&s;s, and yet re&s;erve enough to the Majesty and prerogative of any King who ownes his People as &s;ubjects, not as &s;laves.]</HI> And I may &s;ay who can add any thing to what this mo&s;t incomparable King hath writ down which is matchle&s;s? Yea what he &s;peaks afterwards of the &s;hifts Kings are put to, and the Compari&s;on Mr. <HI>Hobbs</HI> makes of this di&s;ea&s;e to an ague, I let pa&s;s, and do only affirm that &s;uch di&s;cour&s;es &s;avour of an ill di&s;po&s;ition to this go|vernment, and as I can gue&s;s, can tend to no good; nei|ther then when they were fir&s;t printed nor afterwards. I mean to trouble the Reader no further with his ob&s;erva|tions of the&s;e le&s;&s;er di&s;ea&s;es, as he terms them, in a Com|mon-wealth, but come clo&s;e to a cen&s;ure of this which I have formerly noted in this Book.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="18" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXIII. SECT. <HI>XVIII.</HI> The conclu&s;ion of all; the Authors ju&s;t cen&s;ure of this book of Mr. <HI>Hobbs.</HI></HEAD>
<P>FIr&s;t I affirm, that it is not a book to be tolerated by Kings or &s;upremes: becau&s;e according to his doctrine con|cerning the original of all &s;uch there is none in the Univer|&s;al World: for if it be nece&s;&s;ary (as he &s;aith it is in the 17 Chap. where he handles the <HI>generation of Common-wealths,</HI> and in the 18 Chap. where he &s;ets down the <HI>in&s;titution of a
<PB N="235" REF="125">
Comm<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">n wealth,</HI> and in the 13 Chap. <HI>This only is the wa<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> to erect a Common wealth, which way, &amp;c.</HI> Now if this be the only way which have &s;hewed not only not to be practi&s;ed but not practicable, there not only is none in the World, but there can be none hereafter, and therefore this doctrine is not to be tole|rated, either by them who think them&s;elves &s;upremes, or may hereafter be &s;uch, becau&s;e they neither are nor &s;hall be &s;uch &s;upremes as he de&s;cribes, and they (by his doctrine) ought to be.</P>
<P>Again it is to be abhorred by &s;upremes, becau&s;e it leaves too ea&s;ie and open a gap, yea a countenance for rebellion: for if the Law of Nature be only to take care for a mans own particular (as he &s;aith it is) and that every man &s;hould endeavour and ought by any means to free him&s;elf from death or wounds, or a|ny thing which may render his life unhappy, how ea&s;ie it is for the&s;e &s;ugge&s;tions to be whi&s;pered in the ear, of people upon any mi&s;hap in government, without which none can be, let the rea|der think. (I will not teach him.) So that by this doctrine the de|liverance from private mi&s;ery may ju&s;tify the execution of a pub|lick ruine. So that whether we look upon the generation of &s;u|premes, (concerning which there neither is nor can be any &s;uch,) or upon the pre&s;ervation thereof, there is according to his doctrine, no &s;ecurity in the throne of &s;overaignty, but it may ju&s;tly be di&s;turbed by their &s;ubjects upon any terrors &s;truck in them from a jealou&s;ie that they may be deprived of their con|tented being.</P>
<P>Now as this book is dangerous for Kings and Supremes; &s;o it is in &s;ome conclu&s;ions de&s;tructive to the Comfort &amp; happy be|ing of &s;ubjects, when he takes away their propriety: for if they have no title to the enjoyment of their lives and e&s;tates, but the&s;e mu&s;t be at the will of the Lord only (that is of the &s;upreme) which he affirmed but a little before, then the very end of poli|ty is lo&s;t, which is that men may quietly enjoy the fruits of their own vertue and indu&s;try, may &s;ow and reap, work and receive the benefit of their labour without fear of lo&s;s or injury. It is true that there is an impo&s;&s;ibility that there &s;hould be any &s;uch thing, but to that man who is guarded by Gods providence, who alone can fore&s;ee and deliver a man from all danger: But yet humane providence, with good Laws and Vertuous execution of them may protect men in &s;afety again&s;t all humane oppre&s;&s;ion,
<PB N="236" REF="126">
which in wi&s;ely &s;ettled Common-wealths ought to be done; and although a Supreme may by force wring from a &s;ubject what is his, yet he doth it unju&s;tly and &s;hall be re&s;pon&s;ible for it to his &s;u|preme&punc; which again he hath denyed by &s;aying that a Soveraign can doe nothing unju&s;tly. So that in &s;uch a Ca&s;e there is no room for any man who may have his E&s;tate taken away without inju&s;tice, (that is, ju&s;tly without breach of Law.) It is not fit then to be to|lerated by Soveraignes, or Subjects.) I may yet go further and af|firm it not fit to be tolerated by Chri&s;tians, becau&s;e it robs them of all A&s;&s;urance of heaven, and all the Covenants of God by &s;ay|ing that they have no a&s;&s;urance that their holy Books are reveal|ed by God, which if it were true, their confidence and tru&s;t in Gods promi&s;es are vain, and all the Religion performed to our Ble&s;&s;ed Saviour, which only depends upon that a&s;&s;urance they have of the Revelation made in that Book.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, it is not to be tolerated by tho&s;e Thei&s;ts who think there is a God; becau&s;e all &s;uch do think that this God hath many glo|rious attributes; Is infinite in E&s;&s;ence, infinite in all his attributes, power, wi&s;dom, ju&s;tice, mercy; all which do propagate in men a fear and love of him, and are in them&s;elves &s;o excellent, that the lea&s;t of them (if any one may be &s;aid the lea&s;t) is to be valued by every knowing man beyond a world: yet his legi&s;lator, his &s;u|preme mu&s;t have power to Eclip&s;e this glorious Sun, and to have &s;o much as he will, and no more be revealed of him.</P>
<P>Again, this glorious God is by all Thei&s;ts apprehended to be the governour of Heaven and Earth, rewarder of good men and a puni&s;her of all &s;uch as work wickedne&s;s, when he makes him to reward only and puni&s;h his own decrees and acts, not tho&s;e of men; And therefore I think it a Book not to be &s;uffered among&s;t Chri&s;tians, and I am confident, would not be tolerated among&s;t &s;uch kingdomes which do not acknowledge our Saviour, but only one God.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="postscript">
<PB N="1" REF="126">
<HEAD>To Mr. <HI>Hobs,</HI> or the Reader, or both; I de|dicate this &s;hort <HI>POSTSCRIPT.</HI></HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CAP. I. A &s;hort Introduction declaring the rea&s;on of this <HI>POSTSCRIPT.</HI></HEAD>
<P>IN my Epi&s;tle before this Treati&s;e, I have &s;aid that I heard of &s;ome amendments Mr. <HI>Hobs</HI> would make in his <HI>Leviathan,</HI> and upon that &s;top'd the&s;e papers which were intended for the Pre&s;s; being de&s;irous rather that he &s;hould do it him&s;elf with his own hand, than I; a work which would be very beneficial to his own &s;oul, and more &s;atisfactory to tho&s;e Readers upon whom his name had gain'd an Authority; but after a tedious expectation, I found nothing corre&s;ponding to my Expectation. Wherefore I urged this Treati&s;e to the Pre&s;s, where I thought to have it Printed when I came to <HI>London;</HI> but I was no &s;ooner arrived, than a cru|el Cold locked me up in my Chamber, which gave me lea&s;ure to enquire after him while&s;t the&s;e Notes were Printing, and found that he had Printed his <HI>Leviathan</HI> in <HI>Latine,</HI> which I never before had notice of; I &s;ent for it and viewed it, hoping that it might prove the de&s;igned retractation as St. <HI>Aug.</HI> calls his, or at lea&s;t a recogniti|on as <HI>Bellarmine</HI> calls his of the like nature; but truly I found little to that purpo&s;e, only the virulency of &s;ome Engli&s;h Phra&s;es, now and then more gently expre&s;&s;ed in <HI>Latine;</HI> And at the latter end, which was not in the Title, I found an Appendix con&s;i&s;ting of three Chapters, the fir&s;t of which was of the <HI>Nicene</HI> Creed, the &s;econd of He|re&s;ie, the third an An&s;wer to &s;ome Objections again&s;t his <HI>Leviathan.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="2" REF="127">In the&s;e three I hoped to have found much matter which might &s;hew his Ingenuity, in the true cen&s;uring his own writings; but indeed very little, what I find I &s;hall deliver here, e&s;pecially reflecting any &s;uch thing as hath already pa&s;&s;ed my pen, for other things which will de&s;erve whole and entire di&s;cour&s;es, I &s;hall re&s;erve to a future con&s;ideration, as God &s;hall plea&s;e to &s;pare me life, and my Epi&s;copal duties afford me lea&s;ure.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CAP. II.</HI> Of things omitted in this Di&s;cour&s;e.</HEAD>
<P>I Begin with his Chapter upon his <HI>Nicene</HI> Creed which he enters upon in his 328 page, where I omit his ob&s;ervation upon that Phra&s;e <HI>(I believe in)</HI> and that likewi&s;e which is in the bottom of the precedent, and the &s;ub&s;equent Page, about the expo&s;ition of that phra&s;e, which is not in the Creed, that is, <HI>Deus e&s;t,</HI> God is, which is not in the Creed, for the language of the Creed is (I believe in one God the Father Almighty) in which it is not &s;aid there is a God, but &s;uppo&s;ed, and he affirmed to be one, and he the Father Almighty, &s;o that if we mu&s;t be forc'd to make one or more propo&s;itions of it, they mu&s;t be the&s;e (I believe there is one, and only one God, and that he is Father Almighty,) where is, is a copula not a &s;ub&s;tantive as he makes it; and upon which he makes his di&s;cour&s;e, but I let it pa&s;s as he might well have done being nothing conducing to his or my di&s;|pute, 'tis true, <HI>&agrave; tertio adjacente ad &s;ecundum valet argu|mentum,</HI> and therefore when I affirm there is one God, it mu&s;t be imply'd there is a God, but this propo&s;ition there is one only God, &s;uppo&s;eth and implicitely affirms it not by any expre&s;s propo&s;itions.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="3" REF="127">
<HEAD><HI>CAP. III.</HI> The Nature of Light examined.</HEAD>
<P>I Come to page the 330. which oppo&s;eth &s;omething that I have delivered, there you &s;hall find in the let|ter <HI>(a)</HI> which &s;ignifieth the Opponent, a que&s;tion ask|ed, <HI>Quid e&s;t lumen?</HI> and an&s;wering him&s;elf, <HI>lumen ut mi|hi videtur phanta&s;ma e&s;t, non res existens.</HI> This propo&s;iti|on I have oppo&s;ed in my fir&s;t part, Cap. 4. Sect. 2. where I have divers arguments for it, and the Reader may ob|&s;erve my An&s;wers to his Arguments, no one of which is touched here, but a &s;trange new Argument, which I now proceed to examine; whether I may term it argument or illu&s;tration of his conclu&s;ion I care not, which is thus fra|med; <HI>Exempli gratia &s;i inter oculum &amp; Candelam vitrum &s;ta|tuas, cujus &s;uperficies ex multis planis constat, certo modo di&s;|po&s;itis, multae tibi videbuntur candelae, &s;cimus tamen unicam ibi e&s;&s;e candelam veram, &amp; proinde caeteras omnes mera e&s;&s;e phanta&s;mata, idola, hoc e&s;t, ut dicit &s;anctus Paulus nihil.</HI> For my part I cannot ob&s;erve where the force of this Argu|ment lies, to prove that <HI>lumen,</HI> or light, is a meer Phan|ta&s;m or nothing, this light &s;hews the Candle, or if he will, repre&s;ents it, now what repre&s;ents another mu&s;t be like it; but nothing cannot be like a thing, being clean contrary, or rather privatively or negatively oppo&s;ed to it, therefore if light were nothing, it could not repre|&s;ent the Candle; but perhaps the force may be couched in the&s;e words, <HI>Multae tibi videbuntur Candelae,</HI> there &s;hall many candles appear, <HI>to wit,</HI> by the reflection of tho&s;e many plains of gla&s;s, but &s;urely this no way enforceth his conclu&s;ion, for every one of the&s;e plaines (for all I know) repre&s;ents the true Candle, and are &s;o far from be|ing nothing, as they mu&s;t therefore be &s;omething; be|cau&s;e they repre&s;ent &s;omething; but they may by a fal&s;e reflection multiply the Candle, and make it &s;eem many; what if it does? Does the erroneous repre&s;enting make
<PB N="4" REF="128">
the repre&s;entor nothing? certainly no; for then every man who tells a lye &s;hould &s;ay nothing; for that lye is a fal&s;e repre&s;entation; we &s;ee that light makes us &s;ee the Candle from whence it comes; and indeed any body el&s;e in the Room where it is; truly, if it be not abu&s;ed by &s;ome <HI>Hocus Pocus</HI> tricks, or &s;uch devices as tho&s;e jug|ling gla&s;&s;es he mentions, but the abu&s;e lies in the plains in the gla&s;s, which returns the repre&s;enting light wrong ways, not in the light it &s;elf, which is retorted, he might therefore from hence fitter call that nothing, which abu|&s;eth the <HI>medium,</HI> than the light which is abu&s;ed; he pro|ceeds in the &s;ame place with a &s;trangely unnece&s;&s;ary di&s;|cour&s;e to this purpo&s;e as it &s;eems to me, <HI>neque tamen</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>earum una e&s;t verior Candela, quam reliquae quatenus ap|parent.</HI> I need repeat no more if there be &s;trength in any part of his di&s;cour&s;e it is in this; but here is none, for although none of the&s;e Images of the Candle, is the Can|dle, yet they are things, &s;uch things as did repre&s;ent the Candle, for the Candle could not be repre&s;ented to the eye, by that which is nothing, the thing that repre&s;ents another and that which is repre&s;ented are two, but both of them mu&s;t be things, or neither; but now it may be replyed to me that this is not Mr. <HI>Hobs</HI> his opinion, but the Objectors, I an&s;wer with Mr. <HI>Hobs</HI> who is per&s;onated by <HI>(b) ita e&s;t</HI> &s;o it is, &s;o that although <HI>(a)</HI> &s;eemed to object this, yet Mr. <HI>Hobs</HI> a&s;&s;ents to it.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="5" REF="128">
<HEAD><HI>CAP. IV.</HI> The Nature of Hypo&s;ta&s;is.</HEAD>
<P>ANd in the 331. he proceeds thus, <HI>Sed Patres Eccle&s;iae illis temporibus, tum ante, tum po&s;t concillium Nicenum, in &s;criptis &s;uis vocem Hypo&s;ta&s;is videntur alio modo interpretare, my|sterium Trinitatis Chri&s;tianis omnibus intelligibile reddere cupien|tes.</HI> The meaning of this is, that the Fathers, both before and after the Council of <HI>Nice,</HI> gave another &s;ence of the word <HI>Hypo&s;ta&s;is,</HI> and (&s;aith he) <HI>They thought be&s;t to do it by the &s;imilitude of fire, light, and heat, the fire they refer'd to the Father, the light to the Son, the heat to the holy Spirit, in which &s;imilitude</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>the congruity would perhaps be accu|rate, but that fire, &s;plendor,</HI> (here he changes the term light) <HI>heat, neither are &s;ub&s;tances, nor were thought &s;o by the Fathers, chiefly &s;uch as were</HI> Ari&s;totelians (of which kind he can produce very few Ancient) unle&s;s (&s;aith he) <HI>Ignis po|natur pro ignito, fire be put for a fiery thing.</HI></P>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>II.</HI> That a Particular Fire is an Hypo&s;ta&s;is.</HEAD>
<P>I Will &s;top here, and make this Note that <HI>I</HI> can gue&s;&s;e, that never man before him &s;aid that a particular fire was not an <HI>Hypo&s;ta&s;is,</HI> for <HI>Hypo&s;ta&s;is</HI> being nothing but an individual &s;ub&s;tance which then is the &s;ubiect of acci|dents, no man can deny that to fire, yes (&s;aith he) unle&s;s fire be put for a fiery thing, certainly there is no man that &s;ees or reads this word fire, but it repre&s;ents to him a fiery thing, as when he reads the&s;e words, Earth, Water, Aire, they make him think of Earthy, Watry, Airy things, there is the &s;ame rea&s;on for fire, and what he puts down that <HI>Ari&s;totelian</HI> Philo&s;ophers &s;hould be of his mind, I am per&s;waded he can produce none that ever affirmed that a particular fire was not an <HI>Hypo&s;ta&s;is;</HI> but
<PB N="6" REF="129">
he has rea&s;on for what he &s;peaks, and therefore follows this di&s;cour&s;e with <HI>(enim) homo enim, &amp; ignem, &amp; lumen, &amp; calorem extinguit quoties libet.</HI> The &s;um of this is, that be|cau&s;e a man can at his plea&s;ure extingui&s;h Fire, Heat, and Light, and that &s;o infirm a thing as man is, &s;hould extin|gui&s;h &s;o &s;ub&s;tantial Creatures created by an omnipotent God, and &s;o reduce it to nothing, <HI>We are not commanded to believe it, neither is it credible;</HI> the&s;e are his very words as near as I can tran&s;late them, and I think they are truely done.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>III.</HI> His Di&s;cour&s;e Cen&s;ured for changing his Termes.</HEAD>
<P>NOw I can ob&s;erve one thing, which is too frequent a fallacy throughout his Book, which is a changing his Termes, which ought not to be when a man brings a Philo&s;ophical rea&s;on for what he &s;peaks; this appears in tho&s;e main and &s;ub&s;tantial Termes of this di&s;cour&s;e, to wit, extingui&s;hing fire in the fir&s;t propo&s;ition, and that inlarging which fallows extingui&s;ht, <HI>&amp; ad nihilum redigere,</HI> to annihilate it. Oertainly as nothing can create but God, &s;o nothing can annihilate but he him&s;elf, for annihilation is reducing a thing to nothing, as Creation is a produ|cing &s;ome creature, or bringing a thing out of nothing; now although nothing can annihilate but God, yet not only man, but many inferiour creatures to man can ex|tingui&s;h creatures of his, as in particular, water or earth can extingui&s;h fire, and both watry and earthy bodies, this extingui&s;hing is putting out the Candle, a choaking the Fumes, but annihilation de&s;troys the very matter, which no <HI>Ari&s;totelian</HI> will allow to be po&s;&s;ible for any cre|ated thing to do, and therefore he was much to blame in a deceitful manner, to mingle Truths and Fal&s;hoods as if they were one thing.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<PB N="7" REF="129">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>IV.</HI> His Argument Confuted.</HEAD>
<P>BUt now let us con&s;ider his Inference, which is, that it is not credible that &s;o infirm a thing as man &s;hould de&s;troy the works of God: Alas! what a pittiful Plea is this, if man by his own &s;ole power &s;hould do it; this might look like an argument, but if man doth it by Di|vine a&s;&s;i&s;tance, as the fir&s;t and moving cau&s;e, why &s;hould it be hard to think &s;o; I hope the Almighty cannot be denyed to have a power of granting &s;uch powers; or if he &s;hould, we may produce tho&s;e invincible in&s;tances which are formerly given, and thou&s;and more to prove the contrary, where God hath given to creatures infe|riour to man, abilities to do &s;uch works, as water, earth, and the like; yea, fire hath &s;uch a power to dry up water, to de&s;troy wood, and the like. And indeed, let him but con&s;ider how any man hath a power given him of God, by which he is enabled to de&s;troy another man, a much more noble creature than fire, and then it need not be thought &s;trange that he &s;hould have the abilities to do the le&s;s; there is enough I think &s;poke to this.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CAP. V. <HI>His An&s;wer to</HI> quid e&s;t Hypo&s;ta&s;is <HI>examined.</HI></HEAD>
<P>I Will skip to page 339. where you &s;hall find in the mid&s;t of that page a que&s;tion put by (A) <HI>What is it which the Graecians mean by Hypo&s;ta&s;is,</HI> and the an&s;wer fra|med thus, <HI>Quum aliquid intueris quod vocas album,</HI> in En|gli&s;h thus, <HI>When you behold any thing which you call white, you impo&s;e that name to a &s;ub&s;tance or a body &s;ubject; &s;uppo&s;e marble, although the &s;harpne&s;s of your &s;ight cannot penetrate the &s;ub&s;tance of marble, or any other thing;</HI> all this I let pa&s;s as a
<PB N="8" REF="130">
&s;uppo&s;ed Truth, and &s;erves but for an Introduction to what follows; which is <HI>album igitur, a white thing, therefore is the name of a body which is &s;ub&s;i&s;ting by its &s;elf, not the name of a colour;</HI> he is out here very much without doubt, it is the name both of the body and the colour, a body coloured; as when we &s;ee a man in his cloaths cloathed; it is more and another thing then when we &s;ee him naked; &s;o when I &s;ee a body adorned with white, it is more then when I &s;ee only a body which may be in any other colour be&s;ides white; He proceeds <HI>&amp; impo&s;itum, this name is impo&s;ed for a certain appearance, or as the Graecians &s;peak</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> or <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>which &s;eems to be &s;omewhat, but is nothing indeed.</HI></P>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>II.</HI> That Colour is a Real thing.</HEAD>
<P>SUre here again he cro&s;&s;es both me and him&s;elf, he cro&s;|&s;eth me in that I have delivered in my fir&s;t part of Cen&s;ures upon his <HI>Leviathan, Cap.</HI> 4. <HI>Sect.</HI> 2. him&s;elf as you may ob&s;erve <HI>Sect.</HI> 3. I will begin with him&s;elf, he affirms <HI>colour to be nothing but perturbed Light, or light by reflection from &s;ome uneven body.</HI> Now then, if this be &s;o, then co|lour is light, then it mu&s;t be &s;omething, not a meer phan|ta&s;me, a nothing as he tearms it; nay, I dare affirm, if it be but a phanta&s;me, yet it is &s;omething, <HI>ens intentionale,</HI> although not a <HI>reale,</HI> an intentional, although not a real thing; for fir&s;t con&s;ider, it is the work of a noble power, the Phancy, if we take it for the operation, which is the art of Phancying any thing, but if you take it for that eminent effect which is wrought by that operation, and left in the memory, it mu&s;t be &s;omething, and has an abode and being there, it mu&s;t needs be &s;omething therefore, &s;o that if we con&s;ider the&s;e colours only in the Phan&s;ie, they are &s;omething if we con&s;ider them as he hath taught us, in that being they have without our heads, they are real things; but to write to that which mo&s;t e&s;pecially re|flects upon me my &s;elf, that colour is nothing, I could
<PB N="9" REF="130">
wi&s;h the reader &s;o much lea&s;ure as to peru&s;e what I have writ in my former treati&s;e, and he will find that Mr. <HI>Hobs</HI> hath neither an&s;wered tho&s;e arguments I there produced, nor confuted any an&s;wer I gave to his arguments; I will add &s;omething more, and con&s;ider <HI>(good Reader)</HI> if it be not rational; that which not only works real effects, (which I have formerly &s;hewed invincibly that <HI>Colours</HI> do) but like|wi&s;e in its &s;elf &s;uffers change mu&s;t needs be &s;omething; for nothing cannot be changed, it is a pure non-entity, and will be &s;o alwayes, and when it is changed upon any &s;uppo&s;ition of &s;uch a thing, it mu&s;t be changed to &s;omething: Now colours we &s;ee changed from white, to redder or greener, and therefore mu&s;t needs be &s;omething: If he &s;hall &s;ay, it is but a diver&s;e ima|gination, we &s;hall cleare that by the examination of his following di&s;cour&s;e, which is this, <HI>Quam apparitionem,</HI> which apparition without &s;ome cau&s;e and foundation we &s;ufficiently under&s;tand is imp&s;&s;ible, <HI>viz.</HI> white can|not be without &s;ome &s;ub&s;tance to &s;ub&s;i&s;t to the ap|parition which is its cau&s;e, and as <HI>Logicians</HI> &s;peak, its &s;ubject here is a great deal of truth in this di&s;cour&s;e, but I can find nothing that Proves his conclu&s;ion, which is, that colour is nothing, nay, I will retort his di&s;cour&s;e to him and prove his conclu&s;ion fal&s;e by it, which thus I do, That which &s;ub&s;i&s;ts to <HI>White</HI> mu&s;t &s;ub&s;i&s;t to &s;omething, or el&s;e that which requires or needs &s;omething to &s;ub&s;i&s;t to it, mu&s;t be &s;omething, for nothing is nothing, and needs nothing to &s;ub&s;i&s;t to it, nor can any thing be &s;aid to &s;ub&s;i&s;t to nothing, for any entity added to nothing, makes it &s;omething, which is mo&s;t abhorring to nothing. Again, what&s;o|ever hath a cau&s;e is &s;omthing, but the&s;e <HI>Apparitions</HI> have a cau&s;e according to him here and el&s;ewhere, for as he makes refracted light in other places to be the cau&s;e, &s;o here he makes the &s;ubject to be the cau&s;e of them, the major is evident, for nothing can cau&s;e nothing, for although God by his almighty hand can annihilate any thing what he plea&s;eth, yet that anni|hilation
<PB N="10" REF="131">
is not &s;o properly a production of nothing, as a de&s;truction of a Being; for there is no exi&s;tence of that nothing, either to or in another, but a take|ing away of that Being which did formerly exi&s;t; &s;o that there can be no Exi&s;tence of nothing, and there|fore to &s;ay that nothing is &s;upported or &s;ub&s;i&s;ted by a Sub&s;tance, &s;eems to be a contradiction: That which follows in this <HI>Paragraph,</HI> is nothing to his purpo&s;e, I let it pa&s;s therefore, and come to <HI>Page</HI> 340. and skip divers things which indeed might de&s;erve a &s;harp Cen&s;ure, and pro&s;ecute only &s;uch things which op|po&s;e what I have heretofore judged mi&s;takes in him, and to that purpo&s;e in the formerly 340. <HI>Page,</HI> you may perceive, that the Objector (A) puts the Que|&s;tion.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CHAP. V.</HI> His Definition of Sub&s;tance by <HI>Ens</HI> Examined.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Q&V;id ergo e&s;t Sub&s;tantia?</HI> what is &s;ub&s;tance? and he is an&s;wered by (B) <HI>Idem quod Ens,</HI> the &s;ame with a thing, that is, what&s;oever is truly exi&s;ting, di&s;tinct from phan|ta&s;me and name; this definition or de&s;cription of &s;ub|&s;tance I mu&s;t blame, it being only a fuller and clearer expre&s;&s;ion of that of which I immediately before di&s;|cour&s;ed, that all the&s;e things which we commonly call accidents, are nothing but imaginations, or meer names put to nothing exi&s;ting, and I will oppo&s;e to this that which he delivered in the preceeding page, where he &s;aith, that the <HI>Latines</HI> call the &s;ubject of the&s;e accidents, <HI>eus, &s;ubjectum, &s;uppo&s;itum, &s;ub&s;tantiam, ba&s;om, &amp; fundamentum.</HI> Let me urge hence, what&s;oever is a foundation is a foundation of &s;omthing, there|fore the&s;e mu&s;t be &s;omthing to which &s;ub&s;tance is the foundation: con&s;ider a little (good Reader) that I may
<PB N="11" REF="131">
make all things clear to the mo&s;t ea&s;y capacity; can the Reader think that that heat which &s;corched his or my hand is nothing? I &s;peak not of tho&s;e poin|ted Attomes, of which &s;ome write that they cau&s;e heat, but this heat which you and I feel &s;o &s;en&s;ibly, can any think it is nothing? or that cold which be|nums my hand now whil&s;t I am writing, is that no|thing? why &s;hould we then be troubled with nothing? or that &s;harpne&s;s which enabled the knife or bullet to peirce my fle&s;h, is that nothing? or that they are meer names? which certainly, as &s;uch hurt no man, or that they are meer phanta&s;mes? can any man think that the meer phanta&s;me of one man can warm, cool, or hurt another? I remember, I think, I have read in <HI>Parnel&s;us, That if one mans inward man be too hard for ano|thers, he may with an engine, as he de&s;cribes, draw another to him many miles di&s;tance.</HI> I am not peremptory in the Author, having not my books about me, but I have certainely read it, but did never hear or read that by his fancy, a man could cool or warm another, or &s;upport &s;uch a burthen as we &s;ee Carpenters or Buil|ders do by a Mathematical di&s;po&s;ing of tho&s;e mate|rials which they u&s;e: Nay, give me Leave to tell the Author of this <HI>Paradon,</HI> that no man can think that tho&s;e habits which di&s;po&s;e any man to a ready acting vertuou&s;ly or vitiou&s;ly are nothing, or but fancies or names. Nay, I will tread one &s;tep further, if his doctrine were true, tho&s;e promi&s;ed joyes of Heaven, which we hope for, and tho&s;e dreaded torments of Hell, which wicked men are threatned with by God, &s;hould be no|thing but empty names or fancies, which appeares a mo&s;t horrid thought to a Chri&s;tian man; for the&s;e are not bodies, and therefore by him at the be&s;t but fancies. I will here make this ob&s;ervation, that when men vent extravagant opinions, and &s;uch as are not u&s;ual in Philo|&s;ophy, intending perhaps they &s;hould not proceed be|yond their own condition, (which is only Philo&s;ophy) and give plau&s;ible rea&s;ons to per&s;wade tho&s;e opinions,
<PB N="12" REF="132">
they believe not, nor can fore&s;ee, what ill con&s;equencies they may have in Divinity, but they are like new Laws, which may &s;eem rea&s;onable at fir&s;t, but nothing but time and experience can a&s;&s;ure the benefit of them.</P>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>II.</HI> Many Errors in his citing Scripture for his Opinion.</HEAD>
<P>ANd now Reader give me leave to look a little back upon what I skipt before, which is at the top of Page 340. his An&s;wer to that que&s;tion, how is <HI>Hypo&s;ta&s;is</HI> taken in the new Te&s;tament? His An&s;wer is, <HI>after the &s;ame manner as it is by other Writers,</HI> that manner is it which we ju&s;t now treated of: And then con&s;ider what fearful con|&s;equencies will follow out of his in&s;tances; his fir&s;t is, <HI>Heb.</HI> 1.3. <HI>Our Saviour is called the Character of his per&s;on, here</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>the word Hypo&s;ta&s;is (or per&s;on as we render it) that is the &s;ub&s;tance to the Image of that &s;ub&s;tance:</HI> And then ob&s;erve by this Philo&s;ophy, Chri&s;t is nothing, being not the &s;ub&s;tance; and he adds, to make his conclu&s;ion more apparent, <HI>he is in the &s;ame place called &s;plendor, the &s;plendor of the Divine glory,</HI> (that is his Tran&s;lation) and therefore he adds, <HI>five,</HI> or which is the &s;ame, <HI>lumen de Lucido,</HI> light out of a lucid body (&s;o I render his words, for <HI>Lucidum</HI> or the light body, is the &s;ubject or &s;ub&s;tance, and light is the accident, or nothing rather which proceeds out of it; &s;o that by this Philo&s;ophy, the Father &s;hould be a &s;ub&s;tance, and the Son but an accident, or nothing: Let us go on with him, <HI>Heb.</HI> 1.11. And the fir&s;t faith is called the <HI>Hypo|&s;tatis of things hoped for,</HI> that is (&s;aith he) <HI>for the Speech is Metaphorical</HI>) Faith is the Fundament of hope: Now Reader, by his Philo&s;ophy, Faith &s;hould be a &s;ub&s;tance, a body, (for he allows no other &s;ub&s;tance but bodies) which without doubt is a quality inhaerent in the Soul, and by him the things hoped for, or (to give him what &s;cope his words can bear) the hope of future ble&s;&s;ings which is founded upon faith is nothing, or at the be&s;t but
<PB N="13" REF="132">
a Phancy: He produceth another Text, 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 9.4. where I do not find the word <HI>Hyposta&s;is,</HI> nor any thing re|lating to his intent: But now, that the Reader may di&s;|cern how the&s;e Texts are abu&s;ed by him, I will lend &s;uch a&s;&s;i&s;tance to him as my pre&s;ent conceipt admini&s;ters to my &s;elf; let him con&s;ider how in the fir&s;t to the <HI>Hebrews</HI> the 3. it is &s;aid, that the Son of God is the brightne&s;s of his glory, here fir&s;t is not any mention of <HI>Lumen de Lucido,</HI> of Light proceeding out of a Lucid body, as he expre&s;|&s;eth it; but the &s;plendor or mo&s;t Illu&s;trious appearance of that unutterable Glory, which was manife&s;ted by the Incarnation of the Son of God, and his conver&s;ation a|mong&s;t us in the fle&s;h, which indeed clouding and vail|ing the extremity of that infinite glory which was in the Deity, with his humanity, he made it more clearly and brightly appear to us then it could have been di&s;cerned by humane eyes without it, and in that regard he may well be &s;aid to be the brightne&s;s of his Glory, becau&s;e it made that glory which was invi&s;ible in its &s;elf, vi&s;ible to us, and tho&s;e glorious Attributes with it, which were not po&s;&s;ible for Nature to reach; or any way compre|hend to be apprehended by Faith in him, the Son; And in all this we find neither &s;ub&s;tance, nor &s;ub&s;tantiated, which &s;hould be founded upon it; But then to proceed to the &s;econd pa&s;&s;age in that ver&s;e, which he made the fir&s;t, (and the expre&s;s Image or Character of his per&s;on) conceive Reader if you can, how it is po&s;&s;ible to make an Image of &s;ub&s;tance meerly &s;ub&s;tance, not cloathed with any accident, colour, figure, or any &s;uch thing which is &s;ubject to &s;en&s;e, for the&s;e are the only things by which we can Caracterize any thing, and the&s;e are not in God, this Image or Character thereof mu&s;t needs be &s;ome &s;ub|&s;tantial thing, and that mu&s;t needs be &s;ome &s;ub&s;tantial thing, and that mu&s;t be repre&s;ented to the under&s;tand|ing, (not the &s;en&s;e) which only can apprehend &s;ub&s;tan|ces, e&s;pecially ab&s;tracted from all accidents; then con|&s;ider who&s;e Character it mu&s;t be, to wit Gods, who is infinite, immen&s;e, unimmaginable, unintelligible, not to
<PB N="14" REF="133">
be repre&s;ented by any thing le&s;s than him&s;elf, it mu&s;t needs therefore be another of the &s;ame, another it mu&s;t be, becau&s;e the Repre&s;entors and the Repre&s;ented mu&s;t be Two, the &s;ame it mu&s;t be, becau&s;e nothing, no Art or Conceipt or any thing, can imagine any thing to Cha|racterize God but God; here then in clear termes are two Per&s;ons and one Nature; and not his imagination of a &s;ub&s;tance and accident, or indeed nothing.</P>
<P>Then we will explain his &s;econd place, <HI>Heb.</HI> 11.1. faith is there the <HI>Hypo&s;ta&s;is</HI> of things hoped for, we read it &s;ub|&s;tance, there will be no difference about that, he ingeni|ou&s;ly confe&s;&s;eth it to be a Metaphor, and &s;urely &s;o it is, and the likene&s;s con&s;i&s;ts in this, that as a &s;ub&s;tance is it out of which accidents are produced, which &s;upports and maintains them; &s;o hope (as he expounds it) or the things hoped for, that is the ble&s;&s;ings of God either in this or the other world (for Gods ble&s;&s;ings in this world may be hoped for) ari&s;e out of Faith, in which God hath founded them, and which is the &s;ole and only thing by which God hath Covenanted to continue and pre&s;erve them to us; thus taking it Metaphorically, as he, but then take it litterally, as the Schools di&s;tingui&s;h <HI>&s;ubjectum quo,</HI> and <HI>&s;ubjectum quod,</HI> a &s;ubject by which this &s;ub&s;i&s;ts in ano|ther, and a &s;ubject which &s;upports really the inherent ac|cident; &s;o may I &s;peak of &s;ub&s;tance, or <HI>fundamentum,</HI> the foundation of hope without doubt is the rea&s;onable &s;oul of man, out of which this act or habit is produced, and to which it doth adhere or inhere; this &s;oul is the <HI>&s;ubje|ctum</HI> or <HI>fundamentum quod,</HI> but faith the &s;ub&s;tance, or <HI>fun|damentum quo;</HI> by the mediation of which, hope is there fixed and &s;etled; for he that hopes for ble&s;&s;ings from God, without Gods revealed promi&s;es, which are appre|hended only by faith, tru&s;ts in his own wit, not in God: thus this Text being explained, there is no violation of|fer'd to any Term, but each word hath its proper and genuine &s;ignification, and it lays open a clear and mani|fe&s;t truth, which cannot be denyed; but contrary wi&s;h by his explanation, every word is wre&s;ted out of its pro|per
<PB N="15" REF="133">
&s;en&s;e and meaning; for faith which is an accident, a habit, mu&s;t be a &s;ub&s;tance, hope to exi&s;t in the Aire where is no foundation, no &s;ub&s;tance to &s;upport it.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>III.</HI> Some other things Examined.</HEAD>
<P>HE comes next in that 340 Page to enquire, <HI>Quid e&s;t e&s;&s;entia?</HI> which is an&s;wered, it is not di&s;tingui&s;hed from <HI>&s;ub&s;tantiae;</HI> the next quaere is, what is <HI>&s;ub&s;tans,</HI> the &s;ame with <HI>ens,</HI> the &s;ame with a thing; that is, what&s;oever is truly exi&s;ting, di&s;tinct from fancy and name: Here the Reader may di&s;cern how violently he pro&s;ecutes the former conceipt, that there is no real thing be&s;ides &s;ub|&s;tance, as if to inhere, or adhere, were not to exi&s;t, but only &s;ub&s;i&s;tance were exi&s;tance; but I &s;hall pro&s;ecute this no further now, it being a conclu&s;ion to which I do not remember that I have objected any thing heretofore, which are the only things I intended to vindicate in this paper; next he enters upon a long di&s;cour&s;e how the Greeks and Latines have di&s;torted names as he termes it, which I omit upon the &s;ame rea&s;on before, although a mo&s;t unhappy per&s;wa&s;ion of his; But in pag. 342. in his di&s;cour&s;e of a per&s;on, he oppo&s;eth what I have delivered in my 34 Cap. again&s;t his &s;ixteenth, which I find much alter'd in his Latine Edition, and if the Reader will trouble him&s;elf &s;o much as to peru&s;e that Treati&s;e of mine, he will find that Mr. <HI>Hobs</HI> hath added nothing here that was not in the former, nor an&s;wered any thing of my di&s;cour&s;e, which I doubt not to affirm, doth much more clearly explain the nature of a per&s;on, then any thing he hath put down for it; and I will pa&s;s the re&s;t of this Cap. as not oppo&s;ing my former cen&s;ures of him; &s;o likewi&s;e his &s;econd Cap. of Here&s;ie, which was only writ to excu&s;e him&s;elf from Here&s;ie, which I never charg'd him with as I remember, and do here &s;o far ac|quit him, that I think he never can be judged for one a|mong&s;t
<PB N="16" REF="134">
us, nor ever will be, for by him a man may deny any Truths if <HI>Leviathan</HI> exact it; yea, he mu&s;t be of <HI>Le|viathans</HI> Religion, and then he can never be judged an Heretick, becau&s;e <HI>Leviathan</HI> mu&s;t be &s;upream judge, but withal, I think he doth deliver Heretical Doctrine; and that that very conclu&s;ion is one, according to the Laws e&s;tabli&s;hed in our Nation: And I will pa&s;s to his third Cap. which is Intitled of certain objections again&s;t <HI>Levi|athan,</HI> and is entered upon Page 359.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD><HI>CAP. I.</HI> His Exordium Cen&s;ur'd.</HEAD>
<P>HE begins this third Cap. which concerns the objecti|ons again&s;t <HI>Leviathan,</HI> with the &s;tory of the&s;e la&s;t unhappy times, where he rai&s;eth the cau&s;e of the War, only from the difference between the Epi&s;copal men and Presbyterian: I will not undertake to rake up that <HI>Ken|nel,</HI> although perhaps I might be able to &s;peak &s;ome|thing pertinent, but this I dare affirm, that although the Rebellious party had an animo&s;ity again&s;t the Epi&s;|copal, as they had again&s;t all Authority, until they had made them&s;elves &s;ole Governors; yet their cheif aime was to pluck down the Regals, and in order to that, it was nece&s;&s;ary fir&s;t to take down Epi&s;copy, which was a &s;upport of it; and indeed you &s;hall find that almo&s;t all Trea&s;ons do pretend Religion; that under the cloak of holyne&s;s, they may cover &s;uch horrid impieties as mu&s;t be acted by &s;uch parties: It is in vain toe give in&s;tances which are much too frequent: but then as he well ob|&s;erves, <HI>P.</HI> 359. towards the bottom, when the Epi&s;copacy was plucked down, <HI>Nulla amplius pote&s;tas neman&s;it inter Anglos. There was no power left among the Engli&s;h of di&s;|cerning Here&s;y, but all Sects appeared in writing, and pub|li&s;hing what divinity every one would.</HI> I believe him and
<PB N="17" REF="134">
the mi&s;cheife of the indulgence is yet &s;en&s;ible among&s;t us, well upon that opportunity &s;aith he <HI>Page</HI> 360. the Author liveing at <HI>Paris u&s;ed that Liberty in write|ing:</HI> But oh! how much more honourable had it been for him to have writ again&s;t it, and to have fore&s;een tho&s;e unhappy events, which might have been ea&s;ily di&s;cerned without the help of his Mathematicks: but I go on, <HI>&amp; jura quidem Regalia, (&s;aith he) the rights of Kings, he hath egregiou&s;ly defended both in temporal and and &s;piritual matters:</HI> here I mu&s;t pau&s;e, and in a little, put down &s;omethings more Largly delivered in the preceeding Treati&s;e; he hath &s;upervindicated the Kingly authority in &s;pirituall things, for he hath made him above God him&s;elf; &s;o that if God him&s;elf command one thing in his word, and the King command another, we mu&s;t obey the King; he hath done as much in tem|poral things; for although God by his infinite pow|er confirms the Laws of men, concerning <HI>meum &amp; tuum,</HI> in appropriation of their temporal e&s;tates; yet he gives Ahab leave rightly to take Naboths vine|yard; Nay I &s;peak it freely, as he hath exalted it in &s;ome things too high, &s;o in &s;ome conditions he hath made it nothing, in regard that he hath made every man King of the whole world by nature, which na|tur cannot be put off whil&s;t he is a man; and there|fore what&s;oever any man, either by fraud or force, can get from him, is but a ju&s;t acquiring that which was his natural right; con&s;ider then, whether this be <HI>egregi&egrave; vindicare jura Regalia,</HI> egregiou&s;ly to vindicate the Regal rights, but (&s;aith (A) for all this is &s;poke by the Objector) whil&s;t he endeavoured to prove this out of Scripture, he lap&s;ed into unheard Opinions, which by mo&s;t Divines are accu&s;ed of Here&s;ie and Athei&s;me; certainly the Objector &s;poke truely, and (B) puts him to the proof, what are tho&s;e opinions &s;aith he, and &s;o now I will apply my &s;elf to &s;uch things as reflect upon my former Treati&s;e, omitting &s;uch other unhand|&s;ome expre&s;&s;ions, which if I live, I am likely in a fuller way to treat of.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="18" REF="135">
<HEAD><HI>CAP. II.</HI> In which is cen&s;ured his Definition of Religion.</HEAD>
<P>THat which immediately follows his making God a Body, which is abominable, but I will not &s;peak of it here but page 361. towards the bottome he enters upon a third Objection, which I have cen&s;ur'd in my former Treati&s;e, <HI>Cap.</HI> 13. <HI>Sect.</HI> 4. which is thus framed by (A) the Objector, <HI>Timor inquit invi&s;ibilium potentiarum,</HI> the fear of invi&s;ible powers, whether tho&s;e powers be feigned by the man who fears, or conceived from Fables publickly permitted, is Religion; but from them which are not publickly permitted, Super&s;tition; <HI>quando vero,</HI> when the powers which are feared are true, it is true Religion.</P>
<P>Thus far the Objection; and fir&s;t I commend his <HI>Latine</HI> Edition better then the <HI>Engli&s;h,</HI> for in his <HI>Latine</HI> Edition he changed this word (Fables) which is u&s;ed among&s;t us for a vain or fooli&s;h relation, and put in Hy&s;tories, which hath a more graceful acceptance; &s;o that the &s;en&s;e is, that Religion is drawn from Hi&s;tories publickly permit|ted, which is a milder expre&s;&s;ion, although the be&s;t will be bad enough, as you &s;hall &s;ee pre&s;ently.</P>
<P>That fear, and reverential fear of the&s;e invi&s;ible pow|ers, is an Act of Religion, I think no wi&s;e man will de|ny, but that Religion &s;hould be &s;hallowed up with fear, and &s;hould be nothing el&s;e (as he &s;eems to require) is too much; for therefore in that 6 Cap. where the&s;e words are, (as that Cap. con&s;i&s;ts of nothing but definitions, and the&s;e definitions pointed at in the Margent) he puts in the Margent again&s;t this (Religion) &s;o that this was his definition of Religion, of which it is but one &s;ingle Act, there being many more of a higher nature proceeding out of it; for Religion being as I defined it, and as it is
<PB N="19" REF="135">
generally u&s;ed, that part of Ju&s;tice by which we give God that Honour and Wor&s;hip is due to him; certainly, faith in what he &s;peaks, tru&s;t and hope in what he pro|mi&s;eth, Love of tho&s;e excellencies which we di&s;cern in him, are much more requi&s;ite and due to God then any fear, but a Reverential fear which flowes out of tho&s;e other; fear oppo&s;eth tru&s;t, and faith, and love: and con|&s;ider again, he divides Religion only according to the divers application of this fear to the object; &s;o that one way it is Religion, another Super&s;tition, if conceived of Hi&s;tories, permitted Religion, if otherwi&s;e Super&s;titi|on; when the powers are true powers, it is true Religi|on; any man may draw the other conclu&s;ion out of the&s;e premi&s;es, if the powers be fal&s;e, it is fal&s;e Religion.</P>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>III.</HI> The Termes are &s;o put as cannot agree in the <HI>Definitum,</HI> with &s;ome Scriptures examined.</HEAD>
<P>AGain, con&s;ider that he puts the&s;e Termes <HI>Powers In|vi&s;ible,</HI> without any limitation; &s;o that the fear of Angels or Devils is Religion; for although he &s;eems to be again&s;t the &s;pirituality of tho&s;e dominions good or bad, (of which, God willing, I mean to treat more fully hereafter) yet he doth not deny them to be invi&s;ible, and then the fear of them mu&s;t be Religion, which in|deed is only due to God, and therefore not to be ad|mitted in that generality; but this is only an objection by (A) let us &s;ee what (B) an&s;wers; His an&s;wer is thus, <HI>Idem a&s;&s;eritur,</HI> the &s;ame is a&s;&s;erted by <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;tes, The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wi&s;dom.</HI> I will not examine the place where it is, I remember the &s;entence perfectly, but do wonder what he can collect hence for his purpo&s;e; this fear <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;tes</HI> &s;peaks of, is the fear of the Lord, his, of invi&s;ible Powers; there are other powers invi&s;ible be|&s;ides, which are governed and commanded by him, and
<PB N="20" REF="136">
therefore he de&s;erves all awe, fear, and reverence from us; but they, &s;ome of them, I mean the ill Angels or Devils, hatred and contempt as is evident; &s;o that the fear of the Lord is one thing, and the fear of the Invi&s;ible powers is another, much more large then the former: Again, <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;tes</HI> &s;aith, <HI>That the fear of the Lord is the begin|ning of wi&s;dom,</HI> when without que&s;tion Religious wor&s;hip is that which perfects a man &s;o far as he is capable of per|fection in this world, and is the perfection of wi&s;dom; and therefore out of this Text it cannot be deduced, that the fear of Invi&s;ible powers is Religion, which is mans chief perfection: Con&s;ider good Reader the truth of <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;tes,</HI> how it con&s;i&s;ts with what I have deliver'd; when a man &s;hall be taught that there is an invi&s;ible Agent, who by his Almighty power, and Infinite wi&s;dom, made and &s;till governs this Univer&s;e, and will one day judge us men according to our works; then he trembles at the apprehen&s;ion of it, and that cau&s;eth him to &s;eek out which way he may plea&s;e him, and &s;top the fury of his wrath from falling upon him, and act accor|dingly: Thus wi&s;dom is begun, but afterwards this &s;ame man out of the&s;e beginnings, proceeds to &s;earch out Gods will and believe it, to tru&s;t and rely upon his promi&s;es, to be enamoured with God, and delighted with his excellencies, with following Acts far exceed in the wor&s;hip of God and his Honour, that fir&s;t of fear only; &s;o that although the fear of God may introduce and begin Religion, yet unle&s;s a man go further, it is not Religion, nor that it is can that Text prove, but he hath another Text which I wonder what he can do with it to this purpo&s;e, which is,</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<PB N="21" REF="136">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>IV.</HI> How that Text the Fool hath &s;aid in his Heart there is no God, can be applied to his purpo&s;e.</HEAD>
<P><HI>THat the Fool hath &s;aid in his heart there is no God;</HI> certain|ly if he &s;aid &s;o in his heart, he could not fear God, but that becau&s;e he thinks there is no God, he could not fear him; therefore &s;hould Religion con&s;i&s;t in fear? he that thinks there is no &s;uch thing, cannot oppo&s;e, be an|gry with, or hate God; doth Religion therefore con&s;i&s;t in the&s;e? and yet there is le&s;s con&s;equence in it, if a man will con&s;ider his propo&s;ition to be proved hence, it is not that fear is the Religion paid to God, but to invi&s;i|ble powers; many a man who did not think there was a &s;upream God governing all, did think that there were invi&s;ible powers to which they paid their Religious Du|ties, as mo&s;t of them to <HI>Semedei,</HI> and <HI>Heroes,</HI> and good <HI>Genii,</HI> and the like; &s;o that men may have Religion who &s;ay in their hearts there is no God; that is, &s;uch as he is generally conceived to be, an infinitely able, and wi&s;e Creator, and Governor; yea, &s;ome that thought there was a God who had <HI>infinitam v<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">rtutem,</HI> by which he gover|ned the world, yet would not allow him <HI>infinitam poten|tiam,</HI> to make it out of nothing; of which nature I con|ceive <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> to be, &s;o that although he and others may think there is no &s;uch God as we conceive, yet they might have Religion to &s;uch as they conceived to have &s;ome peices of the&s;e Divine excellencies; &s;o that that &s;eems to me an objection but weakly an&s;wered by him.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="22" REF="137">
<HEAD>CAP. IV.</HEAD>
<P>ANd I pa&s;s to a fourth Objection made at the bottom of the &s;ame page, which is out of the &s;ixteenth Cap. of the &s;ame <HI>Leviathan,</HI> when having treated of per|&s;ons, and what things may be per&s;onated, he at the la&s;t affirms, <HI>etiam Dei veri, the true God may be per&s;onated as he was fir&s;t by</HI> Mo&s;es, <HI>who governed not his people but Gods, &s;aying, thus &s;aith the Lord;</HI> I have di&s;cour&s;ed at large upon this expre&s;&s;ion of his in the 30. Cap. of my fir&s;t Notes upon his <HI>Leviathan, Sect.</HI> 11. and tho&s;e which follow, it would have become him to have given at the lea&s;t &s;ome ob&s;er|vations upon what I &s;aid, but he hath not; and I mu&s;t refer an Impartial Reader to that, but I mu&s;t ob&s;erve that this clau&s;e is left out in his Latine Edition, and in&s;tead thereof, put, that <HI>the true Gods per&s;on is and hath been born, for in his proper per&s;on he created the world,</HI> this is put in&s;tead of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> his bearing his Per&s;on; Good Reader &s;ee how he hath amended the matter, did God in Creating the World bear the Per&s;on of God? It is a Phra&s;e unheard of in any Divinity Writer; he that bears the per&s;on of any man or thing, mu&s;t be another from that thing which he bears, but in this he de&s;troys his bearing the per&s;on of God, when he affirms, he did it in his own, <HI>in propri&acirc; per&s;on&acirc;,</HI> in his own proper per&s;on; &s;o that his alteration is to the wor&s;e, but I return from whence I came, to <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> again, in which I referr'd the Reader to my former di&s;cour&s;e &s;o far, that he affirms the Son to be, as it &s;eems, the Second Per&s;on in the Trinity after <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> and that of the Holy Gho&s;t, all which I have &s;poke of at large, and now let us review his an&s;wer to this Objection, it may be the Candor of his Expo&s;ition will take away the &s;can|dal of his A&s;&s;ertion, and that begins in the la&s;t line of that Page, and &s;o follows on in the next, and is this.</P>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<PB N="23" REF="137">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>II.</HI> His Que&s;tion of our Catechi&s;me Examined.</HEAD>
<P><HI>VIdetur Author hoc loco,</HI> the Author &s;eems in this place to explain the doctrine of <HI>Trinity,</HI> although he do not name the <HI>Trinity:</HI> I &s;top here, he hath outgone him&s;elf in his Engli&s;h <HI>Leviathan,</HI> for I did not &s;o far dive into his thoughts, when I &s;poke of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> re|pre&s;enting God, but one, how that could be un|der&s;tood: but now it &s;eems abominable that <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> &s;hould be placed as a per&s;on in the <HI>Trinity;</HI> well, let us &s;ee his an&s;wer further in this place, that (&s;aith he) <HI>the Authour did labour to explain the Trinity, was pia vo|luntas, but erronea explicatio;</HI> it was a pious de&s;ire, but an erroneous explication; &s;urely it is a pious de&s;ire in any man, to endeavour to explain any Divine truth, out certainly it cannot be imagined, that a man of his parts, and learning, could be &s;o over&s;een in &s;o high a Point of Divinity, as to think that &s;uch a per&s;on ought to pa&s;s for the father, but that he would &s;teal a di&s;credit of that great and mo&s;t univer&s;ally received truth, by interpo&s;ing &s;uch a cloud before it; for (&s;aith he) <HI>Mo&s;es becau&s;e he after &s;ome manner &s;eems to bear the per&s;on of God, (as do all Chri&s;tian Kings) he &s;eems to make him one per&s;on of the Trinity, valde negligenter, this was exceeding negligently done:</HI> and pittiful repentance for &s;uch a crime, to bla&s;pheme God, and call man God, (for &s;o mu&s;t each per&s;on in the Trinity be) no, it looks not like repentance, but a vain excu&s;e, which near upon amounts to a ju&s;tification, but he proceeds, <HI>If</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>he had &s;aid that God in his proper per&s;on had made the world, in the per&s;on of his Son, had redeemed man|kind in the per&s;on of the holy Gho&s;t, had &s;anctified his Church, be had &s;aid no more then is in the Catechi&s;me put out by the Church:</HI> certainly he is much out in this &s;aying, for the Catechi&s;me of the Church of England, has no
<PB N="24" REF="138">
&s;uch &s;aying, as God in <HI>prop i&acirc; per&s;on&acirc;,</HI> God in his pro|per per&s;on did make the world, this expre&s;&s;ion <HI>pro|pri&acirc; per&s;on&acirc;</HI> is not there, nor I think in any confe&s;&s;ion of any Chri&s;tian Church, to be u&s;ed for the Father; all three are proper Per&s;ons, no one more then other, neither doth the Catechi&s;m u&s;e that very phra&s;e Per&s;on in that whole an&s;wer, for it is thus, <HI>I believe in God the Fa|ther, who hath made me, and all the world,</HI> not that he made it in <HI>propri&acirc; per&s;on&acirc;,</HI> for it was the work of the whole Tri|nity, and the God, who is the whole Trinity, is the Al|mighty Father which made the world, no one word which &s;ignifieth one per&s;on to be more proper then ano|ther: Secondly, in God the Son, who hath Redeemed me and all mankind; it is true, this Redemption being a glorious effect of the Death and Sufferance of Chri&s;t, which mu&s;t needs be acted in his humanity, which was united to his Divinity, to the &s;econd Per&s;on in the Tri|nity, hath a mo&s;t proper termination in the Son; &s;o that I do yield it mu&s;t be implyed that it was acted in the Son, but it is not expre&s;&s;ed; and therefore, although it was materially the &s;ame, yet formally it was not, and he &s;aid more then was in the Catechi&s;m; and for the la&s;t, it is not &s;aid in the Catechi&s;m that God in the Per&s;on of the Holy Gho&s;t did Sanctify his Church, but in God the Holy Gho&s;t who &s;anctifieth me, and all the Elect People of God, which although God the Holy Gho&s;t in the Ca|techi&s;m be the &s;ame with the third Per&s;on, yet he is not called &s;o there, and we may mark, that although the&s;e three Per&s;ons are put down in the Catechi&s;me, as foun|tains of tho&s;e great Ble&s;&s;ings comminicated to man; yet no where is any called proper per&s;on of God more then the other, nor is any of tho&s;e ble&s;&s;ings appropriated to any per&s;on exclu&s;ively, &s;hutting out the other; &s;o that although it is &s;aid, God the Father, who made me, it is not &s;aid without the Son of which abundance of Scrip|ture affirms he made the World, and Mr. <HI>Hobs</HI> dealt un|hand&s;omly with our Catechi&s;m, when he forced &s;uch a &s;en&s;e upon it.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<PB N="25" REF="138">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>III.</HI> Another An&s;wer Cen&s;ur'd.</HEAD>
<P>BUt perhaps he hath a better Expo&s;ition afterwards, for when the Objector immediately after urged that Mr. <HI>Hobs</HI> u&s;ed that Language in divers places, he an&s;wer|ed, <HI>That all of them might receive that Expo&s;ition;</HI> but he a little further explains him&s;elf thus, <HI>Vel &s;i dixi&s;&s;et,</HI> or (&s;aith he) <HI>if he had &s;aid God in his proper per&s;on, had con&s;tituted him|&s;elf a Church by the Mini&s;try of</HI> Mo&s;es, <HI>in the per&s;on of his Son had redeemed the &s;ame; in the per&s;on of the holy Gho&s;t, had &s;anctified the &s;ame, he had not erred:</HI> Thus far he, but it &s;eems to me &s;trange that both the&s;e &s;hould be without Errors, for they are extreamly different; in the fir&s;t God in his proper per&s;on to Create the World, and the &s;e|cond in his proper per&s;on by the Admini&s;tration of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> to con&s;titute a Church; but that phra&s;e of, in his pro|per per&s;on, is unheard of among&s;t any who are not with it called Hereticks; for if God the Father did any of tho&s;e great works in his proper per&s;on, then the Son did not operate in them, which is again&s;t the whole &s;en&s;e of Scripture, <HI>Joh.</HI> 1.3. <HI>All things were made by him, and with|out him was nothing made that was made,</HI> Of which I have treated at large in my former Piece with much more, which is to be &s;een in every Writer upon this Subject, or el&s;e the &s;ame mu&s;t be the very per&s;on of the Father, which is horrid Divinity, or el&s;e not a proper, but an improper per&s;on of the Deity, which is alike hateful: Then con&s;ider his next propo&s;ition, that God in the per|&s;on of the Son did redeem the &s;ame; what is that he calls the &s;ame? &s;urely that was the Church of the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI> only, for <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> con&s;tituted no other Church; then Chri&s;t Re|demed them only, when before in the former oppo&s;ition, according to our Church Cat<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">chi&s;me he Redeems Man|kind, which is much larger then the Church which <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> con&s;tituted; and then la&s;t of all, when he &s;aith, that
<PB N="26" REF="139">
God in the per&s;on of the Holy Gho&s;t did &s;anctifie the &s;ame, it is too narrow for his former propo&s;ition, which was, that in the Per&s;on of the Holy Gho&s;t, God did San|ctifie the Church which is much larger then the Syna|gogue which was con&s;tituted by <HI>Mo&s;es;</HI> and when he &s;aid he had not Erred, if he had phra&s;ed it after that man|ner, I &s;ay it is evident he had erred, and erred grievou&s;ly in expre&s;&s;ing him&s;elf either of the&s;e ways.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CAP. V. Joh. 1.1. <HI>Explained.</HI></HEAD>
<P>I Pa&s;s now to Page 364. where at the top is objected, that in his 43. Cap. he &s;hould &s;ay, <HI>Joh.</HI> 1.1. that the word <HI>there, and &s;o likewi&s;e in the</HI> 14. <HI>ver&s;e, doth &s;ignifie a pro|mi&s;e, and that promi&s;e is the &s;ame with the thing promi&s;ed; that is, Je&s;us Chri&s;t, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> it is P&s;alm</HI> 105.19. <HI>and the</HI> 40.13. <HI>and other places;</HI> I will not di&s;pute this further, I have writ at large concerning this place, and do an&s;wer to him both in this objection, and to his Ju&s;tification of it in his an&s;wer, that avails him nothing towards his di&s;|grace of the Divine Nature of this word, if it &s;hould be allowed &s;uch a &s;en&s;e: for that he was the per&s;on is evi|dent out of his glo&s;s, and let that per&s;on be eternally with God, and be God as the Text &s;peaks, that he &s;hould make all things, and the like he mu&s;t needs be that per|&s;on which we conceive he <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">s, and referring the Reader to what I have formerly writ, where the genuine &s;en&s;e of that word is expre&s;t; I pa&s;s to the next objection which immediately follows, and cro&s;&s;es one conclu&s;ion of mine in this Treati&s;e, though I know not punctually where, my papers being now with the Printer.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="27" REF="139">
<HEAD><HI>CAP. VI.</HI> Whether it be Lawful for a Faithful man to deny Chri&s;t, Examined.</HEAD>
<P>THe Conclu&s;ion by the Objector &s;et down, is drawn from an an&s;wer to a Que&s;tion, What? <HI>If a faithful man &s;hould be commanded by his Prince to deny Chri&s;t, what &s;hould he do? he &s;aith, it is lawful to obey his Superiors by the Example of</HI> Naaman <HI>the A&s;&s;yrian, who was by the Prophet bid go in Peace, which words, &s;aith the Objector, &s;eem to me not a per|mi&s;&s;ion, but a form of Valediction:</HI> Mr. <HI>Hobs</HI> ju&s;tifies the con|clu&s;ion, and begins his an&s;wer <HI>forta&s;&s;e, perhaps it is &s;o, if he had an&s;wered any thing el&s;e, either approving or di&s;proving h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">s Petition, but in this place it can be under&s;tood of nothing but a Permi&s;&s;ion:</HI> I will &s;top here for this pre&s;ent, and exa|mine it, fir&s;t what the offence was that he &s;eems to pa|rallel with the denying of Chri&s;t; the Story is Recor|ded in the &s;econd Book of <HI>Kings, Cap.</HI> 5. where in the 17. <HI>ver&s;.</HI> you may ob&s;erve that <HI>Naaman</HI> profe&s;&s;ing thy Servant, will from henceforth neither offer burnt Offer|ings or Sacrifice to other Gods, but unto the Lord. By burnt Offerings and Sacrifice, we mu&s;t under&s;tand all Religious wor&s;hip which was due to God, for &s;o it was to him, but then in the 18. <HI>ver&s;e,</HI> he begins to make a &s;cruple, that his attendance upon his Ma&s;ter at his Ido|latrical wor&s;hip, may &s;eem to be a Divine wor&s;hip, be|cau&s;e it might &s;eem to have an affinity with it, and in this doubt he prays a pardon thus, <HI>In this thing the Lord pardon thy Servant, that when my Ma&s;ter goeth into the hou&s;e of</HI> Rimmo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> <HI>to wor&s;hip there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow my &s;elf in the hou&s;e of</HI> Rimmon, <HI>the Lord pardon thy Servant in this thing:</HI> Mark you this&punc; it was a tender nicety in this man&punc; who was but little acquainted with true Religion, and but newly converted to one Article of Faith, that the Lord <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> God; <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters">t certainly I find not &s;o great fault in this action as Mr. <HI>Hobs</HI> &s;eems to do, in comparing it
<PB N="28" REF="140">
with the denyal of Chri&s;t; for fir&s;t, it is not &s;aid he did wor&s;hip <HI>Rimmon,</HI> but only that he went into the hou&s;e, and bowed in the hou&s;e, not to <HI>Rimmon,</HI> but if he had, I think I may boldly &s;ay, that Idolatry, wor&s;hiping a fal&s;e God, is not &s;o bad as to deny a true one; and therefore, if he had wor&s;hipt <HI>Rimmon</HI> it had not been &s;o bad, as to deny Chri&s;t; but I deny that he did wor&s;hip, or in that act &s;hew &s;o much as a practical Idolatry; for to bow to <HI>Baal,</HI> to bow to <HI>Rimmon,</HI> is the &s;in of Idolatry, not to be in the hou&s;e where <HI>Baal</HI> or <HI>Rimmon</HI> was, or to bow in that hou&s;e, which yet is all that is de&s;ired by him; If <HI>Eli&s;ha</HI> had the thoughts which I have, that valedictions may &s;eem to imply a tacite a&s;&s;ent of his to what he &s;aid, he going no further in wor&s;hiping <HI>Rimmon;</HI> but he proves it farther from the practi&s;e of the Primitive Church.</P>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>II.</HI> The Canons of the Councel of <HI>Nice</HI> Examined.</HEAD>
<P>I Will &s;et down his words, <HI>You know</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>that there were many Chri&s;tians a little before the</HI> Nicene <HI>Synod good men, but not mo&s;t valiant, who being threatned with Deaths or Torments, renounced their Chri&s;tianity, what puni&s;hment do you think was appointed them in that general Synod at</HI> Nice? <HI>In the</HI> 19. <HI>Canon of that Councel, it is Decreed, that be who &s;hould do that (is his Phra&s;e, which is deny his Chri&s;tianity) without Tor|ments or danger, &s;hould return to the Catechi&s;m: Here I will pau&s;e,</HI> and indeed did when I read it, for I was well ac|quainted with that Councel, and the &s;tory of it, but re|membred no &s;uch ea&s;ie Penance, whereupon being not in my Study, I borrowed <HI>Binnius,</HI> and there found in his two fir&s;t Lections no &s;uch thing in the 19. Canon of either, as he &s;peaks of, or relating to it; in the 11. of both the vulgar Editions, and the 19. of <HI>Pi&s;anus</HI> I did; it would be tedious to tran&s;cribe the words, but what is material will ea&s;ily appear in the canva&s;&s;ing his di&s;cour&s;e; con&s;i|der therefore fir&s;t, that in his an&s;wer to the que&s;tion,
<PB N="29" REF="140">
he &s;aid it was lawful to obey his Prince, commanding to deny Chri&s;t; how can any thing in this Cannon prove it to be &s;uch, if it were only, as he &s;aid, condemning to be among&s;t the Catechi&s;mens, this &s;uppo&s;eth it a fault for which a man &s;hould be among&s;t the Catechi&s;mens, this &s;uppo&s;eth it a fault for which he &s;hould be bani&s;hed the Communion, and on &s;uch terms as they were, it could not be, unle&s;s they had thought it a hainous crime; then I ob&s;erve, that in that Eleventh Canon, as the vulgar, it is &s;aid of tho&s;e which prevaricated, without nece&s;&s;ity, or without the taking away their goods, or danger of the life, as was done under the Tyranny of <HI>Lucinius;</HI> here is not Mr. <HI>Hobs</HI> his ca&s;e, <HI>Licinius</HI> per&s;ecuted Chri&s;tians &s;e|verely, which being di&s;cerned by many a fearful Chri&s;ti|an, they would deny Chri&s;t before they came to &s;uffer for him, rather than put them&s;elves in that hazard, ju&s;t as Mr. <HI>Hobs</HI> would have men; afterwards repenting of that fault, they would &s;eek admittance into Gods mercies communicated in the Church; what thinks the Councel? Thus, although &s;uch men are adjudged unworthy of hu|manity, yet let benevolence be admini&s;tred to them, or as the other Reading, although they are unworthy of mercy, yet let them have humanity &s;hewed them: Here you &s;ee what a &s;evere judgment was pa&s;t upon the&s;e men for this Crime, that they are unworthy of any mercy in them&s;elves who &s;hould deny Chri&s;t, to flatter Princes; but let us &s;ee the humanity judged, fit to u&s;e towards them; it is true, the Church &s;hould imitate God, who hath &s;hut the Gates of Heaven to no penitent Soul, but becau&s;e the Church cannot have the All-&s;eeing Eye of God to di&s;cern who is penitent, but by the outward ex|pre&s;&s;ions; therefore the Councel &s;ets down what &s;hall be thought a &s;ufficient evidence of it. That which he termes <HI>(redire ad Catechumenos)</HI> to return the Catechu|mens was &s;omewhat, but not half his work&punc; for &s;aith that Councel, <HI>quicunque,</HI> who&s;oever do truly Repent, let him &s;pend three years <HI>inter audiculos,</HI> among&s;t the hearers, which were the Catechumens; for they were admitted
<PB N="30" REF="141">
to hear the Catechi&s;tical Sermons Preached before they went to Prayers, but not to the Communion of Prayers, which kind of Penance too many men among&s;t us puni&s;h them&s;elves with; but this is not all, then let him dete&s;t him&s;elf &s;even years more with all contrition, nor hath the Councel done yet, let them communicate with the people two years more in Prayer; &s;o that here are twelve years Penance, and if in this time he relap&s;ed, he was to begin again, and as it is expre&s;&s;ed in other ca&s;es, not un|til his death to receive the Communion; and if he reco|ver, to be where he was when he did receive it; becau&s;e that out of Chri&s;tian piety the <HI>Euchari&s;t</HI> was given him for his <HI>viaticum,</HI> (as it is called) to &s;trengthen him in his long Journy he was to go; after all this, con&s;ider good Reader what a mi&s;erable &s;hift Mr. <HI>Hobs</HI> was put to, when he took this Canon for to countenance &s;uch a horrid con|clu&s;ion; that it is fit in obedience to man to deny Chri&s;t, when this Canon mo&s;t &s;harply puni&s;heth that horrid Sin, and he that will read but the next Canon, which is the 12. &s;hall find the like &s;everity u&s;ed to them, who having at fir&s;t left the Military girdle &s;toutly, would afterwards put it on; the &s;tory was thus, the Emperors for a reward of their gallantry would give de&s;erving Souldiers a girdle, and by it many priviledges: But if they were Chri&s;tians, and would not renounce their Faith, this girdle was taken from them, and with it, all priviledges; divers, after they had refu&s;ed it upon the&s;e accur&s;ed terms, being over allured by the plea&s;ures and honours of the world, would de&s;ire it again, and then this Councel pa&s;|&s;eth the like judgment upon tho&s;e as the former; &s;o that all kinds of denying Chri&s;t was mo&s;t hateful to tho&s;e Fa|thers, and &s;entenced as a mo&s;t grievous &s;in, having a mo&s;t &s;evere pennance injoyned it; but hear Mr. <HI>Hobs</HI> again.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<PB N="31" REF="141">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>III. Peters</HI> Denial of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> Examined.</HEAD>
<P><HI>IT were a Sin</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>in an Apo&s;tle or Di&s;ciple, who had undertaken to Preach the Go&s;pel against Christs Enemies, and in</HI> Peter <HI>a great fault, but of infirmity, and ea&s;ily pardon'd by Chri&s;t:</HI> where good Mr. <HI>Hobs</HI> was the infirmity evident, in <HI>Peter</HI> more then any other per&s;on; &s;ure you have no Scri|pture ground for it, he was forewarned by our Saviour, and &s;o armed again&s;t it, yet (&s;aith he) it was ea&s;ily for|given by our Saviour: Good God what ea&s;ine&s;s do we find, it was not without Repentance, and how &s;harp that was, we cannot tell, the word of God notifies that he wept bitterly; and how powerful tho&s;e tears wrought upon our Saviour we know, &s;o that it was hardly &s;poke of him, and more then he could know to &s;ay it was ea&s;ily; and wor&s;e in his conclu&s;ion, when he &s;aid that horrid &s;in might be committed without a fault, and that it was lawful to do it; I am &s;ure that &s;evere &s;entence which the Councel of <HI>Nice</HI> lay upon it, and the bitter tears of St. <HI>Peter,</HI> are no arguments for it; and the whole cour&s;e of Divinity delivered by our Saviour and Apo&s;tles, makes again&s;t it, and the con&s;tant practi&s;e of holy and religious men: for our Saviour, <HI>Luk.</HI> 9.23. <HI>If any man will come after me, he must deny him&s;elf, and take up the Cro&s;s and follow me.</HI> Mark you, it is deny him&s;elf, not Chri&s;t, it is take up his Cro&s;s, not ca&s;t it away and reject it; his Cro&s;s, that is, all affliction which is upon him, as in this ca&s;e he mu&s;t either Sin or bear it; thus it is laid upon him; as like|wi&s;e there are other ca&s;es, but this is one and a main one. Again, <HI>Mat.</HI> 33. <HI>He who denies me before men, him will I deny before my Father who is in Heaven.</HI> What more pe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">tinent and clo&s;e again&s;t his conclu&s;ion; and you may perceive, that as we demean our &s;elves towards Chri&s;t here, he will &s;o demean him&s;elf towards us hereafter; if we &s;uffer for him, we &s;hall raign with him; if we for&s;ake him to &s;ave this life, we &s;hall have no &s;hare in his life or death hereafter;
<PB N="32" REF="142">
and &s;urely if a man might lawfully deny Chri&s;t, it was a &s;trange folly, yea madne&s;s in all tho&s;e glorious Martyrs, who &s;uffered &s;uch torments rather then they would de|ny their Saviour. I have &s;poke of this before in this very Treati&s;e, and I &s;ee nothing oppo&s;ed to any thing there which was brought again&s;t his or for my conclu|&s;ion; this might have been therefore &s;pared.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. <HI>IV.</HI> A Digre&s;sion to Mr. <HI>Hobs.</HI></HEAD>
<P>BUt now Mr. <HI>Hobs,</HI> I again be&s;peak you, leave off the Ju&s;tification of &s;uch horrid Errors as this; con&s;ider, if you intend to act according to this Doctrine, you can have no part in Chri&s;t, he will reject you at the la&s;t day; con&s;ider again that you have taught, and by that teaching have tempted others to be of that Error, to love and pre|fer this temporal life, before that eternal: An Athei&s;tical practice which men may ea&s;ily be induced to entertain and practi&s;e, when there is little rea&s;on produced for it; and con&s;ider with your &s;elf, that although this is one of the greate&s;t &s;ins 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 here|after, if you prove penitent; Repent therefore of this your wickedne&s;s, that God may according to his Sacred Covenant, have Mercy upon you; Judge your &s;elf, that you be not judged of the Lord; and make amends for this publick Scandal you have given to the Church of Chri&s;t; which I think &s;ince the fir&s;t Conver&s;ion never had any &s;o publickly profe&s;&s;ed this Doctrine before <HI>Leviathan;</HI> do it therefore in &s;ome publick Treati&s;e, and that in <HI>Engli&s;h,</HI> whereby there may be amends to tho&s;e who have been &s;educed by your Doctrines, and &s;o Farewell; This is all which concerns me in this Appendix of yours at this time, therefore I meddle with nothing el&s;e.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="index">
<PB REF="142">
<HEAD>AN Alphabetical Table, Of the Principle <HI>CONTENTS.</HI> In which C. denotes the Chapter, and S. the Section.</HEAD>
<DIV2 N="A" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>A</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>THe promi&s;es to</HI> Abraham <HI>and his &s;eed,</HI> Cap. 22. Sect. 16. Page. 178.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Why his Family was obliged to obey Gods Commmands? C.</HI> 22. S. 17. P. 181.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Whence are</HI> Actions, <HI>ju&s;t or unju&s;t?</HI> C. 8. S. 2. P. 24.
<LIST>
<ITEM>&mdash;<HI>not from Con&s;ent or Di&s;sent,</HI> C. 8. S. 2. ibid.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Mixed</HI> Actions, <HI>what they are,</HI> C. 19. S. 6. 114.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>External and Internal</HI> Acts <HI>&s;ubject to Gods command,</HI> C. 22. S. 14. 175.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Agag <HI>&s;pared,</HI> C. 20. S. 2. 130.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Subjects not freed from their</HI> Allegiance, C. 5. S. 4. P. 15.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Of the</HI> Amazons <HI>Common-wealth,</HI> C. 16. S. 57. p. 70. 72.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>St.</HI> Ambro&s;es <HI>conte&s;t with</HI> Theodo&s;ius, C. 20. S. 4. 134.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Apo&s;tles, <HI>their gift of Tongues Miraculous,</HI> C. 22. S. 10. 168.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Their Learning Miraculous,</HI> Cap, 22. S. 11. 169.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Appetite <HI>over-rules the VVill,</HI> C. 19. S. 6. 115.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Ari&s;tides <HI>Bani&s;hed,</HI> C. 20. S. 5. 141.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>No taking</HI> Armes <HI>again&s;t the King,</HI> C. 16. 8. 7. 72.</ITEM>
<ITEM>A&s;&s;urance <HI>of revelations,</HI> C. 22. 8: 1. 148.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>What is A&s;&s;urance?</HI> C. 22. 8. 1. 149
<LIST>
<ITEM>&mdash; <HI>how many ways it may be had,</HI> C. 22. S. 1. <HI>idem.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>&mdash; <HI>that of faith greater then of Sciences,</HI> C. 22. S. 1. 150.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&mdash; <HI>what we have of Chri&s;tian Religion,</HI> C. 22. S. 1. <HI>idem.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><PB REF="143">Athenians <HI>u&s;ed O&s;traci&s;m,</HI> C. 20. S. 5. 140.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>He who acts by anothers</HI> Authority, <HI>may do injury to him by who&s;e authority he Acts,</HI> C. 8. S. 1. 23.</ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="B" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>B</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>The wor&s;hippers of <HI>Baal</HI> not excu&s;ed by the command of the King of <HI>I&s;rael, C. 22. S. 17. 183.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Bi&s;hops</HI> mo&s;t competent Judges of Books in religion and of Preaching, <HI>C. 10. S. 3. 32.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="C" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>C</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>The <HI>Canons</HI> of the Church of <HI>England</HI> confirmed by Laws, <HI>C. 23. S. 13. 223.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>When one is &s;aid to be a <HI>Captive, C. 17. S. 2. 82.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>To whom a <HI>Captive</HI> belongs, <HI>ibid.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The first <HI>cau&s;e</HI> doth not nece&s;&s;itate, <HI>Cap. 19. Sect. 9. 10. 11. 1<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">. 118.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The chaine of <HI>cau&s;es</HI> not to be di&s;cerned; <HI>C. 19. S. 10. 119.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The injuries done to K. <HI>Charles I.</HI> had their ri&s;e from Mr. <HI>Hob</HI>'s doctrine, <HI>C. 14. S. 2. C. 21. 57.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Children</HI> ought to love tho&s;e that nouri&s;hed them <HI>C. 16. S. 10. 76.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>VVhether they can give con&s;ent in their Infancy, <HI>C 16. S 1. 64</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Chri&s;tianity</HI> to be introduced by rea&s;on and &s;ufferings, and not by force, <HI>C. 10. S. 9. 37.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>M<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> only actively capable of commands, <HI>C. 19. S. 9. 118.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The difference between the commands of God and of men, <HI>C. 18. S. 11. 99.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>External and Internal, Acts, &s;ubject to Gods command, <HI>C. 22. S. 14. 175.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Conduct</HI> and <HI>Command</HI> how like the Motive faculty, <HI>C. 23. S. 14. 224.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Commons</HI> the Repre&s;entative of the People, <HI>C. 23. S. 16. 2<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">0.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The Divi&s;ion of a <HI>Common-wealth</HI> into Monarchy,</ITEM>
<ITEM><PB REF="143"><HI>Ari&s;tocracy</HI> and <HI>Democracy</HI> examined, <HI>C. 13. S. 1. 2. 4<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">. 49.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>How fathers rather then mothers did erect them, <HI>C. 16. S. 5. 69.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Rules to govern them not certain and demon&s;trative, <HI>C. 10. S. 14. 105.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Mr. <HI>Hobs</HI>'s Commonwealth no where to be found, <HI>C. 4. S. 1. 9.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>&mdash; not con&s;i&s;tent with Rea&s;on, <HI>C. 4. S. 2. 10.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>&mdash; he fir&s;t called it a <HI>Leviathan, C. 3. 8.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>VVhat is Dominion by <HI>Conque&s;t? C. 16. S. 12. 79.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>&mdash; how it becomes de&s;potical. <HI>C. 16. S. 12. 88.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>When one is &s;aid to be <HI>Conquered, C. 17. S. 1. 81.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>What power the Victor hath over the Conquered, <HI>C. 16. S. 12. 79.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Covenant upon <HI>Conque&s;t</HI> may give po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, but not right when the cau&s;e of the vvar is not ju&s;t, <HI>C. 17. S. 2. 82.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Con&s;cience,</HI> what it is? <HI>C. 23. S. 4. 197.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>What&s;oever is again&s;t it is &s;in, <HI>C. 23. S. 4. 198.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>what is an erroneous, <HI>C. 23. S. 4. 199.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>how it obligeth, <HI>ibid.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>VVhether there be a publick <HI>con&s;cience? C. 23. S. 5. 205.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>how private con&s;ciences differ from private opinions, <HI>ibid,</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Controver&s;ies;</HI> the Soveraign ought to take care of deci|ding them, and is accountable to God for the neglect thereof, <HI>C. 12. S. 1. 44.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Covenant</HI> not a breath, <HI>C. 6. S. 2, 3. C. 16. S. 6. 19. 20. 71.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>whence their Obligation, <HI>C. 6. S. 2. C. 16.</HI> S. <HI>6. 65. 71.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>the fir&s;t obligeth, <HI>C. 5. S. 1. 12.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>They may be made immediately with God, <HI>C. 5. S. 3. 13.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>If made with God again&s;t the Soveraign, they do not oblige, <HI>ibid.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Not nece&s;&s;ary that the Covenant in government &s;hould be made with all as one per&s;on, or &s;everally with every one,
<PB REF="144">
<HI>Cap. 5. Sect. 4. 15.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The Prince may <HI>Covenant</HI> in taking his authority, and not take it upon Covenant, <HI>C. 6. S. 1. 17.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The &s;word hath no power but from the <HI>Covenant, C. 6. S. 3. 20.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Creation,</HI> the de&s;cription of it by <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> not to be known but by revelation, <HI>C. 22. S. 1. 152.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="D" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>D</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Darius,</HI> his Kingdom not every way ab&s;olute, <HI>C. 13. S. 3. 4. 50. 53.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Denominations</HI> are a principatiori, <HI>C. 19. S. 6. 114.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>De&s;ire,</HI> the difference betwixt it, the will and inclination, <HI>ib.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Di&s;putes concerning Government dangerous, <HI>18. S. 3. 86.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Doctrines</HI> which are peaceble only true, <HI>C. 10. S. 7. 35.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>By the negligence of Governours and Teachers, fal&s;e <HI>Do|ctrines</HI> are received, <HI>C. 10. S. 7. 35.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Chri&s;tian <HI>Doctrines</HI> to be introduced by rea&s;on and &s;uffer|ings, and not by force, <HI>Cap. 10. Sect. 9. 37.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Dominion,</HI> not the &s;ame in an in&s;tituted and acquired King|dom, <HI>C. 15. S. 5. c. 16. &s;. 12. c. 17. &s;. 1. 62. 79. 81.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>All&mdash; not acquired by force, <HI>Cap. 16. Sect 1. 64.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>VVhat is Paternal. <HI>Cap. 15. Sect. 1. 58.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Whether a Child can give con&s;ent in his Infancy, <HI>C. 16. S. 1. 65.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>VVhat is <HI>Dominion</HI> by conque&s;t, <HI>C. 16. S. 12. 79.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>VVhat &mdash; over the conquered, <HI>C. 16. S. 12. C. 17. S. 1. 80. 81.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>How it becomes de&s;potical, <HI>Cap. 16. Sect. 12. 79.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Dominion</HI> by Conque&s;t, <HI>vid.</HI> Conque&s;t.</ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="E" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>E</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>End, <HI>he who hath right to the</HI> End, <HI>how he hath right to the Means</HI> Cap. 9. Sect. 2. 29.</ITEM>
<ITEM>England; <HI>one only Soveraign in</HI> England. Cap. 23. s. 16. 230.
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>The good con&s;titution of the Realm,</HI> c. 23. &s;. 5. 16. 229. 230.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>E&s;pecially in relation Taxes,</HI> cap 23. &s;ect. 17. 232.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ephori, <HI>fir&s;t introduced among&s;t the</HI> Lacedaemonians, <HI>and why</HI> cap 13. &s;ect. 6. 54.</ITEM>
<ITEM><PB REF="144">Equity, <HI>what it is?</HI> cap. 20. &s;ect. 3. 132.</ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="F" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>F</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>Faith <HI>re&s;olved into divine revelation,</HI> c. 22. &s;. 7. 161.
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Commanded by God,</HI> c. 22. &s;. 13. 14. 15. c. 23. &s;. 6. 173. 175. 177. 209.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>'Tis wrought by ordinate meanes.</HI> c, 22. &s;. 15. 177.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>'Tis both in&s;pired and acquired,</HI> c. 23. &s;. 6. 209.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Faith and Prophecy different things,</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>It comes by hearing,</HI> cap. 23. &s;ect. 6. 218.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Its impediments,</HI> cap. 22. &s;ect. 14. 175.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Father <HI>to be obeyed before the Mother,</HI> cap. 16. &s;ect. 3. 66.
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>where he is unknown to whom the Child belongs,</HI> c. 16. &s;. 8. 73.
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>greater re&s;pect due to him, then to him who nouri&s;hed the Child,</HI> cap. 16. &s;ect. 10. 76.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Fear, <HI>whether it induceth obedience?</HI> cap. 15. &s;ect. 2. 59.
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>'Tis an impediment to Faith,</HI> cap. 22. &s;ect. 14. 175.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Free, <HI>and</HI> Freedom, <HI>vid. Liberty.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="G" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>G</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Generation</HI> more excellent then Pre&s;ervation, <HI>c. 16. &s;. 11. 77.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Glory,</HI> vain-glory an impediment to Faith. <HI>c. 22. &s;. 14. 176.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>God</HI> only the Author of Power, <HI>c. 18. &s;. 7. c. 20. &s;. 1. 92. 127.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>not the Author of tho&s;e things which are contrary to his commands, <HI>cap. 19. &s;ect. 1. 120.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>His po&s;itive laws to be obeyed, <HI>cap. 22. &s;ect. 12. 171.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>where that obedience is founded, <HI>cap 22. &s;ect 13 172,</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Good;</HI> humane Laws cannot make &s;ome things good or evil, <HI>cap. 11. &s;ect. 5. 43.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Go&s;pel,</HI> Its &s;ucce&s;s Miraculous, <HI>cap. 22. &s;ect. 11. 169.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Goverment,</HI> remi&s;ne&s;s of it an occa&s;ion of tumults, <HI>c. 10. &s;. 9. 37.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>The Formes thereof ought to be &s;uited to the di&s;po&s;ition of the People, <HI>cap. 13. &s;ect. 5. 54.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>'Tis profitable that the people hath &s;ome intere&s;t in it, <HI>cap. 13. &s;ect. 6. 54.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><PB REF="145">Mr. <HI>Hobs</HI>'s imaginary foundation of it, <HI>c. 14. l. 1. 55.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Di&s;putes about Government dangerous, <HI>c. 18. &s;. 13. 104.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Gifts</HI> are free, <HI>cap. 19. &s;ect. 3. 110.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="H" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>H</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>Hi&s;tory <HI>u&s;eful for Princes,</HI> cap. 23. &s;ect. 10. 11. 119. 121.
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>E&s;pecially the</HI> Greek <HI>and</HI> Roman, c. 23. &s;. 10. 11. 12. ibid.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Mr.</HI> Hobs<HI>'s Commonwealth no where to be found,</HI> c. 4. &s;. 1. 9.
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>'Tis not con&s;i&s;tent with rea&s;on,</HI> cap. 4. &s;ect. 2. 10.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>He fir&s;t called it</HI> Leviathan, cap 3. 8.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>His imaginary foundation of Government,</HI> c. 14. &s;. 1. 56.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>He gave dangerous Council to the Protector,</HI> c. 14. &s; 2. 57.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&mdash;<HI>full of contradictions,</HI> cap. 16. &s;ect. 2. 65.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Magnifies his own Politicks,</HI> cap 18 &s;ect. 14. 105.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Incourageth Rebellion,</HI> cap. 20. &s;ect. 8. 145.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>He makes the E&s;tates in Parliament factious,</HI> c 23. &s;. 15. 227.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>VVhat a&s;&s;urance he hath of his being born at</HI> Malmsbu|ry, cap. 22. &s;ect. 1. 148.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Authors opinion of his Book,</HI> c. 23. &s;. 18. 235.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Honour; <HI>Titles thereof conferred by the Soveraign,</HI> cap. 12 &s;ect. 4. 46.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Husband, <HI>the head of the VVife,</HI> cap. 16 &s;ect. 4. 68.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Hyperbolus <HI>bani&s;hed,</HI> cap. 20, &s;ect. 5. 141.</ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="I" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>I</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Jephthas</HI> Vow, <HI>cap. 20. &s;ect. 2. 129.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Jews</HI> witne&s;ses of the old Te&s;tament, <HI>cap. 22. &s;ect. 2. 152.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>&mdash; their Government cea&s;ed, <HI>cap. 18. &s;ect. 12. 101.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Incarnation</HI> of Chri&s;t not to be known but by revelation, <HI>cap. 22. &s;ect. 5. 157.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Inclination</HI> di&s;tinct from the will and de&s;ire, <HI>c. 19. &s;. 6. 115.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Incorporate;</HI> why men Incorporate into bodies Politick? <HI>cap. 11. &s;ect. 1. 39.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Infant,</HI> whether it can give con&s;ent? <HI>cap. 16. &s;ect. 1. 64.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><PB REF="145"><HI>Injury,</HI> VVhat it is? <HI>cap. 8. &s;ect. 3.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>How a man may injure him&s;elf? <HI>cap. 8. &s;ect. 3. 25.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Inju&s;tice,</HI> what it is? <HI>ibid.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>A Soveraign may do it, <HI>cap. 8. &s;ect. 4. 27.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Innocents</HI> not ju&s;tly puni&s;hed, <HI>cap. 2. &s;ect. 3. 4.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>I&s;raelites,</HI> why obeyed they <HI>Mo&s;es? cap. 22. &s;ect. 17. 182.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Judge</HI> what it is properly to Judge? <HI>cap. 23. &s;ect. 1. 190.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>Not the &s;ame to be a Judge, and constitute a Judge, <HI>cap. 10. &s;ect. 10. 38.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>He is to ob&s;erve, not make a Law, <HI>cap. 18. &s;ect. 9. 96.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Every one is Judge of good and evil, <HI>cap. 23. &s;ect. 5. 6. 207. 209.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>What Judgement private per&s;ons may pa&s;s upon publick actions, <HI>cap. 23. &s;ect. 1. 2. 3. 190. 19. 193.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="K" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>K</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Kingdom.</HI> VVhat is an acquired <HI>Kingdom, c. 15. &s;. 58.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>Not always acquired by force, <HI>ibid.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The condition of a conquered Kingdom not the &s;ame with an in&s;tituted, <HI>cap. 15. &s;ect. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters"> 62.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Kings,</HI> v. Supremes, and Soveraigns.
<LIST>
<ITEM>Only accountable unto God, <HI>c. 5. &s;. 4. c. 6. &s;. 1. 15. 17.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Their account unto him great, <HI>cap. 12. &s;. 5. 46.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Not puni&s;hable by the People and why? <HI>c. 9. &s;. 1. 28</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Their power in matters of Religion, <HI>c. 10. &s;. 1. 30.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>That &s;ubject to the commands of God, <HI>ibid.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>No ab&s;olute obedience due to them, <HI>c. 18. &s;. 4. &amp;c. 87.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>No taking Armes again&s;t them, <HI>cap. 16. &s;ect. 7. 72.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>They not only &s;in again&s;t God, <HI>cap. 20. &s;ect. 4. 134.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Their power about preaching and Printing, <HI>c. 10. &s;. 2. 32</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>They have not right to what&s;oever the &s;ubject po&s;se&s;&s;eth <HI>cap. 18. &s;ect. 8. &amp;c. 93.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Kill.</HI> VVhen lawful to kill, <HI>cap. 23. &s;ect. 4. 196.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><PB REF="146"><HI>Lacedaemon.</HI> VVhether that &s;tate was Monarchical, <HI>cap. 13. &s;ect. 3. 7. 50 5<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Laws.</HI> Humane Laws cannot make &s;omething good or evil, <HI>cap. 11. &s;ect. 5. 34.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>Po&s;itive Laws of God to be obeyed, <HI>c. 22 &s;. 12. 171.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Where that obedience is founded, <HI>cap. 22. &s;. 13. 173.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>How far the the Civil Law and Law of Nature are the Mea&s;ure of our Actions, <HI>cap 23. &s;ect. 3. 193.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The Execution of good Laws make a Nation happy, <HI>cap. 23. &s;ect. 10. 19.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Laws for private intere&s;t conduce much to the publick good, <HI>cap. 23. &s;ect. 8. 218.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Liberty,</HI> What it is? <HI>cap. 19. &s;ect. 1. 107.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>&mdash;from Coaction, <HI>cap. 19. &s;ect. 1. 7. 108. 116.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>&mdash;from nece&s;&s;ity, <HI>cap 19. &s;ect. 1. 7. 107.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Who is properly a free-man? <HI>cap. 19. &s;ect. 2. 109.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Not proper only to bodies, <HI>cap. 9. &s;ect. 2. 3. 109. 110.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>VVho or what is the &s;ubject of it? <HI>cap. 19. &s;ect. 5. 112.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>VVhat is the Liberty of Man, <HI>cap. 19. &s;ect. 5. 13.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Life,</HI> None hath power over his own life, <HI>c. 20. &s; 1. 127.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Likeing</HI> or di&s;liking produce not difference in the things them&s;elves, <HI>cap. 3. &s;ect. 2. 48.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="M" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>M</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Majority.</HI> He who di&s;&s;ents from it ought not therefore to be de&s;troyed, <HI>cap. 7. &s;ect. 1. 22.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Man,</HI> Superior to VVoman. <HI>cap. 16. &s;ect. 3. 66.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>The Nobler Sex, <HI>ibid.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Whether he hath power to do any thing in defence of him&s;elf, <HI>cap 18. &s;ect. 7. 92.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>He only actively capable of Commands, <HI>cap. 19. &s;ect. 9.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Mancipium,</HI> what it &s;ignifies, <HI>cap. 16. &s;ect. 12. 79.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Marriages;</HI> No &s;tate without rules about it, <HI>cap. 16. &s;. 8.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>One born out of it is <HI>filius populi,</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Means.</HI> How he hath right to them who hath right to
<PB REF="146">
the end, <HI>cap. 19. &s;ect. 2, 116.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Militia</HI> belongs to the Soveraign, <HI>cap. 12. &s;ect 2. 45.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Miracle,</HI> What it is? <HI>cap. 22. &s;ect. 8. cap. 23. &s;ect. 6. 163. 209.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>God the only Author of them, <HI>cap. 22. &s;ect. 9. 165.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Never wrought to confirm a lye, <HI>cap. 22. &s;ect. 9. 166.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>The gift of tongues miraculous in the Apo&s;tles, <HI>cap. 22. &s;ect. 11. 169.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>As al&s;o their Learning, <HI>ibid.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>And the &s;ucce&s;s of the Go&s;pel, <HI>ibid.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Mi&s;hpol.</HI> What it &s;ignifies <HI>cap. 18. &s;ect. 6. 7.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Mixed</HI> Actions what they are? <HI>cap 19. &s;ect 6. 115.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>Bodies denominated from the predominant, <HI>c. 13 &s;. 3. 50.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Monarchy</HI> how di&s;tingui&s;hed from Tyranny, <HI>c. 13. &s;. 2. 48.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>None &s;o ab&s;olute as Mr. <HI>Hobs</HI> Phan&s;ies, <HI>cap. 3, &s;ect. 3. 47. cap. 23 &s;ect. 15. 50. 227.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Money,</HI> How the levying of it is like the Nutrive faculty? <HI>cap. 23. &s;ect. 14. 224.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> His integrity, <HI>cap. 22. &s;ect. 5. 157.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>Why the <HI>I&s;raelites, obeyed him? cap. 22. &s;ect. 17. 182.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Mother,</HI> Not to be obeyed before the Father, <HI>c. 16. &s;. 3. 66.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>What power &s;he hath over the Child, <HI>cap. 16. &s;ect. 8. 9. 174. 175.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Whether the Child is fir&s;t in her power? <HI>cap. 16. &s;ect. 8. 174.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Murder.</HI> A Sin a gainst God and Man, <HI>cap. 20. &s;ect 4. 139.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="N" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>N</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Nouri&s;h.</HI> Greater re&s;pect due to the Father then to him who nouri&s;heth the Child, <HI>cap. 16. &s;ect. 10. 76.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Numbers.</HI> Small Numbers joyned together may live peacea|bly, <HI>cap. &s;ect. 1.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="O" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>O</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>Oaths <HI>lawful to take an Oath,</HI> cap. 23. &s;ect. 4. 197.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Obedience, <HI>better then &s;acrifice,</HI> cap. 20. &s;ect. 2. 129.
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>No ab&s;olute obedience due to Kings,</HI> cap. 18. &s;. 4. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 87.</ITEM>
<ITEM><PB REF="147"><HI>What obedience due to the commands of God and of Men,</HI> cap. 18. &s;ect 11. 99.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>O&s;traci&s;m <HI>in u&s;e at</HI> Athens, cap. 20. &s;ect. 5. 140.</ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="P" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>P</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>Parents <HI>love their Children naturally,</HI> cap. 16. &s;ect 9. 75.
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Their power over their Children,</HI> cap. 22. &s;ect 16. 179.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Paul <HI>His conver&s;ion,</HI> cap. 22. &s;ect. 15. 177.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Peace. <HI>Wherein it con&s;i&s;teth,</HI> cap. 10. &s;ect. 1. 30.
<LIST>
<ITEM>&mdash; <HI>the fruit of Truth,</HI> cap. 10. &s;ect. 5. 34.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Truth not always regulated by it,</HI> cap. 10. &s;ect. 4. 5. 6. 33. 34.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Peaceable Doctrines only true,</HI> cap. 10 &s;ect. 4. 33.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Whether it be con&s;onant to the Laws of Nature,</HI> cap. 10. &s;. 5. 34.</ITEM>
<ITEM>People <HI>not give Authority to the Prince,</HI> c. 2. &s;. 2. 3 4. 6. c. 14. &s;. 2. c. 20. &s;. 13. &s;. 23. &s;. 16. P. 3. 4. 5. 6 57. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">03.
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>If they could, it were dangerous to the Prince,</HI> cap. 2. &s;. 5. 6.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Supreme not their Per&s;on,</HI> c. 2. &s;. 2. c. 5. &s;. 12. 3.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>All do not con&s;ent to give power to the Supreme,</HI> cap. 4. 9. 69. &s;ect. 1. cap. 16. &s;ect. 5.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&mdash;<HI>Not the Authors of Right,</HI> cap. 4. &s;ect. 3. 11.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Profitable that they have &s;ome intere&s;t in Government,</HI> cap. 13. &s;ect. 6. 54.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Phari&s;ees, <HI>they and the Scribes not Soveraigns,</HI> c. 18. &s;. 2. 85.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Power, <HI>v. Authority.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>It comes from God,</HI> cap. 20. &s;ect. 1. cap. 18. &s;ect. 7.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Not from the People, v. People.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Whether one hath power to do any thing in defence of him|&s;elf;</HI> cap. 18. &s;ect. 7. 92.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Prayers <HI>and Tears the Chri&s;tians remedy,</HI> cap. 16. &s;ect. 7. 72.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Preaching, <HI>the Kings power about it.</HI> cap. 10. &s;ect. 2. 32.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Pre&s;ervation, <HI>what it is?</HI> cap. 16. &s;ect. 11. 77.
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Generation more excellent then it,</HI> cap. 16. &s;ect. 11. 78.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Prince, <HI>v. King, &s;upreme, Soveraign, &mdash;may erre,</HI> cap. 4. &s;ect. 2. 10.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Printing. <HI>The Kings power about it,</HI> cap. 10. &s;ect. 2. 32.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Promi&s;es <HI>in unlawful things oblige not,</HI> cap 15. &s;ect. 3. 4. 60. 61.
<LIST>
<PB REF="147">
<ITEM><HI>Whether upon fear oblige?</HI> cap. 15. &s;ect. 4. 61</ITEM>
<ITEM>Prophecy <HI>different from faith,</HI> cap. 23. &s;ect. 6. 29.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Propriety, <HI>what it is?</HI> cap. 11. &s;ect. 3. 43.
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>How introduced,</HI> cap. 11. &s;ect. 2. 40.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Not nece&s;&s;ary to Peace,</HI> cap. 11. &s;ect. 3. 42.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>It may be bo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">h in Peace and <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ar,</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Not depending upon the Soveraign Power,</HI> cap. 11. &s;ect. 3. 4 43</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Men in war have not a propriety to their Enemies Country before it be Conquer'd,</HI> cap 10. &s;ect. 2. 32.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Whence the propriety of the Soveraign,</HI> cap 11. &s;ect. 4. 43.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&mdash;<HI>Whether this conduce to publick peace</HI> cap. 23. &s;ect. 8. 9. 17. 214.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Protection <HI>of the Soveraign doth not give propriety,</HI> cap. 23. &s;ect. 9. 216.</ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="R" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>R</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Rea&s;on</HI> &s;ometimes di&s;obeyed, <HI>cap. 19. &s;ect 6. 115.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Rebellion</HI> no &s;mall inju&s;tice, cap <HI>5 &s;ect 2 13.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Rebells</HI> allways pretend oppre&s;&s;ion, <HI>cap. 16. &s;ect. 7. 72.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Religion.</HI> Princes power in matters of Religion, <HI>cap. 10. &s;ect 1 30.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>The a&s;&s;urance of Chri&s;tian Religion, <HI>cap. 22. &s;ect. 1. 2. 3. 151. 88.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>&mdash;from the manner of Deliverance, <HI>cap. 22. &s;ect. 2. 152.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>&mdash;The Doctrines delivered, <HI>cap. 22. &s;ect. 3. 154.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>&mdash;The different Style, <HI>cap. 22. &s;ect. 4. 155.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>&mdash;The Puni&s;hment and Rewards propo&s;ed, <HI>ibid.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>&mdash;The &s;anctity of the per&s;ons who delivered it, <HI>cap. 22. &s;ect. 5. 6. 156.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>&mdash;The &s;ufferings of the Saints, <HI>cap. 22. &s;ect. 7. 159.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Revelations.</HI> The a&s;&s;urance of them, <HI>cap. 22. &s;ect. 1. 148.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>What things not to be known but by revelation, <HI>cap 22. &s;ect. 1. 2. 3. 148. 88.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Right.</HI> Not derived from the con&s;ent of the people, <HI>cap. 4. &s;ect. 3. 11.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>He who hath right to the End, how to the means, <HI>cap. 9.
<PB REF="148">
&s;ect. 2. 29.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Romulus</HI> pre&s;erved by <HI>Fau&s;tulus, cap. 16. &s;ect. 10. 76.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="S" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>S</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>Sacrifice, <HI>obedience better then it,</HI> cap. 20. &s;ect. 2. 129.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Samuel <HI>rejected,</HI> cap. 18. &s;ect. 5 <HI>&amp;c</HI> 8.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Sanctity <HI>in&s;pired and acquired,</HI> cap 23. &s;ect. 6. 209.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Sanhedrim <HI>cea&s;ed,</HI> cap. 18. &s;ect 12. 101.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Saul. <HI>cho&s;en,</HI> cap. 18. &s;ect. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 88
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Spareth</HI> Agag, cap. 20. &s;ect. 2. 230.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Scribes <HI>and Phari&s;ees not the &s;upreme magi&s;trates,</HI> cap 18. &s;ect. 2. 85.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Scripture, <HI>its Authority not depending upon the Soveraign,</HI> cap. 22. &s;ect. 17. 18. 181. 185.</ITEM>
<ITEM>See. <HI>What the word &s;ignifies,</HI> cap. 19. &s;ect. 10. 119.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Servants, <HI>when one is a Servant,</HI> cap. 17. &s;ect. 2. 82.
<LIST>
<ITEM>&mdash; <HI>their condition that differing in peace from what they &s;uffer in War according to Mr</HI> Hobs, cap. 18. &s;ect. 8. 93.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Servitude <HI>bani&s;hed from <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">mong&s;t Christians,</HI> cap 18 &s;. 2 82.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Sin. <HI>None nece&s;&s;itated to it,</HI> cap. 19. &s;ect. 1. 2. 107 108.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Small <HI>numbers joyned together may live peaceably,</HI> cap. 1. p. 1.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Sodom, <HI>Its de&s;tructi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">n,</HI> cap. 8. &s;ect. 4. 26.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Soveraign, <HI>v. King &s;upreme.</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>He is not the per&s;on of the People,</HI> cap. 2 &s;ect. 2. cap. 5, &s;ect. 1. 2. p. 3. 12. 13.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>He may doe unju&s;tly,</HI> cap. 8. &s;ect. 4. 26.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>His power about deciding Controver&s;ies,</HI> cap. 12. &s;ect. 1. 44.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Hath right to the Malitia,</HI> cap. 12. &s;ect. 2. 45.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&mdash;<HI>To cho&s;e Coun&s;ellors and Officers,</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Yet not always Officers,</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Hath power to Puni&s;h and Reward, and confer Honours,</HI> cap. 12. &s;ect. 4. 46.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&mdash;<HI>Not the repre&s;entative of the people,</HI> cap. 13. &s;ect. 1 cap. 14. &s;ect. 1. 2. cap. 23. &s;ect. 15. 16. 47. 56. 57, 227. 230.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&mdash;<HI>Obliged by their own Promi&s;es</HI> cap 13. &s;ect. 3. 50.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&mdash;<HI>Why they are Cho&s;en,</HI> cap. 15. &s;ect. 2. 59</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>His Rights in an in&s;tituted and acquired dominion not the
<PB REF="148">
&s;ame,</HI> c. 15. &s;. 5. c. 16. &s;. 12. c. 17. &s;. 1. 62. 79. 81.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>No &s;uch &s;overaignty by in&s;titution as Mr.</HI> Hobs <HI>phancies,</HI> cap. 18. &s;ect. 1 8. 4.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Whether the Soveraignty be equally ab&s;olute in an in&s;tituted and acquired Dominion,</HI> cap 17. &s;ect. 2.82.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Not lawful to re&s;i&s;t them when they command again&s;t ones own intere&s;t,</HI> cap. 20. &s;ect. 7. 1 3.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Their commands may be oppo&s;ed when contrary to the Chri|&s;tian faith,</HI> cap. 22. &s;ect. 17. 181.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>He cannot make Law what&s;oever is again&s;t the Law of Na|ture,</HI> cap. 22. &s;ect. 18. 185.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>How he is &s;ubject to Laws Divine,</HI> c. 23. &s;. 7. 212.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>How Subject to the Civil Laws,</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The partition of &s;overaignty not destructive to it,</HI> cap. 23. &s;ect. 9. 216:</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Only one Soveraign in</HI> England, cap. 23. &s;ect. 16. 230</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Speech <HI>is free,</HI> cap, 19 &s;ect. 4. 111.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Spirits <HI>more,</HI> cap. 19. &s;ect. 109.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Subjects <HI>not Authors of their Governors Actions,</HI> c. 2&punc; &s;. 17. c. 4 &s; 1. c. 15. &s;. 1. c. 20. &s;. 2. 3. 8. 58. 126.
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>The cannot be free from the Allegiance, and why?</HI> cap. 5. &s;ect, 4. 15.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Not &s;ubmit them&s;elves without any contract on the Gover|nours part,</HI> cap. 5. &s;ect. 4. cap. 11. &s;ect. 15. 39.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Not bound to own all the Actions of a Supreme,</HI> cap. 7. &s;ect. 1. cap. 8. &s;ect. 1. 21. 23.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>All men born Subjects.</HI> cap. 14. &s;ect, 1. 56.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Difference between the Subjects of an in&s;tituted and conquer|ed Nation,</HI> cap. 18 &s;ect. 84.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Supremes <HI>All do not con&s;ent to give power unto them,</HI> cap, 4. &s;ect. 1. cap. 16. &s;ect. 5. 8. 69.
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Not Covenant with all in Government,</HI> cap. 5. &s;ect. 4. 5.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Not take their Government upon Covenant</HI> cap 6 &s;. 1. 17.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Subject not bound to own all his Actions,</HI> cap. 7 &s;ect. 1. cap. 8. &s;ect. 1. 21. 23.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Not lawful to re&s;i&s;t him in ones own defence,</HI> cap. 20. &s;ect. 6, cap. 21. 142. 146.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Sword <HI>hath no power but from the Covenant,</HI> cap. 6. &s;. 3. 20.
<LIST>
<PB REF="149">
<ITEM><HI>That it can give power is dangerous to Princes</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Thoughts <HI>are free,</HI> cap. 19. &s;ect, 2. 108.
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Not lyable to humane Laws,</HI> cap. 23. &s;ect. 5.25.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Truth, <HI>whether it is to be regulated by Peace?</HI> cap. 10. &s;ect. 4. 5. 6. 33. 34.
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>In matters of doctrine it is only to be con&s;idered,</HI> c. 10. &s; 4. 34.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Peaceable Doctrines only true,</HI> ibid</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Peace and the fruit of it,</HI> cap. 10. &s;ect 5. 34.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>No univer&s;al Truths are now,</HI> cap <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">0 &s;ect. 7. 35.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Tumults. <HI>Remi&s;ne&s;s of Government an occa&s;ion of them,</HI> cap. 19. &s;ect. 9. 37.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Tyranny <HI>Whether it and Monarchy be the &s;ame form of Government,</HI> cap. 13. &s;ect. 2. 48.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Tyrants <HI>of two &s;orts,</HI> cap. 23. &s;ect. 11. 220.</ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="V" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>V</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>Unbelief, <HI>'Tis a breach of Gods Law,</HI> c. 22. &s;. 16. 230.
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Men ju&s;tly Condemned for it,</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Its Puni&s;hmen,</HI> cap. 22. &s;ect. 13. 172.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Under&s;tanding <HI>taken two ways,</HI> c. 19. &s;ect. 5. 112.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Voluntas facere &amp; fieri, cap. 19. &s;ect. 12. 123.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Vows, <HI>ra&s;h, &s;inful, not obliging,</HI> cap. 20. &s;ect. 2. 128.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Uriah <HI>Murdered,</HI> cap. 20. &s;ect. 3. 4. 131. 133.</ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="W" TYPE="part">
<HEAD>W</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>War, <HI>wh<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">t it is properly,</HI> cap. 16. &s;ect. 4. 67.
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Whence ari&s;e Civil VVars,</HI> c. 18. &s;. 3. 14. 15. 103. 105. 106.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Water, <HI>how it is &s;aid to be free,</HI> c. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">9. &s;. 7. 1<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">6.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Ways, <HI>how they are free,</HI> cap. 19. &s;ect. 2. 108.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Wife <HI>&s;ubject to the Husband,</HI> cap. 16. &s;ect. 4. 67.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Will, <HI>what is the freedom of it,</HI> cap. 19. &s;ect. 5.112.
<LIST>
<ITEM>&mdash;<HI>'Tis conver&s;ant about the End and the Means,</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&mdash;<HI>Overruled by the Appetite,</HI> cap. 19. &s;ect. 6. 1<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">4.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&mdash;<HI>the difference betwixt it, de&s;ire and inclination,</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
<ITEM>Woman <HI>inferior to Man</HI> cap. 16 &s;ect. 3 66.
<LIST>
<ITEM>&mdash;<HI>Not bound to pro&s;titute their bodies,</HI> cap. 17. &s;ect. 1. 81</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="Scripture index">
<PB REF="149">
<HEAD>The Texts of Holy Scriptures Illu&s;trated or Cited.</HEAD>
<P><TABLE>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">Cap. Ver&s;.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">Gene&s;is.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>1.</CELL>
<CELL>C. 2. S. 1.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>3.5.11.</CELL>
<CELL>18.11.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>16.</CELL>
<CELL>16.3.4.8.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>17.7.8.10.</CELL>
<CELL>22.16.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>18.18.19.</CELL>
<CELL>22.17.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>24.25.</CELL>
<CELL>08.04.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>21.22.</CELL>
<CELL>23.04.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>2<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">.16.</CELL>
<CELL><HI>ibid.</HI></CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>26.31.</CELL>
<CELL><HI>ibid.</HI></CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">Exod.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>20.19.</CELL>
<CELL>22.17.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>&nbsp;</CELL>
<CELL>18.04. &amp;c.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>32.10.11, &amp;c.</CELL>
<CELL>22.05.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">Deuter.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>5.27.</CELL>
<CELL>18.4.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>6.1<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">.</CELL>
<CELL>23.4.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>17.14. &amp;c.</CELL>
<CELL>18.6.7.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>18.15.</CELL>
<CELL>22.13.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">Judges.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>11.30.</CELL>
<CELL>20.02.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">1 Samuel.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>2.27. &amp;c.</CELL>
<CELL>8.4.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>8.7.</CELL>
<CELL>18.8.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>11.12. &amp;c.</CELL>
<CELL>18.5.6.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>17.19.20.</CELL>
<CELL>18.8.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>12.3 4.</CELL>
<CELL>18.8.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>14.24.27.44.</CELL>
<CELL>20.2.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>15.1.9.22.</CELL>
<CELL><HI>ibid.</HI></CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">2 Samuel.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL COLS="2">12.1. &amp;c. 9.10. &amp;c. 20.4.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">1 Kings.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>3.9.</CELL>
<CELL>18.9.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">P&s;alms.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>1.2.</CELL>
<CELL>18.12.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>51.</CELL>
<CELL>22.3.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>4.14.</CELL>
<CELL>20.4.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>110.4.</CELL>
<CELL>23.4.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>106.38.</CELL>
<CELL>20.2.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>119.132.</CELL>
<CELL>18.6.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">I&s;aiah.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>33.9.</CELL>
<CELL>20.4.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">Exekiel.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>46.18.</CELL>
<CELL>18.6.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">Daniel.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>6.7.13.15.24.</CELL>
<CELL>13.3.4.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">St. Matthew.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>4.3.</CELL>
<CELL>22.9.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>5.21.</CELL>
<CELL>23.4.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>33.34.</CELL>
<CELL><HI>ibid</HI></CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>37.</CELL>
<CELL><HI>ibid.</HI></CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>16.6.16.</CELL>
<CELL>18.12.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>21.2.3.</CELL>
<CELL>18.10.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>23.2.3.</CELL>
<CELL>18.11.12.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>4.12.16.</CELL>
<CELL>18.12.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>25.14. &amp;c.</CELL>
<CELL>23.4.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">St. Mark.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>16.16.</CELL>
<CELL>22.13.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>20.</CELL>
<CELL>22.09.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">St. Luke.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>1.24.</CELL>
<CELL>22.2.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">St. John.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>3.15.16.18.</CELL>
<CELL>22.13.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>18.19.</CELL>
<CELL>22.16.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>23.</CELL>
<CELL>22.13.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>5.44.</CELL>
<CELL>22.16.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>9.22.</CELL>
<CELL>22.14.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>10.8.</CELL>
<CELL>23.4.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>12.42.43.</CELL>
<CELL>22.14.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">Acts.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>3.22.23.</CELL>
<CELL>22.13.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>4.5.</CELL>
<CELL>18.11.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>18.19.</CELL>
<CELL>10.1.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>19.</CELL>
<CELL>18.11.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>25.11.</CELL>
<CELL>20.6.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">Romans.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>1.9.</CELL>
<CELL>23.4.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>3.4.</CELL>
<CELL>20.4.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>27.</CELL>
<CELL>22.14.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>13.3.4.</CELL>
<CELL>20.4.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">1 Corinth.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>1.30.</CELL>
<CELL>23.6.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">2 Corinth.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>1.23.</CELL>
<CELL>23.4.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">Ephe&s;.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>2.8.</CELL>
<CELL>23.6.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>5.22.23.</CELL>
<CELL>16.4.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">Phill.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>1.8.</CELL>
<CELL>23.4.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">Hebr.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>11.6.</CELL>
<CELL>22.13.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">1 St. Peter.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>2.14.</CELL>
<CELL>20.4.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL ROLE="label" COLS="2">St. James.</CELL>
</ROW>
<ROW>
<CELL>5.12.</CELL>
<CELL>23.4.</CELL>
</ROW>
</TABLE></P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<PB REF="150">
<PB REF="150">
<HEAD>ERRATA.</HEAD>
<P>PAge 3 Line 24 read 81 l. 30 r. all authority, p. 4 l. 2 r. impo&s;&s;ibility, l. 24 r. you will &s;ay, l. 26 r. this election, p. 5 l. 31 r. eems to me, p. 9 l 25 r. impo&s;&s;ible, p 11 l. 2<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> r. fraud, p. 13 l. 5 r depo&s;e, p. 17 l. 6 r. parts, p. 19 l. 2 r. vin|dictive, l. 13 r. it, l. 22 r. &s;ibi for tibi, p 41 l. 5 r. conceipt, l. 8 r. conquered, l. 31 r. therefore, p, 49 l. 13 r. any of the other, p. 50 l 3 r principaliori, l. 20 r. principaliori, p. 53 l 14 r. had done it, p. 54 l. 16 r. other, p 6 l. 6 r. ex|pre&s;&s;ed, l. 8 r. more, l 20 r. participate, l. 21 r. re&s;embles, p. 67 l. 5 r. mi&s;reckon, p. 68 l. 19 r. but in tho&s;e, l. 30 r. exemplyfied, p. 69 l. 11 r. 103 p. 71 l. 17 r. di&s;po&s;e, p. 74 l. 14 r. to a law, p. 77 l. 7 r. guift, l. 17 r. his, l. 16 r. Oe|conomical, l. 23 r. creatio, l. 25 r. accident, p. 79 l. 14 r. about, p. 80 l. 8 r. conque&s;t of, p. 86 l. 11. r. and &s;o eve|ry man, l. 28. r. by, p. 87 l. 12 r. that like Vertue it is com|mended l. 14 r. and produceth it to &s;atisfy, p. 90 l. 3 for and r. but, p. 92 l. 19 r. &s;afety, p 94 l. 11 r. find, p. 109 l. 21 r &s;pirits, p. 116 l. 15 r. pa&s;&s;ing, p. 133 l. 10 r. again&s;t, l. 21 r. And, p. 137 l. 12 r. Chry&s;o&s;tom, p. 140 l. 15 r. although, p. 146 l. 29 r. &s;elf, p. 148 l. 36 r. po&s;&s;ible, p. 144. l. 31 r. pro|ceed, for cau&s;es r. cau&s;es, p. 155 l. 23 r. divine, l. 24 for four r. for, p. 160 l. 8 r. infallible, p. 163 l. 14 r. cu&s;tom, l. 16 for them r. them, l. 17 r. famous, p. 169 l. 6 r. weak, l. 13 r. publi&s;hed, l. 30 for one r. no, p. 172 l. 27 r. obey it, l. 281 r. it, p. 173 l. 7 r. authority, p. 174 l. 12 r. infidelity, p. 180 l. 26 r. this, p. 184 l. 21 r. Hobbs, p 190 l. 24. r. to it, p. 203 l. 8 r. thus, p. 225 l. 28. r. afterwards, l. 25 r. (which is the motive faculty) p. 226 l. 9 r. acted, p. 227 l. 17 r. ex|amining, p. 228 l. 32 r. independent, p. 235 l. 3 r. which I have &s;hewed, l. 14 for it is r. is it.</P>
<P>In the Po&s;t&s;cript.</P>
<P>p. 12 l. 10 r. other writers, l. 21 r. (&s;o I render his words, l. 26 r. Heb. 11.1, p. 14 l. 3 r. repre&s;entor, p. 17 l. 12 r. preced|ing, l. 34 r. certainly the objectors, p. 21. l. 16 r. genii, p. 24. l. 31 r. communicated, p. 26 l. 23 1. he is, p. 29 l. 13 r. Licinius, p. 29 l. 34 r. thought, l. 35 r. return to the.</P>
<PB REF="151">
<PB REF="151">
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
