"THE INTRODUCTION\n\n\nNature (the art whereby God hath made and governes the world) is by the\nart of man, as in many other things, so in this also imitated, that it\ncan make an Artificial Animal. For seeing life is but a motion of Limbs,\nthe begining whereof is in some principall part within; why may we not\nsay, that all Automata (Engines that move themselves by springs and\nwheeles as doth a watch) have an artificiall life? For what is the\nHeart, but a Spring; and the Nerves, but so many Strings; and the\nJoynts, but so many Wheeles, giving motion to the whole Body, such as\nwas intended by the Artificer? Art goes yet further, imitating that\nRationall and most excellent worke of Nature, Man. For by Art is created\nthat great LEVIATHAN called a COMMON-WEALTH, or STATE, (in latine\nCIVITAS) which is but an Artificiall Man; though of greater stature\nand strength than the Naturall, for whose protection and defence it\nwas intended; and in which, the Soveraignty is an Artificiall Soul, as\ngiving life and motion to the whole body; The Magistrates, and other\nOfficers of Judicature and Execution, artificiall Joynts; Reward and\nPunishment (by which fastned to the seat of the Soveraignty, every joynt\nand member is moved to performe his duty) are the Nerves, that do the\nsame in the Body Naturall; The Wealth and Riches of all the particular\nmembers, are the Strength; Salus Populi (the Peoples Safety) its\nBusinesse; Counsellors, by whom all things needfull for it to know,\nare suggested unto it, are the Memory; Equity and Lawes, an artificiall\nReason and Will; Concord, Health; Sedition, Sicknesse; and Civill War,\nDeath. Lastly, the Pacts and Covenants, by which the parts of this Body\nPolitique were at first made, set together, and united, resemble that\nFiat, or the Let Us Make Man, pronounced by God in the Creation.\n\nTo describe the Nature of this Artificiall man, I will consider\n\nFirst the Matter thereof, and the Artificer; both which is Man.\n\nSecondly, How, and by what Covenants it is made; what are the Rights and\njust Power or Authority of a Soveraigne; and what it is that Preserveth\nand Dissolveth it.\n\nThirdly, what is a Christian Common-Wealth.\n\nLastly, what is the Kingdome of Darkness.\n\nConcerning the first, there is a saying much usurped of late, That\nWisedome is acquired, not by reading of Books, but of Men. Consequently\nwhereunto, those persons, that for the most part can give no other proof\nof being wise, take great delight to shew what they think they have read\nin men, by uncharitable censures of one another behind their backs.\nBut there is another saying not of late understood, by which they might\nlearn truly to read one another, if they would take the pains; and that\nis, Nosce Teipsum, Read Thy Self: which was not meant, as it is now\nused, to countenance, either the barbarous state of men in power,\ntowards their inferiors; or to encourage men of low degree, to a\nsawcie behaviour towards their betters; But to teach us, that for the\nsimilitude of the thoughts, and Passions of one man, to the thoughts,\nand Passions of another, whosoever looketh into himselfe, and\nconsidereth what he doth, when he does Think, Opine, Reason, Hope,\nFeare, &c, and upon what grounds; he shall thereby read and know,\nwhat are the thoughts, and Passions of all other men, upon the like\noccasions. I say the similitude of Passions, which are the same in all\nmen, Desire, Feare, Hope, &c; not the similitude or The Objects of the\nPassions, which are the things Desired, Feared, Hoped, &c: for these the\nconstitution individuall, and particular education do so vary, and they\nare so easie to be kept from our knowledge, that the characters of mans\nheart, blotted and confounded as they are, with dissembling, lying,\ncounterfeiting, and erroneous doctrines, are legible onely to him that\nsearcheth hearts. And though by mens actions wee do discover their\ndesignee sometimes; yet to do it without comparing them with our own,\nand distinguishing all circumstances, by which the case may come to\nbe altered, is to decypher without a key, and be for the most part\ndeceived, by too much trust, or by too much diffidence; as he that\nreads, is himselfe a good or evill man.\n\nBut let one man read another by his actions never so perfectly, it\nserves him onely with his acquaintance, which are but few. He that is\nto govern a whole Nation, must read in himselfe, not this, or that\nparticular man; but Man-kind; which though it be hard to do, harder than\nto learn any Language, or Science; yet, when I shall have set down my\nown reading orderly, and perspicuously, the pains left another, will be\nonely to consider, if he also find not the same in himselfe. For this\nkind of Doctrine, admitteth no other Demonstration.\n\n\n\n\nPART 1 OF MAN\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. OF SENSE\n\n\nConcerning the Thoughts of man, I will consider them first Singly, and\nafterwards in Trayne, or dependance upon one another. Singly, they\nare every one a Representation or Apparence, of some quality, or other\nAccident of a body without us; which is commonly called an Object. Which\nObject worketh on the Eyes, Eares, and other parts of mans body; and by\ndiversity of working, produceth diversity of Apparences.\n\nThe Originall of them all, is that which we call Sense; (For there is\nno conception in a mans mind, which hath not at first, totally, or by\nparts, been begotten upon the organs of Sense.) The rest are derived\nfrom that originall.\n\nTo know the naturall cause of Sense, is not very necessary to the\nbusiness now in hand; and I have els-where written of the same at large.\nNevertheless, to fill each part of my present method, I will briefly\ndeliver the same in this place.\n\nThe cause of Sense, is the Externall Body, or Object, which presseth the\norgan proper to each Sense, either immediatly, as in the Tast and Touch;\nor mediately, as in Seeing, Hearing, and Smelling: which pressure, by\nthe mediation of Nerves, and other strings, and membranes of the body,\ncontinued inwards to the Brain, and Heart, causeth there a resistance,\nor counter-pressure, or endeavour of the heart, to deliver it self:\nwhich endeavour because Outward, seemeth to be some matter without. And\nthis Seeming, or Fancy, is that which men call sense; and consisteth, as\nto the Eye, in a Light, or Colour Figured; To the Eare, in a Sound; To\nthe Nostrill, in an Odour; To the Tongue and Palat, in a Savour; and\nto the rest of the body, in Heat, Cold, Hardnesse, Softnesse, and such\nother qualities, as we discern by Feeling. All which qualities called\nSensible, are in the object that causeth them, but so many several\nmotions of the matter, by which it presseth our organs diversly. Neither\nin us that are pressed, are they anything els, but divers motions; (for\nmotion, produceth nothing but motion.) But their apparence to us is\nFancy, the same waking, that dreaming. And as pressing, rubbing,\nor striking the Eye, makes us fancy a light; and pressing the Eare,\nproduceth a dinne; so do the bodies also we see, or hear, produce the\nsame by their strong, though unobserved action, For if those Colours,\nand Sounds, were in the Bodies, or Objects that cause them, they could\nnot bee severed from them, as by glasses, and in Ecchoes by reflection,\nwee see they are; where we know the thing we see, is in one place; the\napparence, in another. And though at some certain distance, the reall,\nand very object seem invested with the fancy it begets in us; Yet still\nthe object is one thing, the image or fancy is another. So that Sense in\nall cases, is nothing els but originall fancy, caused (as I have said)\nby the pressure, that is, by the motion, of externall things upon our\nEyes, Eares, and other organs thereunto ordained.\n\nBut the Philosophy-schooles, through all the Universities of\nChristendome, grounded upon certain Texts of Aristotle, teach another\ndoctrine; and say, For the cause of Vision, that the thing seen, sendeth\nforth on every side a Visible Species(in English) a Visible Shew,\nApparition, or Aspect, or a Being Seen; the receiving whereof into the\nEye, is Seeing. And for the cause of Hearing, that the thing heard,\nsendeth forth an Audible Species, that is, an Audible Aspect, or Audible\nBeing Seen; which entring at the Eare, maketh Hearing. Nay for the\ncause of Understanding also, they say the thing Understood sendeth forth\nIntelligible Species, that is, an Intelligible Being Seen; which\ncomming into the Understanding, makes us Understand. I say not this,\nas disapproving the use of Universities: but because I am to speak\nhereafter of their office in a Common-wealth, I must let you see on\nall occasions by the way, what things would be amended in them; amongst\nwhich the frequency of insignificant Speech is one.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. OF IMAGINATION\n\n\nThat when a thing lies still, unlesse somewhat els stirre it, it will\nlye still for ever, is a truth that no man doubts of. But that when a\nthing is in motion, it will eternally be in motion, unless somewhat els\nstay it, though the reason be the same, (namely, that nothing can change\nit selfe,) is not so easily assented to. For men measure, not onely\nother men, but all other things, by themselves: and because they find\nthemselves subject after motion to pain, and lassitude, think every\nthing els growes weary of motion, and seeks repose of its own accord;\nlittle considering, whether it be not some other motion, wherein that\ndesire of rest they find in themselves, consisteth. From hence it is,\nthat the Schooles say, Heavy bodies fall downwards, out of an appetite\nto rest, and to conserve their nature in that place which is most proper\nfor them; ascribing appetite, and Knowledge of what is good for their\nconservation, (which is more than man has) to things inanimate absurdly.\n\nWhen a Body is once in motion, it moveth (unless something els hinder\nit) eternally; and whatsoever hindreth it, cannot in an instant, but in\ntime, and by degrees quite extinguish it: And as wee see in the water,\nthough the wind cease, the waves give not over rowling for a long\ntime after; so also it happeneth in that motion, which is made in the\ninternall parts of a man, then, when he Sees, Dreams, &c. For after the\nobject is removed, or the eye shut, wee still retain an image of the\nthing seen, though more obscure than when we see it. And this is it,\nthat Latines call Imagination, from the image made in seeing; and apply\nthe same, though improperly, to all the other senses. But the Greeks\ncall it Fancy; which signifies Apparence, and is as proper to one sense,\nas to another. Imagination therefore is nothing but Decaying Sense; and\nis found in men, and many other living Creatures, as well sleeping, as\nwaking.\n\n\n\n\nMemory\n\nThe decay of Sense in men waking, is not the decay of the motion made in\nsense; but an obscuring of it, in such manner, as the light of the Sun\nobscureth the light of the Starres; which starrs do no less exercise\ntheir vertue by which they are visible, in the day, than in the night.\nBut because amongst many stroaks, which our eyes, eares, and other\norgans receive from externall bodies, the predominant onely is sensible;\ntherefore the light of the Sun being predominant, we are not affected\nwith the action of the starrs. And any object being removed from our\neyes, though the impression it made in us remain; yet other objects more\npresent succeeding, and working on us, the Imagination of the past is\nobscured, and made weak; as the voyce of a man is in the noyse of the\nday. From whence it followeth, that the longer the time is, after the\nsight, or Sense of any object, the weaker is the Imagination. For the\ncontinuall change of mans body, destroyes in time the parts which in\nsense were moved: So that the distance of time, and of place, hath one\nand the same effect in us. For as at a distance of place, that which wee\nlook at, appears dimme, and without distinction of the smaller parts;\nand as Voyces grow weak, and inarticulate: so also after great distance\nof time, our imagination of the Past is weak; and wee lose( for example)\nof Cities wee have seen, many particular Streets; and of Actions, many\nparticular Circumstances. This Decaying Sense, when wee would express\nthe thing it self, (I mean Fancy it selfe,) wee call Imagination, as I\nsaid before; But when we would express the Decay, and signifie that the\nSense is fading, old, and past, it is called Memory. So that Imagination\nand Memory, are but one thing, which for divers considerations hath\ndivers names.\n\nMuch memory, or memory of many things, is called Experience. Againe,\nImagination being only of those things which have been formerly\nperceived by Sense, either all at once, or by parts at severall\ntimes; The former, (which is the imagining the whole object, as it was\npresented to the sense) is Simple Imagination; as when one imagineth a\nman, or horse, which he hath seen before. The other is Compounded; as\nwhen from the sight of a man at one time, and of a horse at another, we\nconceive in our mind a Centaure. So when a man compoundeth the image of\nhis own person, with the image of the actions of an other man; as when a\nman imagins himselfe a Hercules, or an Alexander, (which happeneth often\nto them that are much taken with reading of Romants) it is a compound\nimagination, and properly but a Fiction of the mind. There be also other\nImaginations that rise in men, (though waking) from the great impression\nmade in sense; As from gazing upon the Sun, the impression leaves an\nimage of the Sun before our eyes a long time after; and from being long\nand vehemently attent upon Geometricall Figures, a man shall in the\ndark, (though awake) have the Images of Lines, and Angles before his\neyes: which kind of Fancy hath no particular name; as being a thing that\ndoth not commonly fall into mens discourse.\n\n\n\n\nDreams\n\nThe imaginations of them that sleep, are those we call Dreams. And these\nalso (as all other Imaginations) have been before, either totally, or\nby parcells in the Sense. And because in sense, the Brain, and Nerves,\nwhich are the necessary Organs of sense, are so benummed in sleep, as\nnot easily to be moved by the action of Externall Objects, there can\nhappen in sleep, no Imagination; and therefore no Dreame, but what\nproceeds from the agitation of the inward parts of mans body; which\ninward parts, for the connexion they have with the Brayn, and other\nOrgans, when they be distempered, do keep the same in motion; whereby\nthe Imaginations there formerly made, appeare as if a man were waking;\nsaving that the Organs of Sense being now benummed, so as there is\nno new object, which can master and obscure them with a more vigorous\nimpression, a Dreame must needs be more cleare, in this silence of\nsense, than are our waking thoughts. And hence it cometh to pass, that\nit is a hard matter, and by many thought impossible to distinguish\nexactly between Sense and Dreaming. For my part, when I consider, that\nin Dreames, I do not often, nor constantly think of the same Persons,\nPlaces, Objects, and Actions that I do waking; nor remember so long a\ntrayne of coherent thoughts, Dreaming, as at other times; And because\nwaking I often observe the absurdity of Dreames, but never dream of\nthe absurdities of my waking Thoughts; I am well satisfied, that being\nawake, I know I dreame not; though when I dreame, I think my selfe\nawake.\n\nAnd seeing dreames are caused by the distemper of some of the inward\nparts of the Body; divers distempers must needs cause different Dreams.\nAnd hence it is, that lying cold breedeth Dreams of Feare, and raiseth\nthe thought and Image of some fearfull object (the motion from the\nbrain to the inner parts, and from the inner parts to the Brain being\nreciprocall:) and that as Anger causeth heat in some parts of the Body,\nwhen we are awake; so when we sleep, the over heating of the same parts\ncauseth Anger, and raiseth up in the brain the Imagination of an Enemy.\nIn the same manner; as naturall kindness, when we are awake causeth\ndesire; and desire makes heat in certain other parts of the body; so\nalso, too much heat in those parts, while wee sleep, raiseth in the\nbrain an imagination of some kindness shewn. In summe, our Dreams are\nthe reverse of our waking Imaginations; The motion when we are awake,\nbeginning at one end; and when we Dream, at another.\n\n\n\n\nApparitions Or Visions\n\nThe most difficult discerning of a mans Dream, from his waking thoughts,\nis then, when by some accident we observe not that we have slept:\nwhich is easie to happen to a man full of fearfull thoughts; and\nwhose conscience is much troubled; and that sleepeth, without the\ncircumstances, of going to bed, or putting off his clothes, as one that\nnoddeth in a chayre. For he that taketh pains, and industriously layes\nhimselfe to sleep, in case any uncouth and exorbitant fancy come unto\nhim, cannot easily think it other than a Dream. We read of Marcus\nBrutes, (one that had his life given him by Julius Caesar, and was also\nhis favorite, and notwithstanding murthered him,) how at Phillipi,\nthe night before he gave battell to Augustus Caesar, he saw a fearfull\napparition, which is commonly related by Historians as a Vision: but\nconsidering the circumstances, one may easily judge to have been but\na short Dream. For sitting in his tent, pensive and troubled with the\nhorrour of his rash act, it was not hard for him, slumbering in the\ncold, to dream of that which most affrighted him; which feare, as by\ndegrees it made him wake; so also it must needs make the Apparition by\ndegrees to vanish: And having no assurance that he slept, he could have\nno cause to think it a Dream, or any thing but a Vision. And this is no\nvery rare Accident: for even they that be perfectly awake, if they be\ntimorous, and supperstitious, possessed with fearfull tales, and alone\nin the dark, are subject to the like fancies, and believe they see\nspirits and dead mens Ghosts walking in Churchyards; whereas it is\neither their Fancy onely, or els the knavery of such persons, as make\nuse of such superstitious feare, to pass disguised in the night, to\nplaces they would not be known to haunt.\n\nFrom this ignorance of how to distinguish Dreams, and other strong\nFancies, from vision and Sense, did arise the greatest part of the\nReligion of the Gentiles in time past, that worshipped Satyres, Fawnes,\nnymphs, and the like; and now adayes the opinion than rude people have\nof Fayries, Ghosts, and Goblins; and of the power of Witches. For as for\nWitches, I think not that their witch craft is any reall power; but yet\nthat they are justly punished, for the false beliefe they have, that\nthey can do such mischiefe, joyned with their purpose to do it if they\ncan; their trade being neerer to a new Religion, than to a Craft or\nScience. And for Fayries, and walking Ghosts, the opinion of them has I\nthink been on purpose, either taught, or not confuted, to keep in\ncredit the use of Exorcisme, of Crosses, of holy Water, and other such\ninventions of Ghostly men. Neverthelesse, there is no doubt, but God can\nmake unnaturall Apparitions. But that he does it so often, as men need\nto feare such things, more than they feare the stay, or change, of the\ncourse of Nature, which he also can stay, and change, is no point of\nChristian faith. But evill men under pretext that God can do any thing,\nare so bold as to say any thing when it serves their turn, though\nthey think it untrue; It is the part of a wise man, to believe them no\nfurther, than right reason makes that which they say, appear credible.\nIf this superstitious fear of Spirits were taken away, and with it,\nPrognostiques from Dreams, false Prophecies, and many other things\ndepending thereon, by which, crafty ambitious persons abuse the\nsimple people, men would be much more fitted than they are for civill\nObedience.\n\nAnd this ought to be the work of the Schooles; but they rather nourish\nsuch doctrine. For (not knowing what Imagination, or the Senses are),\nwhat they receive, they teach: some saying, that Imaginations rise of\nthemselves, and have no cause: Others that they rise most commonly from\nthe Will; and that Good thoughts are blown (inspired) into a man, by\nGod; and evill thoughts by the Divell: or that Good thoughts are powred\n(infused) into a man, by God; and evill ones by the Divell. Some say\nthe Senses receive the Species of things, and deliver them to the\nCommon-sense; and the Common Sense delivers them over to the Fancy, and\nthe Fancy to the Memory, and the Memory to the Judgement, like\nhanding of things from one to another, with many words making nothing\nunderstood.\n\n\n\n\nUnderstanding\n\nThe Imagination that is raysed in man (or any other creature indued with\nthe faculty of imagining) by words, or other voluntary signes, is that\nwe generally call Understanding; and is common to Man and Beast. For a\ndogge by custome will understand the call, or the rating of his Master;\nand so will many other Beasts. That Understanding which is peculiar to\nman, is the Understanding not onely his will; but his conceptions and\nthoughts, by the sequell and contexture of the names of things into\nAffirmations, Negations, and other formes of Speech: And of this kinde\nof Understanding I shall speak hereafter.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. OF THE CONSEQUENCE OR TRAYNE OF IMAGINATIONS\n\n\nBy Consequence, or Trayne of Thoughts, I understand that succession\nof one Thought to another, which is called (to distinguish it from\nDiscourse in words) Mentall Discourse.\n\nWhen a man thinketh on any thing whatsoever, His next Thought after, is\nnot altogether so casuall as it seems to be. Not every Thought to every\nThought succeeds indifferently. But as wee have no Imagination, whereof\nwe have not formerly had Sense, in whole, or in parts; so we have no\nTransition from one Imagination to another, whereof we never had the\nlike before in our Senses. The reason whereof is this. All Fancies\nare Motions within us, reliques of those made in the Sense: And those\nmotions that immediately succeeded one another in the sense, continue\nalso together after Sense: In so much as the former comming again to\ntake place, and be praedominant, the later followeth, by coherence of\nthe matter moved, is such manner, as water upon a plain Table is drawn\nwhich way any one part of it is guided by the finger. But because\nin sense, to one and the same thing perceived, sometimes one thing,\nsometimes another succeedeth, it comes to passe in time, that in the\nImagining of any thing, there is no certainty what we shall Imagine\nnext; Onely this is certain, it shall be something that succeeded the\nsame before, at one time or another.\n\n\n\n\nTrayne Of Thoughts Unguided\n\nThis Trayne of Thoughts, or Mentall Discourse, is of two sorts. The\nfirst is Unguided, Without Designee, and inconstant; Wherein there is no\nPassionate Thought, to govern and direct those that follow, to it self,\nas the end and scope of some desire, or other passion: In which case the\nthoughts are said to wander, and seem impertinent one to another, as\nin a Dream. Such are Commonly the thoughts of men, that are not onely\nwithout company, but also without care of any thing; though even then\ntheir Thoughts are as busie as at other times, but without harmony; as\nthe sound which a Lute out of tune would yeeld to any man; or in tune,\nto one that could not play. And yet in this wild ranging of the mind,\na man may oft-times perceive the way of it, and the dependance of one\nthought upon another. For in a Discourse of our present civill warre,\nwhat could seem more impertinent, than to ask (as one did) what was the\nvalue of a Roman Penny? Yet the Cohaerence to me was manifest enough.\nFor the Thought of the warre, introduced the Thought of the delivering\nup the King to his Enemies; The Thought of that, brought in the Thought\nof the delivering up of Christ; and that again the Thought of the 30\npence, which was the price of that treason: and thence easily followed\nthat malicious question; and all this in a moment of time; for Thought\nis quick.\n\n\n\n\nTrayne Of Thoughts Regulated\n\nThe second is more constant; as being Regulated by some desire, and\ndesignee. For the impression made by such things as wee desire, or\nfeare, is strong, and permanent, or, (if it cease for a time,) of quick\nreturn: so strong it is sometimes, as to hinder and break our sleep.\nFrom Desire, ariseth the Thought of some means we have seen produce the\nlike of that which we ayme at; and from the thought of that, the\nthought of means to that mean; and so continually, till we come to some\nbeginning within our own power. And because the End, by the greatnesse\nof the impression, comes often to mind, in case our thoughts begin to\nwander, they are quickly again reduced into the way: which observed by\none of the seven wise men, made him give men this praecept, which is\nnow worne out, Respice Finem; that is to say, in all your actions,\nlook often upon what you would have, as the thing that directs all your\nthoughts in the way to attain it.\n\n\n\n\nRemembrance\n\nThe Trayn of regulated Thoughts is of two kinds; One, when of an effect\nimagined, wee seek the causes, or means that produce it: and this\nis common to Man and Beast. The other is, when imagining any thing\nwhatsoever, wee seek all the possible effects, that can by it be\nproduced; that is to say, we imagine what we can do with it, when wee\nhave it. Of which I have not at any time seen any signe, but in man\nonely; for this is a curiosity hardly incident to the nature of any\nliving creature that has no other Passion but sensuall, such as are\nhunger, thirst, lust, and anger. In summe, the Discourse of the Mind,\nwhen it is governed by designee, is nothing but Seeking, or the faculty\nof Invention, which the Latines call Sagacitas, and Solertia; a hunting\nout of the causes, of some effect, present or past; or of the effects,\nof some present or past cause, sometimes a man seeks what he hath lost;\nand from that place, and time, wherein hee misses it, his mind runs\nback, from place to place, and time to time, to find where, and when\nhe had it; that is to say, to find some certain, and limited time and\nplace, in which to begin a method of seeking. Again, from thence, his\nthoughts run over the same places and times, to find what action, or\nother occasion might make him lose it. This we call Remembrance,\nor Calling to mind: the Latines call it Reminiscentia, as it were a\nRe-Conning of our former actions.\n\nSometimes a man knows a place determinate, within the compasse whereof\nhis is to seek; and then his thoughts run over all the parts thereof,\nin the same manner, as one would sweep a room, to find a jewell; or as\na Spaniel ranges the field, till he find a sent; or as a man should run\nover the alphabet, to start a rime.\n\n\n\n\nPrudence\n\nSometime a man desires to know the event of an action; and then he\nthinketh of some like action past, and the events thereof one after\nanother; supposing like events will follow like actions. As he that\nforesees what wil become of a Criminal, re-cons what he has seen follow\non the like Crime before; having this order of thoughts, The Crime,\nthe Officer, the Prison, the Judge, and the Gallowes. Which kind\nof thoughts, is called Foresight, and Prudence, or Providence; and\nsometimes Wisdome; though such conjecture, through the difficulty of\nobserving all circumstances, be very fallacious. But this is certain; by\nhow much one man has more experience of things past, than another; by\nso much also he is more Prudent, and his expectations the seldomer faile\nhim. The Present onely has a being in Nature; things Past have a being\nin the Memory onely, but things To Come have no being at all; the Future\nbeing but a fiction of the mind, applying the sequels of actions Past,\nto the actions that are Present; which with most certainty is done by\nhim that has most Experience; but not with certainty enough. And though\nit be called Prudence, when the Event answereth our Expectation; yet in\nits own nature, it is but Presumption. For the foresight of things to\ncome, which is Providence, belongs onely to him by whose will they are\nto come. From him onely, and supernaturally, proceeds Prophecy. The best\nProphet naturally is the best guesser; and the best guesser, he that is\nmost versed and studied in the matters he guesses at: for he hath most\nSignes to guesse by.\n\n\n\n\nSignes\n\nA Signe, is the Event Antecedent, of the Consequent; and contrarily,\nthe Consequent of the Antecedent, when the like Consequences have been\nobserved, before: And the oftner they have been observed, the lesse\nuncertain is the Signe. And therefore he that has most experience in\nany kind of businesse, has most Signes, whereby to guesse at the Future\ntime, and consequently is the most prudent: And so much more prudent\nthan he that is new in that kind of business, as not to be equalled by\nany advantage of naturall and extemporary wit: though perhaps many young\nmen think the contrary.\n\nNeverthelesse it is not Prudence that distinguisheth man from beast.\nThere be beasts, that at a year old observe more, and pursue that which\nis for their good, more prudently, than a child can do at ten.\n\n\n\n\nConjecture Of The Time Past\n\nAs Prudence is a Praesumtion of the Future, contracted from the\nExperience of time Past; So there is a Praesumtion of things Past taken\nfrom other things (not future but) past also. For he that hath seen\nby what courses and degrees, a flourishing State hath first come into\ncivill warre, and then to ruine; upon the sights of the ruines of any\nother State, will guesse, the like warre, and the like courses have been\nthere also. But his conjecture, has the same incertainty almost with the\nconjecture of the Future; both being grounded onely upon Experience.\n\nThere is no other act of mans mind, that I can remember, naturally\nplanted in him, so, as to need no other thing, to the exercise of it,\nbut to be born a man, and live with the use of his five Senses. Those\nother Faculties, of which I shall speak by and by, and which seem proper\nto man onely, are acquired, and encreased by study and industry; and of\nmost men learned by instruction, and discipline; and proceed all from\nthe invention of Words, and Speech. For besides Sense, and Thoughts, and\nthe Trayne of thoughts, the mind of man has no other motion; though by\nthe help of Speech, and Method, the same Facultyes may be improved to\nsuch a height, as to distinguish men from all other living Creatures.\n\nWhatsoever we imagine, is Finite. Therefore there is no Idea, or\nconception of anything we call Infinite. No man can have in his mind an\nImage of infinite magnitude; nor conceive the ends, and bounds of\nthe thing named; having no Conception of the thing, but of our own\ninability. And therefore the Name of GOD is used, not to make us\nconceive him; (for he is Incomprehensible; and his greatnesse, and power\nare unconceivable;) but that we may honour him. Also because whatsoever\n(as I said before,) we conceive, has been perceived first by sense,\neither all at once, or by parts; a man can have no thought, representing\nany thing, not subject to sense. No man therefore can conceive any\nthing, but he must conceive it in some place; and indued with some\ndeterminate magnitude; and which may be divided into parts; nor that any\nthing is all in this place, and all in another place at the same time;\nnor that two, or more things can be in one, and the same place at once:\nfor none of these things ever have, or can be incident to Sense; but are\nabsurd speeches, taken upon credit (without any signification at all,)\nfrom deceived Philosophers, and deceived, or deceiving Schoolemen.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. OF SPEECH\n\n\n\n\nOriginall Of Speech\n\nThe Invention of Printing, though ingenious, compared with the invention\nof Letters, is no great matter. But who was the first that found the use\nof Letters, is not known. He that first brought them into Greece, men\nsay was Cadmus, the sonne of Agenor, King of Phaenicia. A profitable\nInvention for continuing the memory of time past, and the conjunction of\nmankind, dispersed into so many, and distant regions of the Earth; and\nwith all difficult, as proceeding from a watchfull observation of the\ndivers motions of the Tongue, Palat, Lips, and other organs of Speech;\nwhereby to make as many differences of characters, to remember them.\nBut the most noble and profitable invention of all other, was that of\nSpeech, consisting of Names or Apellations, and their Connexion; whereby\nmen register their Thoughts; recall them when they are past; and also\ndeclare them one to another for mutuall utility and conversation;\nwithout which, there had been amongst men, neither Common-wealth, nor\nSociety, nor Contract, nor Peace, no more than amongst Lyons, Bears,\nand Wolves. The first author of Speech was GOD himselfe, that instructed\nAdam how to name such creatures as he presented to his sight; For the\nScripture goeth no further in this matter. But this was sufficient\nto direct him to adde more names, as the experience and use of the\ncreatures should give him occasion; and to joyn them in such manner by\ndegrees, as to make himselfe understood; and so by succession of time,\nso much language might be gotten, as he had found use for; though not so\ncopious, as an Orator or Philosopher has need of. For I do not find any\nthing in the Scripture, out of which, directly or by consequence can\nbe gathered, that Adam was taught the names of all Figures, Numbers,\nMeasures, Colours, Sounds, Fancies, Relations; much less the names\nof Words and Speech, as Generall, Speciall, Affirmative, Negative,\nInterrogative, Optative, Infinitive, all which are usefull; and least of\nall, of Entity, Intentionality, Quiddity, and other significant words of\nthe School.\n\nBut all this language gotten, and augmented by Adam and his posterity,\nwas again lost at the tower of Babel, when by the hand of God, every man\nwas stricken for his rebellion, with an oblivion of his former language.\nAnd being hereby forced to disperse themselves into severall parts of\nthe world, it must needs be, that the diversity of Tongues that now is,\nproceeded by degrees from them, in such manner, as need (the mother of\nall inventions) taught them; and in tract of time grew every where more\ncopious.\n\n\n\n\nThe Use Of Speech\n\nThe generall use of Speech, is to transferre our Mentall Discourse, into\nVerbal; or the Trayne of our Thoughts, into a Trayne of Words; and that\nfor two commodities; whereof one is, the Registring of the Consequences\nof our Thoughts; which being apt to slip out of our memory, and put\nus to a new labour, may again be recalled, by such words as they were\nmarked by. So that the first use of names, is to serve for Markes,\nor Notes of remembrance. Another is, when many use the same words,\nto signifie (by their connexion and order,) one to another, what they\nconceive, or think of each matter; and also what they desire, feare,\nor have any other passion for, and for this use they are called\nSignes. Speciall uses of Speech are these; First, to Register, what by\ncogitation, wee find to be the cause of any thing, present or past; and\nwhat we find things present or past may produce, or effect: which in\nsumme, is acquiring of Arts. Secondly, to shew to others that knowledge\nwhich we have attained; which is, to Counsell, and Teach one another.\nThirdly, to make known to others our wills, and purposes, that we may\nhave the mutuall help of one another. Fourthly, to please and delight\nour selves, and others, by playing with our words, for pleasure or\nornament, innocently.\n\n\n\n\nAbuses Of Speech\n\nTo these Uses, there are also foure correspondent Abuses. First,\nwhen men register their thoughts wrong, by the inconstancy of the\nsignification of their words; by which they register for their\nconceptions, that which they never conceived; and so deceive themselves.\nSecondly, when they use words metaphorically; that is, in other sense\nthan that they are ordained for; and thereby deceive others. Thirdly,\nwhen by words they declare that to be their will, which is not.\nFourthly, when they use them to grieve one another: for seeing nature\nhath armed living creatures, some with teeth, some with horns, and some\nwith hands, to grieve an enemy, it is but an abuse of Speech, to grieve\nhim with the tongue, unlesse it be one whom wee are obliged to govern;\nand then it is not to grieve, but to correct and amend.\n\nThe manner how Speech serveth to the remembrance of the consequence\nof causes and effects, consisteth in the imposing of Names, and the\nConnexion of them.\n\n\n\n\nNames Proper & Common Universall\n\nOf Names, some are Proper, and singular to one onely thing; as Peter,\nJohn, This Man, This Tree: and some are Common to many things; as Man,\nHorse, Tree; every of which though but one Name, is nevertheless the\nname of divers particular things; in respect of all which together, it\nis called an Universall; there being nothing in the world Universall\nbut Names; for the things named, are every one of them Individual and\nSingular.\n\nOne Universall name is imposed on many things, for their similitude in\nsome quality, or other accident: And whereas a Proper Name bringeth to\nmind one thing onely; Universals recall any one of those many.\n\nAnd of Names Universall, some are of more, and some of lesse extent; the\nlarger comprehending the lesse large: and some again of equall extent,\ncomprehending each other reciprocally. As for example, the Name Body is\nof larger signification than the word Man, and conprehendeth it; and the\nnames Man and Rationall, are of equall extent, comprehending mutually\none another. But here wee must take notice, that by a Name is not\nalwayes understood, as in Grammar, one onely word; but sometimes by\ncircumlocution many words together. For all these words, Hee That In\nHis Actions Observeth The Lawes Of His Country, make but one Name,\nequivalent to this one word, Just.\n\nBy this imposition of Names, some of larger, some of stricter\nsignification, we turn the reckoning of the consequences of things\nimagined in the mind, into a reckoning of the consequences of\nAppellations. For example, a man that hath no use of Speech at all,\n(such, as is born and remains perfectly deafe and dumb,) if he set\nbefore his eyes a triangle, and by it two right angles, (such as are the\ncorners of a square figure,) he may by meditation compare and find, that\nthe three angles of that triangle, are equall to those two right angles\nthat stand by it. But if another triangle be shewn him different in\nshape from the former, he cannot know without a new labour, whether the\nthree angles of that also be equall to the same. But he that hath the\nuse of words, when he observes, that such equality was consequent, not\nto the length of the sides, nor to any other particular thing in his\ntriangle; but onely to this, that the sides were straight, and the\nangles three; and that that was all, for which he named it a Triangle;\nwill boldly conclude Universally, that such equality of angles is in\nall triangles whatsoever; and register his invention in these generall\ntermes, Every Triangle Hath Its Three Angles Equall To Two Right Angles.\nAnd thus the consequence found in one particular, comes to be registred\nand remembred, as a Universall rule; and discharges our mentall\nreckoning, of time and place; and delivers us from all labour of the\nmind, saving the first; and makes that which was found true Here, and\nNow, to be true in All Times and Places.\n\nBut the use of words in registring our thoughts, is in nothing so\nevident as in Numbering. A naturall foole that could never learn by\nheart the order of numerall words, as One, Two, and Three, may observe\nevery stroak of the Clock, and nod to it, or say one, one, one; but can\nnever know what houre it strikes. And it seems, there was a time when\nthose names of number were not in use; and men were fayn to apply their\nfingers of one or both hands, to those things they desired to keep\naccount of; and that thence it proceeded, that now our numerall words\nare but ten, in any Nation, and in some but five, and then they begin\nagain. And he that can tell ten, if he recite them out of order, will\nlose himselfe, and not know when he has done: Much lesse will he be\nable to add, and substract, and performe all other operations of\nArithmetique. So that without words, there is no possibility of\nreckoning of Numbers; much lesse of Magnitudes, of Swiftnesse, of Force,\nand other things, the reckonings whereof are necessary to the being, or\nwell-being of man-kind.\n\nWhen two Names are joyned together into a Consequence, or Affirmation;\nas thus, A Man Is A Living Creature; or thus, If He Be A Man, He Is A\nLiving Creature, If the later name Living Creature, signifie all that\nthe former name Man signifieth, then the affirmation, or consequence is\nTrue; otherwise False. For True and False are attributes of Speech, not\nof things. And where Speech in not, there is neither Truth nor Falshood.\nErrour there may be, as when wee expect that which shall not be; or\nsuspect what has not been: but in neither case can a man be charged with\nUntruth.\n\nSeeing then that Truth consisteth in the right ordering of names in our\naffirmations, a man that seeketh precise Truth, had need to remember\nwhat every name he uses stands for; and to place it accordingly; or els\nhe will find himselfe entangled in words, as a bird in lime-twiggs; the\nmore he struggles, the more belimed. And therefore in Geometry, (which\nis the onely Science that it hath pleased God hitherto to bestow on\nmankind,) men begin at settling the significations of their words; which\nsettling of significations, they call Definitions; and place them in the\nbeginning of their reckoning.\n\nBy this it appears how necessary it is for any man that aspires to true\nKnowledge, to examine the Definitions of former Authors; and either\nto correct them, where they are negligently set down; or to make them\nhimselfe. For the errours of Definitions multiply themselves, according\nas the reckoning proceeds; and lead men into absurdities, which at last\nthey see, but cannot avoyd, without reckoning anew from the beginning;\nin which lyes the foundation of their errours. From whence it happens,\nthat they which trust to books, do as they that cast up many little\nsumms into a greater, without considering whether those little summes\nwere rightly cast up or not; and at last finding the errour visible,\nand not mistrusting their first grounds, know not which way to cleere\nthemselves; but spend time in fluttering over their bookes; as birds\nthat entring by the chimney, and finding themselves inclosed in a\nchamber, flitter at the false light of a glasse window, for want of wit\nto consider which way they came in. So that in the right Definition\nof Names, lyes the first use of Speech; which is the Acquisition of\nScience: And in wrong, or no Definitions' lyes the first abuse; from\nwhich proceed all false and senslesse Tenets; which make those men that\ntake their instruction from the authority of books, and not from their\nown meditation, to be as much below the condition of ignorant men, as\nmen endued with true Science are above it. For between true Science,\nand erroneous Doctrines, Ignorance is in the middle. Naturall sense and\nimagination, are not subject to absurdity. Nature it selfe cannot erre:\nand as men abound in copiousnesse of language; so they become more wise,\nor more mad than ordinary. Nor is it possible without Letters for any\nman to become either excellently wise, or (unless his memory be hurt by\ndisease, or ill constitution of organs) excellently foolish. For words\nare wise mens counters, they do but reckon by them: but they are the\nmony of fooles, that value them by the authority of an Aristotle, a\nCicero, or a Thomas, or any other Doctor whatsoever, if but a man.\n\n\n\n\nSubject To Names\n\nSubject To Names, is whatsoever can enter into, or be considered in an\naccount; and be added one to another to make a summe; or substracted one\nfrom another, and leave a remainder. The Latines called Accounts of mony\nRationes, and accounting, Ratiocinatio: and that which we in bills or\nbooks of account call Items, they called Nomina; that is, Names: and\nthence it seems to proceed, that they extended the word Ratio, to the\nfaculty of Reckoning in all other things. The Greeks have but one word\nLogos, for both Speech and Reason; not that they thought there was no\nSpeech without Reason; but no Reasoning without Speech: And the act of\nreasoning they called syllogisme; which signifieth summing up of the\nconsequences of one saying to another. And because the same things may\nenter into account for divers accidents; their names are (to shew that\ndiversity) diversly wrested, and diversified. This diversity of names\nmay be reduced to foure generall heads.\n\nFirst, a thing may enter into account for Matter, or Body; as Living,\nSensible, Rationall, Hot, Cold, Moved, Quiet; with all which names the\nword Matter, or Body is understood; all such, being names of Matter.\n\nSecondly, it may enter into account, or be considered, for some accident\nor quality, which we conceive to be in it; as for Being Moved, for Being\nSo Long, for Being Hot, &c; and then, of the name of the thing it selfe,\nby a little change or wresting, wee make a name for that accident, which\nwe consider; and for Living put into account Life; for Moved, Motion;\nfor Hot, Heat; for Long, Length, and the like. And all such Names, are\nthe names of the accidents and properties, by which one Matter, and Body\nis distinguished from another. These are called Names Abstract; Because\nSevered (not from Matter, but) from the account of Matter.\n\nThirdly, we bring into account, the Properties of our own bodies,\nwhereby we make such distinction: as when any thing is Seen by us, we\nreckon not the thing it selfe; but the Sight, the Colour, the Idea of\nit in the fancy: and when any thing is Heard, wee reckon it not; but the\nHearing, or Sound onely, which is our fancy or conception of it by the\nEare: and such are names of fancies.\n\nFourthly, we bring into account, consider, and give names, to Names\nthemselves, and to Speeches: For, Generall, Universall, Speciall,\nOequivocall, are names of Names. And Affirmation, Interrogation,\nCommandement, Narration, Syllogisme, Sermon, Oration, and many other\nsuch, are names of Speeches.\n\n\n\n\nUse Of Names Positive\n\nAnd this is all the variety of Names Positive; which are put to mark\nsomewhat which is in Nature, or may be feigned by the mind of man, as\nBodies that are, or may be conceived to be; or of bodies, the Properties\nthat are, or may be feigned to be; or Words and Speech.\n\n\n\n\nNegative Names With Their Uses\n\nThere be also other Names, called Negative; which are notes to signifie\nthat a word is not the name of the thing in question; as these words\nNothing, No Man, Infinite, Indocible, Three Want Foure, and the\nlike; which are nevertheless of use in reckoning, or in correcting of\nreckoning; and call to mind our past cogitations, though they be not\nnames of any thing; because they make us refuse to admit of Names not\nrightly used.\n\n\n\n\nWords Insignificant\n\nAll other names, are but insignificant sounds; and those of two\nsorts. One, when they are new, and yet their meaning not explained by\nDefinition; whereof there have been aboundance coyned by Schoole-men,\nand pusled Philosophers.\n\nAnother, when men make a name of two Names, whose significations are\ncontradictory and inconsistent; as this name, an Incorporeall Body, or\n(which is all one) an Incorporeall Substance, and a great number more.\nFor whensoever any affirmation is false, the two names of which it\nis composed, put together and made one, signifie nothing at all. For\nexample if it be a false affirmation to say A Quadrangle Is Round,\nthe word Round Quadrangle signifies nothing; but is a meere sound. So\nlikewise if it be false, to say that vertue can be powred, or blown up\nand down; the words In-powred Vertue, In-blown Vertue, are as absurd\nand insignificant, as a Round Quadrangle. And therefore you shall hardly\nmeet with a senselesse and insignificant word, that is not made up of\nsome Latin or Greek names. A Frenchman seldome hears our Saviour called\nby the name of Parole, but by the name of Verbe often; yet Verbe and\nParole differ no more, but that one is Latin, the other French.\n\n\n\n\nUnderstanding\n\nWhen a man upon the hearing of any Speech, hath those thoughts which the\nwords of that Speech, and their connexion, were ordained and constituted\nto signifie; Then he is said to understand it; Understanding being\nnothing els, but conception caused by Speech. And therefore if Speech\nbe peculiar to man (as for ought I know it is,) then is Understanding\npeculiar to him also. And therefore of absurd and false affirmations,\nin case they be universall, there can be no Understanding; though many\nthink they understand, then, when they do but repeat the words softly,\nor con them in their mind.\n\nWhat kinds of Speeches signifie the Appetites, Aversions, and Passions\nof mans mind; and of their use and abuse, I shall speak when I have\nspoken of the Passions.\n\n\n\n\nInconstant Names\n\nThe names of such things as affect us, that is, which please, and\ndisplease us, because all men be not alike affected with the same thing,\nnor the same man at all times, are in the common discourses of men, of\nInconstant signification. For seeing all names are imposed to signifie\nour conceptions; and all our affections are but conceptions; when we\nconceive the same things differently, we can hardly avoyd different\nnaming of them. For though the nature of that we conceive, be the\nsame; yet the diversity of our reception of it, in respect of different\nconstitutions of body, and prejudices of opinion, gives everything a\ntincture of our different passions. And therefore in reasoning, a man\nbust take heed of words; which besides the signification of what we\nimagine of their nature, disposition, and interest of the speaker; such\nas are the names of Vertues, and Vices; For one man calleth Wisdome,\nwhat another calleth Feare; and one Cruelty, what another Justice;\none Prodigality, what another Magnanimity; one Gravity, what another\nStupidity, &c. And therefore such names can never be true grounds of any\nratiocination. No more can Metaphors, and Tropes of speech: but these\nare less dangerous, because they profess their inconstancy; which the\nother do not.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. OF REASON, AND SCIENCE.\n\n\n\n\nReason What It Is\n\nWhen a man Reasoneth, hee does nothing els but conceive a summe totall,\nfrom Addition of parcels; or conceive a Remainder, from Substraction of\none summe from another: which (if it be done by Words,) is conceiving of\nthe consequence of the names of all the parts, to the name of the whole;\nor from the names of the whole and one part, to the name of the other\npart. And though in some things, (as in numbers,) besides Adding and\nSubstracting, men name other operations, as Multiplying and Dividing;\nyet they are the same; for Multiplication, is but Addition together of\nthings equall; and Division, but Substracting of one thing, as often as\nwe can. These operations are not incident to Numbers onely, but to\nall manner of things that can be added together, and taken one out of\nanother. For as Arithmeticians teach to adde and substract in Numbers;\nso the Geometricians teach the same in Lines, Figures (solid and\nsuperficiall,) Angles, Proportions, Times, degrees of Swiftnesse, Force,\nPower, and the like; The Logicians teach the same in Consequences\nOf Words; adding together Two Names, to make an Affirmation; and Two\nAffirmations, to make a syllogisme; and Many syllogismes to make a\nDemonstration; and from the Summe, or Conclusion of a syllogisme, they\nsubstract one Proposition, to finde the other. Writers of Politiques,\nadde together Pactions, to find mens Duties; and Lawyers, Lawes and\nFacts, to find what is Right and Wrong in the actions of private men.\nIn summe, in what matter soever there is place for Addition and\nSubstraction, there also is place for Reason; and where these have no\nplace, there Reason has nothing at all to do.\n\n\n\n\nReason Defined\n\nOut of all which we may define, (that is to say determine,) what that\nis, which is meant by this word Reason, when wee reckon it amongst\nthe Faculties of the mind. For Reason, in this sense, is nothing but\nReckoning (that is, Adding and Substracting) of the Consequences of\ngenerall names agreed upon, for the Marking and Signifying of our\nthoughts; I say Marking them, when we reckon by our selves; and\nSignifying, when we demonstrate, or approve our reckonings to other men.\n\n\n\n\nRight Reason Where\n\nAnd as in Arithmetique, unpractised men must, and Professors themselves\nmay often erre, and cast up false; so also in any other subject of\nReasoning, the ablest, most attentive, and most practised men, may\ndeceive themselves, and inferre false Conclusions; Not but that Reason\nit selfe is always Right Reason, as well as Arithmetique is a certain\nand infallible art: But no one mans Reason, nor the Reason of any\none number of men, makes the certaintie; no more than an account is\ntherefore well cast up, because a great many men have unanimously\napproved it. And therfore, as when there is a controversy in an account,\nthe parties must by their own accord, set up for right Reason, the\nReason of some Arbitrator, or Judge, to whose sentence they will\nboth stand, or their controversie must either come to blowes, or be\nundecided, for want of a right Reason constituted by Nature; so is\nit also in all debates of what kind soever: And when men that think\nthemselves wiser than all others, clamor and demand right Reason for\njudge; yet seek no more, but that things should be determined, by no\nother mens reason but their own, it is as intolerable in the society of\nmen, as it is in play after trump is turned, to use for trump on every\noccasion, that suite whereof they have most in their hand. For they do\nnothing els, that will have every of their passions, as it comes to\nbear sway in them, to be taken for right Reason, and that in their own\ncontroversies: bewraying their want of right Reason, by the claym they\nlay to it.\n\n\n\n\nThe Use Of Reason\n\nThe Use and End of Reason, is not the finding of the summe, and truth\nof one, or a few consequences, remote from the first definitions, and\nsettled significations of names; but to begin at these; and proceed from\none consequence to another. For there can be no certainty of the last\nConclusion, without a certainty of all those Affirmations and Negations,\non which it was grounded, and inferred. As when a master of a family,\nin taking an account, casteth up the summs of all the bills of expence,\ninto one sum; and not regarding how each bill is summed up, by those\nthat give them in account; nor what it is he payes for; he advantages\nhimselfe no more, than if he allowed the account in grosse, trusting to\nevery of the accountants skill and honesty; so also in Reasoning of all\nother things, he that takes up conclusions on the trust of Authors, and\ndoth not fetch them from the first Items in every Reckoning, (which are\nthe significations of names settled by definitions), loses his labour;\nand does not know any thing; but onely beleeveth.\n\n\n\n\nOf Error And Absurdity\n\nWhen a man reckons without the use of words, which may be done in\nparticular things, (as when upon the sight of any one thing, wee\nconjecture what was likely to have preceded, or is likely to follow upon\nit;) if that which he thought likely to follow, followes not; or that\nwhich he thought likely to have preceded it, hath not preceded it, this\nis called ERROR; to which even the most prudent men are subject. But\nwhen we Reason in Words of generall signification, and fall upon a\ngenerall inference which is false; though it be commonly called Error,\nit is indeed an ABSURDITY, or senseless Speech. For Error is but a\ndeception, in presuming that somewhat is past, or to come; of which,\nthough it were not past, or not to come; yet there was no impossibility\ndiscoverable. But when we make a generall assertion, unlesse it be a\ntrue one, the possibility of it is unconceivable. And words whereby we\nconceive nothing but the sound, are those we call Absurd, insignificant,\nand Non-sense. And therefore if a man should talk to me of a Round\nQuadrangle; or Accidents Of Bread In Cheese; or Immaterial Substances;\nor of A Free Subject; A Free Will; or any Free, but free from being\nhindred by opposition, I should not say he were in an Errour; but that\nhis words were without meaning; that is to say, Absurd.\n\nI have said before, (in the second chapter,) that a Man did excell\nall other Animals in this faculty, that when he conceived any thing\nwhatsoever, he was apt to enquire the consequences of it, and what\neffects he could do with it. And now I adde this other degree of the\nsame excellence, that he can by words reduce the consequences he findes\nto generall Rules, called Theoremes, or Aphorismes; that is, he can\nReason, or reckon, not onely in number; but in all other things, whereof\none may be added unto, or substracted from another.\n\nBut this priviledge, is allayed by another; and that is, by the\npriviledge of Absurdity; to which no living creature is subject, but man\nonely. And of men, those are of all most subject to it, that professe\nPhilosophy. For it is most true that Cicero sayth of them somewhere;\nthat there can be nothing so absurd, but may be found in the books of\nPhilosophers. And the reason is manifest. For there is not one of them\nthat begins his ratiocination from the Definitions, or Explications of\nthe names they are to use; which is a method that hath been used onely\nin Geometry; whose Conclusions have thereby been made indisputable.\n\n\n\n\nCauses Of Absurditie\n\nThe first cause of Absurd conclusions I ascribe to the want of Method;\nin that they begin not their Ratiocination from Definitions; that\nis, from settled significations of their words: as if they could cast\naccount, without knowing the value of the numerall words, One, Two, and\nThree.\n\nAnd whereas all bodies enter into account upon divers considerations,\n(which I have mentioned in the precedent chapter;) these considerations\nbeing diversly named, divers absurdities proceed from the confusion, and\nunfit connexion of their names into assertions. And therefore\n\nThe second cause of Absurd assertions, I ascribe to the giving of names\nof Bodies, to Accidents; or of Accidents, to Bodies; As they do, that\nsay, Faith Is Infused, or Inspired; when nothing can be Powred, or\nBreathed into any thing, but body; and that, Extension is Body; that\nPhantasmes are Spirits, &c.\n\nThe third I ascribe to the giving of the names of the Accidents of\nBodies Without Us, to the Accidents of our Own Bodies; as they do that\nsay, the Colour Is In The Body; The Sound Is In The Ayre, &c.\n\nThe fourth, to the giving of the names of Bodies, to Names, or Speeches;\nas they do that say, that There Be Things Universall; that A Living\nCreature Is Genus, or A Generall Thing, &c.\n\nThe fifth, to the giving of the names of Accidents, to Names and\nSpeeches; as they do that say, The Nature Of A Thing Is In Its\nDefinition; A Mans Command Is His Will; and the like.\n\nThe sixth, to the use of Metaphors, Tropes, and other Rhetoricall\nfigures, in stead of words proper. For though it be lawfull to say, (for\nexample) in common speech, The Way Goeth, Or Leadeth Hither, Or Thither,\nThe Proverb Sayes This Or That (whereas wayes cannot go, nor Proverbs\nspeak;) yet in reckoning, and seeking of truth, such speeches are not to\nbe admitted.\n\nThe seventh, to names that signifie nothing; but are taken up, and\nlearned by rote from the Schooles, as Hypostatical, Transubstantiate,\nConsubstantiate, Eternal-now, and the like canting of Schoole-men.\n\nTo him that can avoyd these things, it is not easie to fall into any\nabsurdity, unlesse it be by the length of an account; wherein he may\nperhaps forget what went before. For all men by nature reason alike, and\nwell, when they have good principles. For who is so stupid, as both to\nmistake in Geometry, and also to persist in it, when another detects his\nerror to him?\n\n\n\n\nScience\n\nBy this it appears that Reason is not as Sense, and Memory, borne with\nus; nor gotten by Experience onely; as Prudence is; but attayned by\nIndustry; first in apt imposing of Names; and secondly by getting a good\nand orderly Method in proceeding from the Elements, which are Names,\nto Assertions made by Connexion of one of them to another; and so to\nsyllogismes, which are the Connexions of one Assertion to another, till\nwe come to a knowledge of all the Consequences of names appertaining to\nthe subject in hand; and that is it, men call SCIENCE. And whereas\nSense and Memory are but knowledge of Fact, which is a thing past, and\nirrevocable; Science is the knowledge of Consequences, and dependance\nof one fact upon another: by which, out of that we can presently do, we\nknow how to do something els when we will, or the like, another time;\nBecause when we see how any thing comes about, upon what causes, and by\nwhat manner; when the like causes come into our power, wee see how to\nmake it produce the like effects.\n\nChildren therefore are not endued with Reason at all, till they have\nattained the use of Speech: but are called Reasonable Creatures, for the\npossibility apparent of having the use of Reason in time to come. And\nthe most part of men, though they have the use of Reasoning a little\nway, as in numbring to some degree; yet it serves them to little use in\ncommon life; in which they govern themselves, some better, some worse,\naccording to their differences of experience, quicknesse of memory, and\ninclinations to severall ends; but specially according to good or evill\nfortune, and the errors of one another. For as for Science, or certain\nrules of their actions, they are so farre from it, that they know\nnot what it is. Geometry they have thought Conjuring: but for other\nSciences, they who have not been taught the beginnings, and some\nprogresse in them, that they may see how they be acquired and generated,\nare in this point like children, that having no thought of generation,\nare made believe by the women, that their brothers and sisters are not\nborn, but found in the garden.\n\nBut yet they that have no Science, are in better, and nobler condition\nwith their naturall Prudence; than men, that by mis-reasoning, or by\ntrusting them that reason wrong, fall upon false and absurd generall\nrules. For ignorance of causes, and of rules, does not set men so farre\nout of their way, as relying on false rules, and taking for causes of\nwhat they aspire to, those that are not so, but rather causes of the\ncontrary.\n\nTo conclude, The Light of humane minds is Perspicuous Words, but by\nexact definitions first snuffed, and purged from ambiguity; Reason is\nthe Pace; Encrease of Science, the Way; and the Benefit of man-kind, the\nEnd. And on the contrary, Metaphors, and senslesse and ambiguous words,\nare like Ignes Fatui; and reasoning upon them, is wandering amongst\ninnumerable absurdities; and their end, contention, and sedition, or\ncontempt.\n\n\n\n\nPrudence & Sapience, With Their Difference\n\nAs, much Experience, is Prudence; so, is much Science, Sapience. For\nthough wee usually have one name of Wisedome for them both; yet\nthe Latines did always distinguish between Prudentia and Sapientia,\nascribing the former to Experience, the later to Science. But to make\ntheir difference appeare more cleerly, let us suppose one man endued\nwith an excellent naturall use, and dexterity in handling his armes; and\nanother to have added to that dexterity, an acquired Science, of where\nhe can offend, or be offended by his adversarie, in every possible\nposture, or guard: The ability of the former, would be to the ability\nof the later, as Prudence to Sapience; both usefull; but the later\ninfallible. But they that trusting onely to the authority of books,\nfollow the blind blindly, are like him that trusting to the false rules\nof the master of fence, ventures praesumptuously upon an adversary, that\neither kills, or disgraces him.\n\n\n\n\nSignes Of Science\n\nThe signes of Science, are some, certain and infallible; some,\nuncertain. Certain, when he that pretendeth the Science of any thing,\ncan teach the same; that is to say, demonstrate the truth thereof\nperspicuously to another: Uncertain, when onely some particular events\nanswer to his pretence, and upon many occasions prove so as he sayes\nthey must. Signes of prudence are all uncertain; because to observe by\nexperience, and remember all circumstances that may alter the successe,\nis impossible. But in any businesse, whereof a man has not infallible\nScience to proceed by; to forsake his own natural judgement, and be\nguided by generall sentences read in Authors, and subject to many\nexceptions, is a signe of folly, and generally scorned by the name of\nPedantry. And even of those men themselves, that in Councells of the\nCommon-wealth, love to shew their reading of Politiques and History,\nvery few do it in their domestique affaires, where their particular\ninterest is concerned; having Prudence enough for their private\naffaires: but in publique they study more the reputation of their owne\nwit, than the successe of anothers businesse.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI. OF THE INTERIOUR BEGINNINGS OF VOLUNTARY MOTIONS\n\nCOMMONLY CALLED THE PASSIONS. AND THE SPEECHES BY WHICH THEY ARE\nEXPRESSED.\n\n\n\n\nMotion Vitall And Animal\n\nThere be in Animals, two sorts of Motions peculiar to them: One called\nVitall; begun in generation, and continued without interruption through\ntheir whole life; such as are the Course of the Bloud, the Pulse, the\nBreathing, the Concoctions, Nutrition, Excretion, &c; to which Motions\nthere needs no help of Imagination: The other in Animal Motion,\notherwise called Voluntary Motion; as to Go, to Speak, to Move any of\nour limbes, in such manner as is first fancied in our minds. That Sense,\nis Motion in the organs and interiour parts of mans body, caused by\nthe action of the things we See, Heare, &c.; And that Fancy is but the\nReliques of the same Motion, remaining after Sense, has been already\nsayd in the first and second Chapters. And because Going, Speaking, and\nthe like Voluntary motions, depend alwayes upon a precedent thought of\nWhither, Which Way, and What; it is evident, that the Imagination is\nthe first internall beginning of all Voluntary Motion. And although\nunstudied men, doe not conceive any motion at all to be there, where\nthe thing moved is invisible; or the space it is moved in, is (for the\nshortnesse of it) insensible; yet that doth not hinder, but that such\nMotions are. For let a space be never so little, that which is moved\nover a greater space, whereof that little one is part, must first be\nmoved over that. These small beginnings of Motion, within the body\nof Man, before they appear in walking, speaking, striking, and other\nvisible actions, are commonly called ENDEAVOUR.\n\n\n\n\nEndeavour; Appetite; Desire; Hunger; Thirst; Aversion\n\nThis Endeavour, when it is toward something which causes it, is called\nAPPETITE, or DESIRE; the later, being the generall name; and the other,\noftentimes restrayned to signifie the Desire of Food, namely Hunger and\nThirst. And when the Endeavour is fromward something, it is generally\ncalled AVERSION. These words Appetite, and Aversion we have from the\nLatines; and they both of them signifie the motions, one of approaching,\nthe other of retiring. So also do the Greek words for the same, which\nare orme and aphorme. For nature it selfe does often presse upon men\nthose truths, which afterwards, when they look for somewhat beyond\nNature, they stumble at. For the Schooles find in meere Appetite to go,\nor move, no actuall Motion at all: but because some Motion they must\nacknowledge, they call it Metaphoricall Motion; which is but an absurd\nspeech; for though Words may be called metaphoricall; Bodies, and\nMotions cannot.\n\nThat which men Desire, they are also sayd to LOVE; and to HATE those\nthings, for which they have Aversion. So that Desire, and Love, are the\nsame thing; save that by Desire, we alwayes signifie the Absence of\nthe object; by Love, most commonly the Presence of the same. So also\nby Aversion, we signifie the Absence; and by Hate, the Presence of the\nObject.\n\nOf Appetites, and Aversions, some are born with men; as Appetite of\nfood, Appetite of excretion, and exoneration, (which may also and more\nproperly be called Aversions, from somewhat they feele in their Bodies;)\nand some other Appetites, not many. The rest, which are Appetites of\nparticular things, proceed from Experience, and triall of their effects\nupon themselves, or other men. For of things wee know not at all, or\nbelieve not to be, we can have no further Desire, than to tast and try.\nBut Aversion wee have for things, not onely which we know have hurt us;\nbut also that we do not know whether they will hurt us, or not.\n\n\n\n\nContempt\n\nThose things which we neither Desire, nor Hate, we are said to Contemne:\nCONTEMPT being nothing els but an immobility, or contumacy of the Heart,\nin resisting the action of certain things; and proceeding from that the\nHeart is already moved otherwise, by either more potent objects; or from\nwant of experience of them.\n\nAnd because the constitution of a mans Body, is in continuall mutation;\nit is impossible that all the same things should alwayes cause in him\nthe same Appetites, and aversions: much lesse can all men consent, in\nthe Desire of almost any one and the same Object.\n\n\n\n\nGood Evill\n\nBut whatsoever is the object of any mans Appetite or Desire; that is\nit, which he for his part calleth Good: And the object of his Hate,\nand Aversion, evill; And of his contempt, Vile, and Inconsiderable.\nFor these words of Good, evill, and Contemptible, are ever used with\nrelation to the person that useth them: There being nothing simply and\nabsolutely so; nor any common Rule of Good and evill, to be taken from\nthe nature of the objects themselves; but from the Person of the man\n(where there is no Common-wealth;) or, (in a Common-wealth,) From the\nPerson that representeth it; or from an Arbitrator or Judge, whom men\ndisagreeing shall by consent set up, and make his sentence the Rule\nthereof.\n\n\n\n\nPulchrum Turpe; Delightfull Profitable; Unpleasant Unprofitable\n\nThe Latine Tongue has two words, whose significations approach to\nthose of Good and Evill; but are not precisely the same; And those are\nPulchrum and Turpe. Whereof the former signifies that, which by some\napparent signes promiseth Good; and the later, that, which promiseth\nevill. But in our Tongue we have not so generall names to expresse them\nby. But for Pulchrum, we say in some things, Fayre; in other Beautifull,\nor Handsome, or Gallant, or Honourable, or Comely, or Amiable; and\nfor Turpe, Foule, Deformed, Ugly, Base, Nauseous, and the like, as the\nsubject shall require; All which words, in their proper places signifie\nnothing els, but the Mine, or Countenance, that promiseth Good and\nevill. So that of Good there be three kinds; Good in the Promise,\nthat is Pulchrum; Good in Effect, as the end desired, which is called\nJucundum, Delightfull; and Good as the Means, which is called Utile,\nProfitable; and as many of evill: For evill, in Promise, is that\nthey call Turpe; evill in Effect, and End, is Molestum, Unpleasant,\nTroublesome; and evill in the Means, Inutile, Unprofitable, Hurtfull.\n\n\n\n\nDelight Displeasure\n\nAs, in Sense, that which is really within us, is (As I have sayd\nbefore) onely Motion, caused by the action of externall objects, but in\napparence; to the Sight, Light and Colour; to the Eare, Sound; to the\nNostrill, Odour, &c: so, when the action of the same object is continued\nfrom the Eyes, Eares, and other organs to the Heart; the real effect\nthere is nothing but Motion, or Endeavour; which consisteth in Appetite,\nor Aversion, to, or from the object moving. But the apparence, or sense\nof that motion, is that wee either call DELIGHT, or TROUBLE OF MIND.\n\n\n\n\nPleasure Offence\n\nThis Motion, which is called Appetite, and for the apparence of it\nDelight, and Pleasure, seemeth to be, a corroboration of Vitall motion,\nand a help thereunto; and therefore such things as caused Delight, were\nnot improperly called Jucunda, (A Juvando,) from helping or fortifying;\nand the contrary, Molesta, Offensive, from hindering, and troubling the\nmotion vitall.\n\nPleasure therefore, (or Delight,) is the apparence, or sense of Good;\nand Molestation or Displeasure, the apparence, or sense of evill. And\nconsequently all Appetite, Desire, and Love, is accompanied with some\nDelight more or lesse; and all Hatred, and Aversion, with more or lesse\nDispleasure and Offence.\n\n\n\n\nPleasures Of Sense; Pleasures Of The Mind; Joy Paine Griefe\n\nOf Pleasures, or Delights, some arise from the sense of an object\nPresent; And those may be called Pleasures Of Sense, (The word Sensuall,\nas it is used by those onely that condemn them, having no place till\nthere be Lawes.) Of this kind are all Onerations and Exonerations of the\nbody; as also all that is pleasant, in the Sight, Hearing, Smell,\nTast, Or Touch; Others arise from the Expectation, that proceeds from\nforesight of the End, or Consequence of things; whether those things in\nthe Sense Please or Displease: And these are Pleasures Of The Mind of\nhim that draweth those consequences; and are generally called JOY. In\nthe like manner, Displeasures, are some in the Sense, and called PAYNE;\nothers, in the Expectation of consequences, and are called GRIEFE.\n\nThese simple Passions called Appetite, Desire, Love, Aversion, Hate,\nJoy, and griefe, have their names for divers considerations diversified.\nAs first, when they one succeed another, they are diversly called from\nthe opinion men have of the likelihood of attaining what they\ndesire. Secondly, from the object loved or hated. Thirdly, from the\nconsideration of many of them together. Fourthly, from the Alteration or\nsuccession it selfe.\n\n\nHope-- For Appetite with an opinion of attaining, is called HOPE.\n\nDespaire-- The same, without such opinion, DESPAIRE.\n\nFeare-- Aversion, with opinion of Hurt from the object, FEARE.\n\nCourage-- The same, with hope of avoyding that Hurt by resistance,\nCOURAGE.\n\nAnger-- Sudden Courage, ANGER.\n\nConfidence-- Constant Hope, CONFIDENCE of our selves.\n\nDiffidence-- Constant Despayre, DIFFIDENCE of our selves.\n\nIndignation-- Anger for great hurt done to another, when we conceive the\nsame to be done by Injury, INDIGNATION.\n\nBenevolence-- Desire of good to another, BENEVOLENCE, GOOD WILL,\nCHARITY. If to man generally, GOOD NATURE.\n\nCovetousnesse-- Desire of Riches, COVETOUSNESSE: a name used alwayes in\nsignification of blame; because men contending for them, are displeased\nwith one anothers attaining them; though the desire in it selfe, be to\nbe blamed, or allowed, according to the means by which those Riches are\nsought.\n\nAmbition-- Desire of Office, or precedence, AMBITION: a name used also\nin the worse sense, for the reason before mentioned.\n\nPusillanimity-- Desire of things that conduce but a little to our ends;\nAnd fear of things that are but of little hindrance, PUSILLANIMITY.\n\nMagnanimity-- Contempt of little helps, and hindrances, MAGNANIMITY.\n\nValour-- Magnanimity, in danger of Death, or Wounds, VALOUR, FORTITUDE.\n\nLiberality-- Magnanimity in the use of Riches, LIBERALITY\n\nMiserablenesse-- Pusillanimity, in the same WRETCHEDNESSE,\nMISERABLENESSE; or PARSIMONY; as it is liked or disliked.\n\nKindnesse-- Love of Persons for society, KINDNESSE.\n\nNaturall Lust-- Love of Persons for Pleasing the sense onely, NATURAL\nLUST.\n\nLuxury-- Love of the same, acquired from Rumination, that is Imagination\nof Pleasure past, LUXURY.\n\nThe Passion Of Love; Jealousie-- Love of one singularly, with desire to\nbe singularly beloved, THE PASSION OF LOVE. The same, with fear that the\nlove is not mutuall, JEALOUSIE.\n\nRevengefulnesse-- Desire, by doing hurt to another, to make him condemn\nsome fact of his own, REVENGEFULNESSE.\n\nCuriosity-- Desire, to know why, and how, CURIOSITY; such as is in no\nliving creature but Man; so that Man is distinguished, not onely by his\nReason; but also by this singular Passion from other Animals; in whom\nthe appetite of food, and other pleasures of Sense, by praedominance,\ntake away the care of knowing causes; which is a Lust of the mind,\nthat by a perseverance of delight in the continuall and indefatigable\ngeneration of Knowledge, exceedeth the short vehemence of any carnall\nPleasure.\n\nReligion Superstition; True Religion-- Feare of power invisible, feigned\nby the mind, or imagined from tales publiquely allowed, RELIGION; not\nallowed, superstition. And when the power imagined is truly such as we\nimagine, TRUE RELIGION.\n\nPanique Terrour-- Feare, without the apprehension of why, or what,\nPANIQUE TERROR; called so from the fables that make Pan the author of\nthem; whereas in truth there is always in him that so feareth, first,\nsome apprehension of the cause, though the rest run away by example;\nevery one supposing his fellow to know why. And therefore this Passion\nhappens to none but in a throng, or multitude of people.\n\nAdmiration-- Joy, from apprehension of novelty, ADMIRATION; proper to\nman, because it excites the appetite of knowing the cause.\n\nGlory Vaine-glory-- Joy, arising from imagination of a man's own power\nand ability, is that exultation of the mind which is called GLORYING:\nwhich, if grounded upon the experience of his own former actions, is\nthe same with Confidence: but if grounded on the flattery of others, or\nonely supposed by himselfe, for delight in the consequences of it,\nis called VAINE-GLORY: which name is properly given; because a\nwell-grounded Confidence begetteth attempt; whereas the supposing of\npower does not, and is therefore rightly called Vaine.\n\nDejection-- Griefe, from opinion of want of power, is called dejection\nof mind.\n\nThe Vaine-glory which consisteth in the feigning or supposing of\nabilities in ourselves, which we know are not, is most incident to young\nmen, and nourished by the Histories or Fictions of Gallant Persons; and\nis corrected often times by Age, and Employment.\n\nSudden Glory Laughter-- Sudden glory, is the passion which maketh those\nGrimaces called LAUGHTER; and is caused either by some sudden act of\ntheir own, that pleaseth them; or by the apprehension of some\ndeformed thing in another, by comparison whereof they suddenly applaud\nthemselves. And it is incident most to them, that are conscious of the\nfewest abilities in themselves; who are forced to keep themselves in\ntheir own favour, by observing the imperfections of other men.\nAnd therefore much Laughter at the defects of others is a signe of\nPusillanimity. For of great minds, one of the proper workes is, to help\nand free others from scorn; and compare themselves onely with the most\nable.\n\nSudden Dejection Weeping-- On the contrary, Sudden Dejection is the\npassion that causeth WEEPING; and is caused by such accidents, as\nsuddenly take away some vehement hope, or some prop of their power: and\nthey are most subject to it, that rely principally on helps externall,\nsuch as are Women, and Children. Therefore, some Weep for the loss of\nFriends; Others for their unkindnesse; others for the sudden stop made\nto their thoughts of revenge, by Reconciliation. But in all cases, both\nLaughter and Weeping, are sudden motions; Custome taking them both away.\nFor no man Laughs at old jests; or Weeps for an old calamity.\n\nShame Blushing-- Griefe, for the discovery of some defect of ability\nis SHAME, or the passion that discovereth itself in BLUSHING; and\nconsisteth in the apprehension of some thing dishonourable; and in young\nmen, is a signe of the love of good reputation; and commendable: in\nold men it is a signe of the same; but because it comes too late, not\ncommendable.\n\nImpudence-- The Contempt of good reputation is called IMPUDENCE.\n\nPitty-- Griefe, for the calamity of another is PITTY; and ariseth\nfrom the imagination that the like calamity may befall himselfe; and\ntherefore is called also COMPASSION, and in the phrase of this present\ntime a FELLOW-FEELING: and therefore for Calamity arriving from\ngreat wickedness, the best men have the least Pitty; and for the same\nCalamity, those have least Pitty, that think themselves least obnoxious\nto the same.\n\nCruelty-- Contempt, or little sense of the calamity of others, is that\nwhich men call CRUELTY; proceeding from Security of their own fortune.\nFor, that any man should take pleasure in other mens' great harmes,\nwithout other end of his own, I do not conceive it possible.\n\nEmulation Envy-- Griefe, for the success of a Competitor in wealth,\nhonour, or other good, if it be joyned with Endeavour to enforce our own\nabilities to equal or exceed him, is called EMULATION: but joyned with\nEndeavour to supplant or hinder a Competitor, ENVIE.\n\nDeliberation-- When in the mind of man, Appetites and Aversions, Hopes\nand Feares, concerning one and the same thing, arise alternately; and\ndivers good and evill consequences of the doing, or omitting the thing\npropounded, come successively into our thoughts; so that sometimes we\nhave an Appetite to it, sometimes an Aversion from it; sometimes Hope to\nbe able to do it; sometimes Despaire, or Feare to attempt it; the whole\nsum of Desires, Aversions, Hopes and Feares, continued till the thing be\neither done, or thought impossible, is that we call DELIBERATION.\n\nTherefore of things past, there is no Deliberation; because manifestly\nimpossible to be changed: nor of things known to be impossible, or\nthought so; because men know, or think such Deliberation vaine. But\nof things impossible, which we think possible, we may Deliberate; not\nknowing it is in vain. And it is called DELIBERATION; because it is a\nputting an end to the Liberty we had of doing, or omitting, according to\nour own Appetite, or Aversion.\n\nThis alternate succession of Appetites, Aversions, Hopes and Feares is\nno less in other living Creatures than in Man; and therefore Beasts also\nDeliberate.\n\nEvery Deliberation is then sayd to End when that whereof they\nDeliberate, is either done, or thought impossible; because till then wee\nretain the liberty of doing, or omitting, according to our Appetite, or\nAversion.\n\n\n\n\nThe Will\n\nIn Deliberation, the last Appetite, or Aversion, immediately adhaering\nto the action, or to the omission thereof, is that wee call the\nWILL; the Act, (not the faculty,) of Willing. And Beasts that have\nDeliberation must necessarily also have Will. The Definition of the\nWill, given commonly by the Schooles, that it is a Rationall Appetite,\nis not good. For if it were, then could there be no Voluntary Act\nagainst Reason. For a Voluntary Act is that, which proceedeth from the\nWill, and no other. But if in stead of a Rationall Appetite, we shall\nsay an Appetite resulting from a precedent Deliberation, then the\nDefinition is the same that I have given here. Will, therefore, Is The\nLast Appetite In Deliberating. And though we say in common Discourse, a\nman had a Will once to do a thing, that neverthelesse he forbore to\ndo; yet that is properly but an Inclination, which makes no Action\nVoluntary; because the action depends not of it, but of the last\nInclination, or Appetite. For if the intervenient Appetites make any\naction Voluntary, then by the same reason all intervenient Aversions\nshould make the same action Involuntary; and so one and the same action\nshould be both Voluntary & Involuntary.\n\nBy this it is manifest, that not onely actions that have their beginning\nfrom Covetousness, Ambition, Lust, or other Appetites to the thing\npropounded; but also those that have their beginning from Aversion,\nor Feare of those consequences that follow the omission, are Voluntary\nActions.\n\n\n\n\nFormes Of Speech, In Passion\n\nThe formes of Speech by which the Passions are expressed, are partly the\nsame, and partly different from those, by which we express our Thoughts.\nAnd first generally all Passions may be expressed Indicatively; as, I\nLove, I Feare, I Joy, I Deliberate, I Will, I Command: but some of them\nhave particular expressions by themselves, which nevertheless are not\naffirmations, unless it be when they serve to make other inferences,\nbesides that of the Passion they proceed from. Deliberation is expressed\nSubjunctively; which is a speech proper to signifie suppositions, with\ntheir consequences; as, If This Be Done, Then This Will Follow; and\ndiffers not from the language of Reasoning, save that Reasoning is in\ngenerall words, but Deliberation for the most part is of Particulars.\nThe language of Desire, and Aversion, is Imperative; as, Do This,\nForbear That; which when the party is obliged to do, or forbear, is\nCommand; otherwise Prayer; or els Counsell. The language of Vaine-Glory,\nof Indignation, Pitty and Revengefulness, Optative: but of the Desire to\nknow, there is a peculiar expression called Interrogative; as, What Is\nIt, When Shall It, How Is It Done, and Why So? Other language of the\nPassions I find none: for Cursing, Swearing, Reviling, and the like, do\nnot signifie as Speech; but as the actions of a tongue accustomed.\n\nThese forms of Speech, I say, are expressions, or voluntary\nsignifications of our Passions: but certain signes they be not; because\nthey may be used arbitrarily, whether they that use them, have such\nPassions or not. The best signes of Passions present, are either in the\ncountenance, motions of the body, actions, and ends, or aims, which we\notherwise know the man to have.\n\n\n\n\nGood And Evill Apparent\n\nAnd because in Deliberation the Appetites and Aversions are raised by\nforesight of the good and evill consequences, and sequels of the action\nwhereof we Deliberate; the good or evill effect thereof dependeth on the\nforesight of a long chain of consequences, of which very seldome any man\nis able to see to the end. But for so far as a man seeth, if the Good\nin those consequences be greater than the evill, the whole chain is that\nwhich Writers call Apparent or Seeming Good. And contrarily, when the\nevill exceedeth the good, the whole is Apparent or Seeming Evill: so\nthat he who hath by Experience, or Reason, the greatest and surest\nprospect of Consequences, Deliberates best himself; and is able, when he\nwill, to give the best counsel unto others.\n\n\n\n\nFelicity\n\nContinual Successe in obtaining those things which a man from time to\ntime desireth, that is to say, continual prospering, is that men call\nFELICITY; I mean the Felicity of this life. For there is no such thing\nas perpetual Tranquillity of mind, while we live here; because Life\nitself is but Motion, and can never be without Desire, nor without\nFeare, no more than without Sense. What kind of Felicity God hath\nordained to them that devoutly honour him, a man shall no sooner know,\nthan enjoy; being joys, that now are as incomprehensible, as the word of\nSchool-men, Beatifical Vision, is unintelligible.\n\n\n\n\nPraise Magnification\n\nThe form of speech whereby men signifie their opinion of the Goodnesse\nof anything is PRAISE. That whereby they signifie the power and\ngreatness of anything is MAGNIFYING. And that whereby they signifie\nthe opinion they have of a man's felicity is by the Greeks called\nMakarismos, for which we have no name in our tongue. And thus much is\nsufficient for the present purpose to have been said of the passions.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII. OF THE ENDS OR RESOLUTIONS OF DISCOURSE\n\n\nOf all Discourse, governed by desire of Knowledge, there is at last\nan End, either by attaining, or by giving over. And in the chain of\nDiscourse, wheresoever it be interrupted, there is an End for that time.\n\n\n\n\nJudgement, or Sentence Final; Doubt\n\nIf the Discourse be meerly Mentall, it consisteth of thoughts that the\nthing will be, and will not be; or that it has been, and has not been,\nalternately. So that wheresoever you break off the chayn of a mans\nDiscourse, you leave him in a Praesumption of It Will Be, or, It Will\nNot Be; or it Has Been, or, Has Not Been. All which is Opinion. And that\nwhich is alternate Appetite, in Deliberating concerning Good and Evil,\nthe same is alternate Opinion in the Enquiry of the truth of Past, and\nFuture. And as the last Appetite in Deliberation is called the Will, so\nthe last Opinion in search of the truth of Past, and Future, is called\nthe JUDGEMENT, or Resolute and Final Sentence of him that Discourseth.\nAnd as the whole chain of Appetites alternate, in the question of Good\nor Bad is called Deliberation; so the whole chain of Opinions alternate,\nin the question of True, or False is called DOUBT.\n\nNo Discourse whatsoever, can End in absolute knowledge of Fact, past, or\nto come. For, as for the knowledge of Fact, it is originally, Sense; and\never after, Memory. And for the knowledge of consequence, which I have\nsaid before is called Science, it is not Absolute, but Conditionall. No\nman can know by Discourse, that this, or that, is, has been, or will\nbe; which is to know absolutely: but onely, that if This be, That is; if\nThis has been, That has been; if This shall be, That shall be: which\nis to know conditionally; and that not the consequence of one thing to\nanother; but of one name of a thing, to another name of the same thing.\n\n\n\n\nScience Opinion Conscience\n\nAnd therefore, when the Discourse is put into Speech, and begins with\nthe Definitions of Words, and proceeds by Connexion of the same into\ngeneral Affirmations, and of these again into Syllogismes, the end or\nlast sum is called the Conclusion; and the thought of the mind by it\nsignified is that conditional Knowledge, or Knowledge of the consequence\nof words, which is commonly called Science. But if the first ground of\nsuch Discourse be not Definitions, or if the Definitions be not rightly\njoyned together into Syllogismes, then the End or Conclusion is again\nOPINION, namely of the truth of somewhat said, though sometimes in\nabsurd and senslesse words, without possibility of being understood.\nWhen two, or more men, know of one and the same fact, they are said\nto be CONSCIOUS of it one to another; which is as much as to know it\ntogether. And because such are fittest witnesses of the facts of one\nanother, or of a third, it was, and ever will be reputed a very Evill\nact, for any man to speak against his Conscience; or to corrupt or force\nanother so to do: Insomuch that the plea of Conscience, has been always\nhearkened unto very diligently in all times. Afterwards, men made use\nof the same word metaphorically, for the knowledge of their own secret\nfacts, and secret thoughts; and therefore it is Rhetorically said that\nthe Conscience is a thousand witnesses. And last of all, men, vehemently\nin love with their own new opinions, (though never so absurd,) and\nobstinately bent to maintain them, gave those their opinions also that\nreverenced name of Conscience, as if they would have it seem unlawful,\nto change or speak against them; and so pretend to know they are true,\nwhen they know at most but that they think so.\n\n\n\n\nBeliefe Faith\n\nWhen a mans Discourse beginneth not at Definitions, it beginneth either\nat some other contemplation of his own, and then it is still called\nOpinion; Or it beginneth at some saying of another, of whose ability to\nknow the truth, and of whose honesty in not deceiving, he doubteth\nnot; and then the Discourse is not so much concerning the Thing, as the\nPerson; And the Resolution is called BELEEFE, and FAITH: Faith, In the\nman; Beleefe, both Of the man, and Of the truth of what he sayes. So\nthen in Beleefe are two opinions; one of the saying of the man; the\nother of his vertue. To Have Faith In, or Trust To, or Beleeve A Man,\nsignifie the same thing; namely, an opinion of the veracity of the man:\nBut to Beleeve What Is Said, signifieth onely an opinion of the truth\nof the saying. But wee are to observe that this Phrase, I Beleeve In;\nas also the Latine, Credo In; and the Greek, Pisteno Eis, are never used\nbut in the writings of Divines. In stead of them, in other writings are\nput, I Beleeve Him; I Have Faith In Him; I Rely On Him: and in Latin,\nCredo Illi; Fido Illi: and in Greek, Pisteno Anto: and that this\nsingularity of the Ecclesiastical use of the word hath raised many\ndisputes about the right object of the Christian Faith.\n\nBut by Beleeving In, as it is in the Creed, is meant, not trust in the\nPerson; but Confession and acknowledgement of the Doctrine. For not\nonely Christians, but all manner of men do so believe in God, as to hold\nall for truth they heare him say, whether they understand it, or not;\nwhich is all the Faith and trust can possibly be had in any person\nwhatsoever: But they do not all believe the Doctrine of the Creed.\n\nFrom whence we may inferre, that when wee believe any saying whatsoever\nit be, to be true, from arguments taken, not from the thing it selfe, or\nfrom the principles of naturall Reason, but from the Authority, and\ngood opinion wee have, of him that hath sayd it; then is the speaker, or\nperson we believe in, or trust in, and whose word we take, the object of\nour Faith; and the Honour done in Believing, is done to him onely. And\nconsequently, when wee Believe that the Scriptures are the word of God,\nhaving no immediate revelation from God himselfe, our Beleefe, Faith,\nand Trust is in the Church; whose word we take, and acquiesce therein.\nAnd they that believe that which a Prophet relates unto them in the\nname of God, take the word of the Prophet, do honour to him, and in him\ntrust, and believe, touching the truth of what he relateth, whether he\nbe a true, or a false Prophet. And so it is also with all other History.\nFor if I should not believe all that is written By Historians, of the\nglorious acts of Alexander, or Caesar; I do not think the Ghost of\nAlexander, or Caesar, had any just cause to be offended; or any body\nelse, but the Historian. If Livy say the Gods made once a Cow speak, and\nwe believe it not; wee distrust not God therein, but Livy. So that it is\nevident, that whatsoever we believe, upon no other reason, than what is\ndrawn from authority of men onely, and their writings; whether they be\nsent from God or not, is Faith in men onely.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII. OF THE VERTUES COMMONLY CALLED INTELLECTUAL;\n\nAND THEIR CONTRARY DEFECTS\n\n\n\n\nIntellectuall Vertue Defined\n\nVertue generally, in all sorts of subjects, is somewhat that is valued\nfor eminence; and consisteth in comparison. For if all things\nwere equally in all men, nothing would be prized. And by Vertues\nINTELLECTUALL, are always understood such abilityes of the mind, as men\npraise, value, and desire should be in themselves; and go commonly under\nthe name of a Good Witte; though the same word Witte, be used also, to\ndistinguish one certain ability from the rest.\n\n\n\n\nWit, Naturall, Or Acquired\n\nThese Vertues are of two sorts; Naturall, and Acquired. By Naturall, I\nmean not, that which a man hath from his Birth: for that is nothing else\nbut Sense; wherein men differ so little one from another, and from brute\nBeasts, as it is not to be reckoned amongst Vertues. But I mean, that\nWitte, which is gotten by Use onely, and Experience; without Method,\nCulture, or Instruction. This NATURALL WITTE, consisteth principally\nin two things; Celerity Of Imagining, (that is, swift succession of one\nthought to another;) and Steddy Direction to some approved end. On the\nContrary a slow Imagination, maketh that Defect, or fault of the mind,\nwhich is commonly called DULNESSE, Stupidity, and sometimes by other\nnames that signifie slownesse of motion, or difficulty to be moved.\n\n\n\n\nGood Wit, Or Fancy; Good Judgement; Discretion\n\nAnd this difference of quicknesse, is caused by the difference of mens\npassions; that love and dislike, some one thing, some another: and\ntherefore some mens thoughts run one way, some another: and are held to,\nand observe differently the things that passe through their imagination.\nAnd whereas in his succession of mens thoughts, there is nothing to\nobserve in the things they think on, but either in what they be Like One\nAnother, or in what they be Unlike, or What They Serve For, or How They\nServe To Such A Purpose; Those that observe their similitudes, in case\nthey be such as are but rarely observed by others, are sayd to have a\nGood Wit; by which, in this occasion, is meant a Good Fancy. But they\nthat observe their differences, and dissimilitudes; which is called\nDistinguishing, and Discerning, and Judging between thing and thing; in\ncase, such discerning be not easie, are said to have a Good Judgement:\nand particularly in matter of conversation and businesse; wherein,\ntimes, places, and persons are to be discerned, this Vertue is called\nDISCRETION. The former, that is, Fancy, without the help of Judgement,\nis not commended as a Vertue: but the later which is Judgement, and\nDiscretion, is commended for it selfe, without the help of Fancy.\nBesides the Discretion of times, places, and persons, necessary to a\ngood Fancy, there is required also an often application of his thoughts\nto their End; that is to say, to some use to be made of them. This done;\nhe that hath this Vertue, will be easily fitted with similitudes, that\nwill please, not onely by illustration of his discourse, and adorning it\nwith new and apt metaphors; but also, by the rarity or their invention.\nBut without Steddinesse, and Direction to some End, a great Fancy is one\nkind of Madnesse; such as they have, that entring into any discourse,\nare snatched from their purpose, by every thing that comes in their\nthought, into so many, and so long digressions, and parentheses, that\nthey utterly lose themselves: Which kind of folly, I know no particular\nname for: but the cause of it is, sometimes want of experience; whereby\nthat seemeth to a man new and rare, which doth not so to others:\nsometimes Pusillanimity; by which that seems great to him, which other\nmen think a trifle: and whatsoever is new, or great, and therefore\nthought fit to be told, withdrawes a man by degrees from the intended\nway of his discourse.\n\nIn a good Poem, whether it be Epique, or Dramatique; as also in Sonnets,\nEpigrams, and other Pieces, both Judgement and Fancy are required:\nBut the Fancy must be more eminent; because they please for the\nExtravagancy; but ought not to displease by Indiscretion.\n\nIn a good History, the Judgement must be eminent; because the goodnesse\nconsisteth, in the Method, in the Truth, and in the Choyse of the\nactions that are most profitable to be known. Fancy has no place, but\nonely in adorning the stile.\n\nIn Orations of Prayse, and in Invectives, the Fancy is praedominant;\nbecause the designe is not truth, but to Honour or Dishonour; which is\ndone by noble, or by vile comparisons. The Judgement does but suggest\nwhat circumstances make an action laudable, or culpable.\n\nIn Hortatives, and Pleadings, as Truth, or Disguise serveth best to the\nDesigne in hand; so is the Judgement, or the Fancy most required.\n\nIn Demonstration, in Councell, and all rigourous search of Truth,\nJudgement does all; except sometimes the understanding have need to be\nopened by some apt similitude; and then there is so much use of Fancy.\nBut for Metaphors, they are in this case utterly excluded. For seeing\nthey openly professe deceipt; to admit them into Councell, or Reasoning,\nwere manifest folly.\n\nAnd in any Discourse whatsoever, if the defect of Discretion be\napparent, how extravagant soever the Fancy be, the whole discourse\nwill be taken for a signe of want of wit; and so will it never when the\nDiscretion is manifest, though the Fancy be never so ordinary.\n\nThe secret thoughts of a man run over all things, holy, prophane,\nclean, obscene, grave, and light, without shame, or blame; which verball\ndiscourse cannot do, farther than the Judgement shall approve of the\nTime, Place, and Persons. An Anatomist, or a Physitian may speak, or\nwrite his judgement of unclean things; because it is not to please,\nbut profit: but for another man to write his extravagant, and pleasant\nfancies of the same, is as if a man, from being tumbled into the dirt,\nshould come and present himselfe before good company. And 'tis the want\nof Discretion that makes the difference. Again, in profest remissnesse\nof mind, and familiar company, a man may play with the sounds, and\naequivocal significations of words; and that many times with encounters\nof extraordinary Fancy: but in a Sermon, or in publique, or before\npersons unknown, or whom we ought to reverence, there is no Gingling of\nwords that will not be accounted folly: and the difference is onely in\nthe want of Discretion. So that where Wit is wanting, it is not Fancy\nthat is wanting, but Discretion. Judgement therefore without Fancy is\nWit, but Fancy without Judgement not.\n\n\n\n\nPrudence\n\nWhen the thoughts of a man, that has a designe in hand, running over a\nmultitude of things, observes how they conduce to that designe; or what\ndesigne they may conduce into; if his observations be such as are not\neasie, or usuall, This wit of his is called PRUDENCE; and dependeth on\nmuch Experience, and Memory of the like things, and their consequences\nheretofore. In which there is not so much difference of Men, as there is\nin their Fancies and Judgements; Because the Experience of men equall\nin age, is not much unequall, as to the quantity; but lyes in different\noccasions; every one having his private designes. To govern well a\nfamily, and a kingdome, are not different degrees of Prudence; but\ndifferent sorts of businesse; no more then to draw a picture in little,\nor as great, or greater then the life, are different degrees of Art. A\nplain husband-man is more Prudent in affaires of his own house, then a\nPrivy Counseller in the affaires of another man.\n\n\n\n\nCraft\n\nTo Prudence, if you adde the use of unjust, or dishonest means, such\nas usually are prompted to men by Feare, or Want; you have that Crooked\nWisdome, which is called CRAFT; which is a signe of Pusillanimity. For\nMagnanimity is contempt of unjust, or dishonest helps. And that which\nthe Latines Call Versutia, (translated into English, Shifting,) and is\na putting off of a present danger or incommodity, by engaging into\na greater, as when a man robbs one to pay another, is but a shorter\nsighted Craft, called Versutia, from Versura, which signifies taking\nmony at usurie, for the present payment of interest.\n\n\n\n\nAcquired Wit\n\nAs for Acquired Wit, (I mean acquired by method and instruction,) there\nis none but Reason; which is grounded on the right use of Speech; and\nproduceth the Sciences. But of Reason and Science, I have already spoken\nin the fifth and sixth Chapters.\n\nThe causes of this difference of Witts, are in the Passions: and\nthe difference of Passions, proceedeth partly from the different\nConstitution of the body, and partly from different Education. For if\nthe difference proceeded from the temper of the brain, and the organs of\nSense, either exterior or interior, there would be no lesse difference\nof men in their Sight, Hearing, or other Senses, than in their Fancies,\nand Discretions. It proceeds therefore from the Passions; which are\ndifferent, not onely from the difference of mens complexions; but also\nfrom their difference of customes, and education.\n\nThe Passions that most of all cause the differences of Wit, are\nprincipally, the more or lesse Desire of Power, of Riches, of Knowledge,\nand of Honour. All which may be reduced to the first, that is Desire of\nPower. For Riches, Knowledge and Honour are but severall sorts of Power.\n\n\n\n\nGiddinesse Madnesse\n\nAnd therefore, a man who has no great Passion for any of these things;\nbut is as men terme it indifferent; though he may be so farre a good\nman, as to be free from giving offence; yet he cannot possibly have\neither a great Fancy, or much Judgement. For the Thoughts, are to the\nDesires, as Scouts, and Spies, to range abroad, and find the way to the\nthings Desired: All Stedinesse of the minds motion, and all quicknesse\nof the same, proceeding from thence. For as to have no Desire, is to\nbe Dead: so to have weak Passions, is Dulnesse; and to have Passions\nindifferently for every thing, GIDDINESSE, and Distraction; and to have\nstronger, and more vehement Passions for any thing, than is ordinarily\nseen in others, is that which men call MADNESSE.\n\nWhereof there be almost as many kinds, as of the Passions themselves.\nSometimes the extraordinary and extravagant Passion, proceedeth from the\nevill constitution of the organs of the Body, or harme done them; and\nsometimes the hurt, and indisposition of the Organs, is caused by the\nvehemence, or long continuance of the Passion. But in both cases the\nMadnesse is of one and the same nature.\n\nThe Passion, whose violence, or continuance maketh Madnesse, is either\ngreat Vaine-Glory; which is commonly called Pride, and Selfe-Conceipt;\nor great Dejection of mind.\n\n\n\n\nRage\n\nPride, subjecteth a man to Anger, the excesse whereof, is the Madnesse\ncalled RAGE, and FURY. And thus it comes to passe that excessive desire\nof Revenge, when it becomes habituall, hurteth the organs, and becomes\nRage: That excessive love, with jealousie, becomes also Rage: Excessive\nopinion of a mans own selfe, for divine inspiration, for wisdome,\nlearning, forme, and the like, becomes Distraction, and Giddinesse:\nthe same, joyned with Envy, Rage: Vehement opinion of the truth of any\nthing, contradicted by others, Rage.\n\n\n\n\nMelancholy\n\nDejection, subjects a man to causelesse fears; which is a Madnesse\ncommonly called MELANCHOLY, apparent also in divers manners; as in\nhaunting of solitudes, and graves; in superstitious behaviour; and in\nfearing some one, some another particular thing. In summe, all Passions\nthat produce strange and unusuall behaviour, are called by the generall\nname of Madnesse. But of the severall kinds of Madnesse, he that\nwould take the paines, might enrowle a legion. And if the Excesses be\nmadnesse, there is no doubt but the Passions themselves, when they tend\nto Evill, are degrees of the same.\n\n(For example,) Though the effect of folly, in them that are possessed of\nan opinion of being inspired, be not visible alwayes in one man, by any\nvery extravagant action, that proceedeth from such Passion; yet when\nmany of them conspire together, the Rage of the whole multitude is\nvisible enough. For what argument of Madnesse can there be greater, than\nto clamour, strike, and throw stones at our best friends? Yet this is\nsomewhat lesse than such a multitude will do. For they will clamour,\nfight against, and destroy those, by whom all their lifetime before,\nthey have been protected, and secured from injury. And if this be\nMadnesse in the multitude, it is the same in every particular man. For\nas in the middest of the sea, though a man perceive no sound of\nthat part of the water next him; yet he is well assured, that part\ncontributes as much, to the Roaring of the Sea, as any other part, of\nthe same quantity: so also, thought wee perceive no great unquietnesse,\nin one, or two men; yet we may be well assured, that their singular\nPassions, are parts of the Seditious roaring of a troubled Nation. And\nif there were nothing else that bewrayed their madnesse; yet that very\narrogating such inspiration to themselves, is argument enough. If some\nman in Bedlam should entertaine you with sober discourse; and you desire\nin taking leave, to know what he were, that you might another time\nrequite his civility; and he should tell you, he were God the Father;\nI think you need expect no extravagant action for argument of his\nMadnesse.\n\nThis opinion of Inspiration, called commonly, Private Spirit, begins\nvery often, from some lucky finding of an Errour generally held by\nothers; and not knowing, or not remembring, by what conduct of reason,\nthey came to so singular a truth, (as they think it, though it be many\ntimes an untruth they light on,) they presently admire themselves; as\nbeing in the speciall grace of God Almighty, who hath revealed the same\nto them supernaturally, by his Spirit.\n\nAgain, that Madnesse is nothing else, but too much appearing Passion,\nmay be gathered out of the effects of Wine, which are the same with\nthose of the evill disposition of the organs. For the variety of\nbehaviour in men that have drunk too much, is the same with that of\nMad-men: some of them Raging, others Loving, others laughing, all\nextravagantly, but according to their severall domineering Passions:\nFor the effect of the wine, does but remove Dissimulation; and take from\nthem the sight of the deformity of their Passions. For, (I believe) the\nmost sober men, when they walk alone without care and employment of the\nmind, would be unwilling the vanity and Extravagance of their thoughts\nat that time should be publiquely seen: which is a confession, that\nPassions unguided, are for the most part meere Madnesse.\n\nThe opinions of the world, both in antient and later ages, concerning\nthe cause of madnesse, have been two. Some, deriving them from the\nPassions; some, from Daemons, or Spirits, either good, or bad, which\nthey thought might enter into a man, possesse him, and move his organs\nis such strange, and uncouth manner, as mad-men use to do. The former\nsort therefore, called such men, Mad-men: but the Later, called them\nsometimes Daemoniacks, (that is, possessed with spirits;) sometimes\nEnergumeni, (that is agitated, or moved with spirits;) and now in\nItaly they are called not onely Pazzi, Mad-men; but also Spiritati, men\npossest.\n\nThere was once a great conflux of people in Abdera, a City of the\nGreeks, at the acting of the Tragedy of Andromeda, upon an extream hot\nday: whereupon, a great many of the spectators falling into Fevers, had\nthis accident from the heat, and from The Tragedy together, that they\ndid nothing but pronounce Iambiques, with the names of Perseus and\nAndromeda; which together with the Fever, was cured, by the comming on\nof Winter: And this madnesse was thought to proceed from the Passion\nimprinted by the Tragedy. Likewise there raigned a fit of madnesse in\nanother Graecian city, which seized onely the young Maidens; and caused\nmany of them to hang themselves. This was by most then thought an act of\nthe Divel. But one that suspected, that contempt of life in them,\nmight proceed from some Passion of the mind, and supposing they did not\ncontemne also their honour, gave counsell to the Magistrates, to strip\nsuch as so hang'd themselves, and let them hang out naked. This the\nstory sayes cured that madnesse. But on the other side, the same\nGraecians, did often ascribe madnesse, to the operation of the\nEumenides, or Furyes; and sometimes of Ceres, Phoebus, and other Gods:\nso much did men attribute to Phantasmes, as to think them aereal living\nbodies; and generally to call them Spirits. And as the Romans in this,\nheld the same opinion with the Greeks: so also did the Jewes; For they\ncalle mad-men Prophets, or (according as they thought the spirits\ngood or bad) Daemoniacks; and some of them called both Prophets, and\nDaemoniacks, mad-men; and some called the same man both Daemoniack, and\nmad-man. But for the Gentiles, 'tis no wonder; because Diseases, and\nHealth; Vices, and Vertues; and many naturall accidents, were with them\ntermed, and worshipped as Daemons. So that a man was to understand by\nDaemon, as well (sometimes) an Ague, as a Divell. But for the Jewes to\nhave such opinion, is somewhat strange. For neither Moses, nor Abraham\npretended to Prophecy by possession of a Spirit; but from the voyce of\nGod; or by a Vision or Dream: Nor is there any thing in his Law,\nMorall, or Ceremoniall, by which they were taught, there was any such\nEnthusiasme; or any Possession. When God is sayd, (Numb. 11. 25.) to\ntake from the Spirit that was in Moses, and give it to the 70. Elders,\nthe Spirit of God (taking it for the substance of God) is not divided.\nThe Scriptures by the Spirit of God in man, mean a mans spirit, enclined\nto Godlinesse. And where it is said (Exod. 28. 3.) \"Whom I have filled\nwith the Spirit of wisdome to make garments for Aaron,\" is not meant a\nspirit put into them, that can make garments; but the wisdome of their\nown spirits in that kind of work. In the like sense, the spirit of\nman, when it produceth unclean actions, is ordinarily called an unclean\nspirit; and so other spirits, though not alwayes, yet as often as the\nvertue or vice so stiled, is extraordinary, and Eminent. Neither did the\nother Prophets of the old Testament pretend Enthusiasme; or, that God\nspake in them; but to them by Voyce, Vision, or Dream; and the Burthen\nOf The Lord was not Possession, but Command. How then could the Jewes\nfall into this opinion of possession? I can imagine no reason, but that\nwhich is common to all men; namely, the want of curiosity to search\nnaturall causes; and their placing Felicity, in the acquisition of the\ngrosse pleasures of the Senses, and the things that most immediately\nconduce thereto. For they that see any strange, and unusuall ability, or\ndefect in a mans mind; unlesse they see withall, from what cause it may\nprobably proceed, can hardly think it naturall; and if not naturall,\nthey must needs thinke it supernaturall; and then what can it be, but\nthat either God, or the Divell is in him? And hence it came to passe,\nwhen our Saviour (Mark 3.21.) was compassed about with the multitude,\nthose of the house doubted he was mad, and went out to hold him: but\nthe Scribes said he had Belzebub, and that was it, by which he cast out\ndivels; as if the greater mad-man had awed the lesser. And that (John\n10. 20.) some said, \"He hath a Divell, and is mad;\" whereas others\nholding him for a Prophet, sayd, \"These are not the words of one that\nhath a Divell.\" So in the old Testament he that came to anoynt Jehu, (2\nKings 9.11.) was a Prophet; but some of the company asked Jehu, \"What\ncame that mad-man for?\" So that in summe, it is manifest, that whosoever\nbehaved himselfe in extraordinary manner, was thought by the Jewes to be\npossessed either with a good, or evill spirit; except by the Sadduces,\nwho erred so farre on the other hand, as not to believe there were at\nall any spirits, (which is very neere to direct Atheisme;) and thereby\nperhaps the more provoked others, to terme such men Daemoniacks, rather\nthan mad-men.\n\nBut why then does our Saviour proceed in the curing of them, as if they\nwere possest; and not as if they were mad. To which I can give no other\nkind of answer, but that which is given to those that urge the Scripture\nin like manner against the opinion of the motion of the Earth. The\nScripture was written to shew unto men the kingdome of God; and to\nprepare their mindes to become his obedient subjects; leaving the\nworld, and the Philosophy thereof, to the disputation of men, for the\nexercising of their naturall Reason. Whether the Earths, or Suns motion\nmake the day, and night; or whether the Exorbitant actions of men,\nproceed from Passion, or from the Divell, (so we worship him not) it is\nall one, as to our obedience, and subjection to God Almighty; which is\nthe thing for which the Scripture was written. As for that our Saviour\nspeaketh to the disease, as to a person; it is the usuall phrase of all\nthat cure by words onely, as Christ did, (and Inchanters pretend to\ndo, whether they speak to a Divel or not.) For is not Christ also said\n(Math. 8.26.) to have rebuked the winds? Is not he said also (Luk. 4.\n39.) to rebuke a Fever? Yet this does not argue that a Fever is a Divel.\nAnd whereas many of these Divels are said to confesse Christ; it is not\nnecessary to interpret those places otherwise, than that those mad-men\nconfessed him. And whereas our Saviour (Math. 12. 43.) speaketh of an\nunclean Spirit, that having gone out of a man, wandreth through dry\nplaces, seeking rest, and finding none; and returning into the same\nman, with seven other spirits worse than himselfe; It is manifestly a\nParable, alluding to a man, that after a little endeavour to quit his\nlusts, is vanquished by the strength of them; and becomes seven times\nworse than he was. So that I see nothing at all in the Scripture, that\nrequireth a beliefe, that Daemoniacks were any other thing but Mad-men.\n\n\n\n\nInsignificant Speech\n\nThere is yet another fault in the Discourses of some men; which may also\nbe numbred amongst the sorts of Madnesse; namely, that abuse of words,\nwhereof I have spoken before in the fifth chapter, by the Name of\nAbsurdity. And that is, when men speak such words, as put together, have\nin them no signification at all; but are fallen upon by some, through\nmisunderstanding of the words they have received, and repeat by rote; by\nothers, from intention to deceive by obscurity. And this is incident to\nnone but those, that converse in questions of matters incomprehensible,\nas the Schoole-men; or in questions of abstruse Philosophy. The common\nsort of men seldome speak Insignificantly, and are therefore, by those\nother Egregious persons counted Idiots. But to be assured their words\nare without any thing correspondent to them in the mind, there would\nneed some Examples; which if any man require, let him take a Schoole-man\ninto his hands, and see if he can translate any one chapter concerning\nany difficult point; as the Trinity; the Deity; the nature of Christ;\nTransubstantiation; Free-will. &c. into any of the moderne tongues, so\nas to make the same intelligible; or into any tolerable Latine, such\nas they were acquainted withall, that lived when the Latine tongue was\nVulgar. What is the meaning of these words. \"The first cause does not\nnecessarily inflow any thing into the second, by force of the Essential\nsubordination of the second causes, by which it may help it to worke?\"\nThey are the Translation of the Title of the sixth chapter of Suarez\nfirst Booke, Of The Concourse, Motion, And Help Of God. When men write\nwhole volumes of such stuffe, are they not Mad, or intend to make others\nso? And particularly, in the question of Transubstantiation; where\nafter certain words spoken, they that say, the White-nesse, Round-nesse,\nMagni-tude, Quali-ty, Corruptibili-ty, all which are incorporeall, &c.\ngo out of the Wafer, into the Body of our blessed Saviour, do they not\nmake those Nesses, Tudes and Ties, to be so many spirits possessing his\nbody? For by Spirits, they mean alwayes things, that being incorporeall,\nare neverthelesse moveable from one place to another. So that this kind\nof Absurdity, may rightly be numbred amongst the many sorts of Madnesse;\nand all the time that guided by clear Thoughts of their worldly lust,\nthey forbear disputing, or writing thus, but Lucide Intervals. And thus\nmuch of the Vertues and Defects Intellectuall.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX. OF THE SEVERALL SUBJECTS OF KNOWLEDGE\n\n\nThere are of KNOWLEDGE two kinds; whereof one is Knowledge Of Fact: the\nother Knowledge Of The Consequence Of One Affirmation To Another. The\nformer is nothing else, but Sense and Memory, and is Absolute Knowledge;\nas when we see a Fact doing, or remember it done: And this is the\nKnowledge required in a Witnesse. The later is called Science; and is\nConditionall; as when we know, that, If The Figure Showne Be A Circle,\nThen Any Straight Line Through The Centre Shall Divide It Into Two\nEquall Parts. And this is the Knowledge required in a Philosopher; that\nis to say, of him that pretends to Reasoning.\n\nThe Register of Knowledge Of Fact is called History. Whereof there be\ntwo sorts: one called Naturall History; which is the History of such\nFacts, or Effects of Nature, as have no Dependance on Mans Will; Such as\nare the Histories of Metals, Plants, Animals, Regions, and the like. The\nother, is Civill History; which is the History of the Voluntary Actions\nof men in Common-wealths.\n\nThe Registers of Science, are such Books as contain the Demonstrations\nof Consequences of one Affirmation, to another; and are commonly called\nBooks of Philosophy; whereof the sorts are many, according to the\ndiversity of the Matter; And may be divided in such manner as I have\ndivided them in the following Table.\n\n  I. Science, that is, Knowledge of Consequences; which is called\n     also PHILOSOPHY\n\n     A.  Consequences from Accidents of Bodies Naturall; which is\n        called NATURALL PHILOSOPHY\n\n        1.  Consequences from the Accidents common to all Bodies Naturall;\n           which are Quantity, and Motion.\n\n           a.  Consequences from Quantity, and Motion Indeterminate;\n              which, being the Principles or first foundation of\n              Philosophy, is called Philosophia Prima\n\n              PHILOSOPHIA PRIMA\n\n           b.  Consequences from Motion, and Quantity Determined\n\n              1) Consequences from Quantity, and Motion Determined\n\n                 a) By Figure, By Number\n\n                   1] Mathematiques,\n\n                      GEOMETRY\n                      ARITHMETIQUE\n\n              2) Consequences from the Motion, and Quantity of Bodies in\n                 Speciall\n\n                 a) Consequences from the Motion, and Quantity of the\n                    great parts of the World, as the Earth and Stars,\n\n                    1] Cosmography\n\n                       ASTRONOMY\n                       GEOGRAPHY\n\n                 b) Consequences from the Motion of Speciall kinds, and\n                    Figures of Body,\n\n                    1] Mechaniques, Doctrine of Weight\n\n                       Science of\n                       ENGINEERS\n                       ARCHITECTURE\n                       NAVIGATION\n\n        2.  PHYSIQUES, or Consequences from Qualities\n\n           a.  Consequences from the Qualities of Bodies Transient, such\n              as sometimes appear, sometimes vanish\n\n              METEOROLOGY\n\n           b.  Consequences from the Qualities of Bodies Permanent\n\n              1) Consequences from the Qualities of the Starres\n\n                 a) Consequences from the Light of the Starres.  Out of\n                    this, and the Motion of the Sunne, is made the\n                    Science of\n\n                    SCIOGRAPHY\n\n                 b) Consequences from the Influence of the Starres,\n\n                    ASTROLOGY\n\n              2) Consequences of the Qualities from Liquid Bodies that\n                 fill the space between the Starres; such as are the\n                 Ayre, or substance aetherial.\n\n\n              3) Consequences from Qualities of Bodies Terrestrial\n\n                 a) Consequences from parts of the Earth that are\n                    without Sense,\n\n                    1] Consequences from Qualities of Minerals, as\n                       Stones, Metals, &c\n.                    2] Consequences from the Qualities of Vegetables\n\n                 b) Consequences from Qualities of Animals\n\n                    1] Consequences from Qualities of Animals in\n                       Generall\n\n                       a] Consequences from Vision,\n\n                          OPTIQUES\n\n                       b] Consequences from Sounds,\n\n                          MUSIQUE\n\n                       c] Consequences from the rest of the senses\n\n                    2] Consequences from Qualities of Men in Speciall\n\n                       a] Consequences from Passions of Men,\n\n                          ETHIQUES\n\n                       b] Consequences from Speech,\n\n                          i) In Magnifying, Vilifying, etc.\n\n                             POETRY\n\n                          ii) In Persuading,\n\n                              RHETORIQUE\n\n                          iii) In Reasoning,\n\n                               LOGIQUE\n\n                          iv) In Contracting,\n\n                              The Science of\n                              JUST and UNJUST\n\n\n     B.  Consequences from the Accidents of Politique Bodies; which is\n        called POLITIQUES, and CIVILL PHILOSOPHY\n\n        1.  Of Consequences from the Institution of COMMON-WEALTHS, to\n           the Rights, and Duties of the Body Politique, or Soveraign.\n\n        2.  Of Consequences from the same, to the Duty and Right of\n           the Subjects.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X. OF POWER, WORTH, DIGNITY, HONOUR AND WORTHINESS\n\n\n\n\nPower\n\nThe POWER of a Man, (to take it Universally,) is his present means,\nto obtain some future apparent Good. And is either Originall, or\nInstrumentall.\n\nNaturall Power, is the eminence of the Faculties of Body, or Mind: as\nextraordinary Strength, Forme, Prudence, Arts, Eloquence, Liberality,\nNobility. Instrumentall are those Powers, which acquired by these, or\nby fortune, are means and Instruments to acquire more: as Riches,\nReputation, Friends, and the Secret working of God, which men call\nGood Luck. For the nature of Power, is in this point, like to Fame,\nincreasing as it proceeds; or like the motion of heavy bodies, which the\nfurther they go, make still the more hast.\n\nThe Greatest of humane Powers, is that which is compounded of the Powers\nof most men, united by consent, in one person, Naturall, or civill, that\nhas the use of all their Powers depending on his will; such as is the\nPower of a Common-wealth: or depending on the wills of each particular;\nsuch as is the Power of a Faction, or of divers factions leagued.\nTherefore to have servants, is Power; To have Friends, is Power: for\nthey are strengths united.\n\nAlso Riches joyned with liberality, is Power; because it procureth\nfriends, and servants: Without liberality, not so; because in this case\nthey defend not; but expose men to Envy, as a Prey.\n\nReputation of power, is Power; because it draweth with it the adhaerance\nof those that need protection.\n\nSo is Reputation of love of a mans Country, (called Popularity,) for the\nsame Reason.\n\nAlso, what quality soever maketh a man beloved, or feared of many; or\nthe reputation of such quality, is Power; because it is a means to have\nthe assistance, and service of many.\n\nGood successe is Power; because it maketh reputation of Wisdome, or good\nfortune; which makes men either feare him, or rely on him.\n\nAffability of men already in power, is encrease of Power; because it\ngaineth love.\n\nReputation of Prudence in the conduct of Peace or War, is Power; because\nto prudent men, we commit the government of our selves, more willingly\nthan to others.\n\nNobility is Power, not in all places, but onely in those Common-wealths,\nwhere it has Priviledges: for in such priviledges consisteth their\nPower.\n\nEloquence is Power; because it is seeming Prudence.\n\nForme is Power; because being a promise of Good, it recommendeth men to\nthe favour of women and strangers.\n\nThe Sciences, are small Power; because not eminent; and therefore, not\nacknowledged in any man; nor are at all, but in a few; and in them, but\nof a few things. For Science is of that nature, as none can understand\nit to be, but such as in a good measure have attayned it.\n\nArts of publique use, as Fortification, making of Engines, and other\nInstruments of War; because they conferre to Defence, and Victory,\nare Power; And though the true Mother of them, be Science, namely the\nMathematiques; yet, because they are brought into the Light, by the hand\nof the Artificer, they be esteemed (the Midwife passing with the vulgar\nfor the Mother,) as his issue.\n\n\n\n\nWorth\n\nThe Value, or WORTH of a man, is as of all other things, his Price;\nthat is to say, so much as would be given for the use of his Power:\nand therefore is not absolute; but a thing dependant on the need and\njudgement of another. An able conductor of Souldiers, is of great Price\nin time of War present, or imminent; but in Peace not so. A learned and\nuncorrupt Judge, is much Worth in time of Peace; but not so much in\nWar. And as in other things, so in men, not the seller, but the buyer\ndetermines the Price. For let a man (as most men do,) rate themselves as\nthe highest Value they can; yet their true Value is no more than it is\nesteemed by others.\n\nThe manifestation of the Value we set on one another, is that which is\ncommonly called Honouring, and Dishonouring. To Value a man at a high\nrate, is to Honour him; at a low rate, is to Dishonour him. But high,\nand low, in this case, is to be understood by comparison to the rate\nthat each man setteth on himselfe.\n\n\n\n\nDignity\n\nThe publique worth of a man, which is the Value set on him by the\nCommon-wealth, is that which men commonly call DIGNITY. And this Value\nof him by the Common-wealth, is understood, by offices of Command,\nJudicature, publike Employment; or by Names and Titles, introduced for\ndistinction of such Value.\n\n\n\n\nTo Honour and Dishonour\n\nTo pray to another, for ayde of any kind, is to HONOUR; because a signe\nwe have an opinion he has power to help; and the more difficult the ayde\nis, the more is the Honour.\n\nTo obey, is to Honour; because no man obeyes them, whom they think\nhave no power to help, or hurt them. And consequently to disobey, is to\nDishonour.\n\nTo give great gifts to a man, is to Honour him; because 'tis buying\nof Protection, and acknowledging of Power. To give little gifts, is to\nDishonour; because it is but Almes, and signifies an opinion of the\nneed of small helps. To be sedulous in promoting anothers good; also\nto flatter, is to Honour; as a signe we seek his protection or ayde. To\nneglect, is to Dishonour.\n\nTo give way, or place to another, in any Commodity, is to Honour; being\na confession of greater power. To arrogate, is to Dishonour.\n\nTo shew any signe of love, or feare of another, is to Honour; for both\nto love, and to feare, is to value. To contemne, or lesse to love or\nfeare then he expects, is to Dishonour; for 'tis undervaluing.\n\nTo praise, magnifie, or call happy, is to Honour; because nothing but\ngoodnesse, power, and felicity is valued. To revile, mock, or pitty, is\nto Dishonour.\n\nTo speak to another with consideration, to appear before him with\ndecency, and humility, is to Honour him; as signes of fear to offend.\nTo speak to him rashly, to do anything before him obscenely, slovenly,\nimpudently, is to Dishonour.\n\nTo believe, to trust, to rely on another, is to Honour him; signe of\nopinion of his vertue and power. To distrust, or not believe, is to\nDishonour.\n\nTo hearken to a mans counsell, or discourse of what kind soever, is to\nHonour; as a signe we think him wise, or eloquent, or witty. To sleep,\nor go forth, or talk the while, is to Dishonour.\n\nTo do those things to another, which he takes for signes of Honour, or\nwhich the Law or Custome makes so, is to Honour; because in approving\nthe Honour done by others, he acknowledgeth the power which others\nacknowledge. To refuse to do them, is to Dishonour.\n\nTo agree with in opinion, is to Honour; as being a signe of approving\nhis judgement, and wisdome. To dissent, is Dishonour; and an upbraiding\nof errour; and (if the dissent be in many things) of folly.\n\nTo imitate, is to Honour; for it is vehemently to approve. To imitate\nones Enemy, is to Dishonour.\n\nTo honour those another honours, is to Honour him; as a signe of\napprobation of his judgement. To honour his Enemies, is to Dishonour\nhim.\n\nTo employ in counsell, or in actions of difficulty, is to Honour; as a\nsigne of opinion of his wisdome, or other power. To deny employment in\nthe same cases, to those that seek it, is to Dishonour.\n\nAll these wayes of Honouring, are naturall; and as well within, as\nwithout Common-wealths. But in Common-wealths, where he, or they that\nhave the supreme Authority, can make whatsoever they please, to stand\nfor signes of Honour, there be other Honours.\n\nA Soveraigne doth Honour a Subject, with whatsoever Title, or Office, or\nEmployment, or Action, that he himselfe will have taken for a signe of\nhis will to Honour him.\n\nThe King of Persia, Honoured Mordecay, when he appointed he should be\nconducted through the streets in the Kings Garment, upon one of the\nKings Horses, with a Crown on his head, and a Prince before him,\nproclayming, \"Thus shall it be done to him that the King will honour.\"\nAnd yet another King of Persia, or the same another time, to one that\ndemanded for some great service, to weare one of the Kings robes, gave\nhim leave so to do; but with his addition, that he should weare it as\nthe Kings foole; and then it was Dishonour. So that of Civill Honour;\nsuch as are Magistracy, Offices, Titles; and in some places Coats, and\nScutchions painted: and men Honour such as have them, as having so many\nsignes of favour in the Common-wealth; which favour is Power.\n\nHonourable is whatsoever possession, action, or quality, is an argument\nand signe of Power.\n\nAnd therefore To be Honoured, loved, or feared of many, is Honourable;\nas arguments of Power. To be Honoured of few or none, Dishonourable.\n\nGood fortune (if lasting,) Honourable; as a signe of the favour of God.\nIll fortune, and losses, Dishonourable. Riches, are Honourable; for\nthey are Power. Poverty, Dishonourable. Magnanimity, Liberality,\nHope, Courage, Confidence, are Honourable; for they proceed from the\nconscience of Power. Pusillanimity, Parsimony, Fear, Diffidence, are\nDishonourable.\n\nTimely Resolution, or determination of what a man is to do, is\nHonourable; as being the contempt of small difficulties, and dangers.\nAnd Irresolution, Dishonourable; as a signe of too much valuing of\nlittle impediments, and little advantages: For when a man has weighed\nthings as long as the time permits, and resolves not, the difference\nof weight is but little; and therefore if he resolve not, he overvalues\nlittle things, which is Pusillanimity.\n\nAll Actions, and Speeches, that proceed, or seem to proceed from much\nExperience, Science, Discretion, or Wit, are Honourable; For all these\nare Powers. Actions, or Words that proceed from Errour, Ignorance, or\nFolly, Dishonourable.\n\nGravity, as farre forth as it seems to proceed from a mind employed on\nsome thing else, is Honourable; because employment is a signe of\nPower. But if it seem to proceed from a purpose to appear grave, it is\nDishonourable. For the gravity of the Former, is like the steddinesse of\na Ship laden with Merchandise; but of the later, like the steddinesse of\na Ship ballasted with Sand, and other trash.\n\nTo be Conspicuous, that is to say, to be known, for Wealth, Office,\ngreat Actions, or any eminent Good, is Honourable; as a signe of the\npower for which he is conspicuous. On the contrary, Obscurity, is\nDishonourable.\n\nTo be descended from conspicuous Parents, is Honourable; because they\nthe more easily attain the aydes, and friends of their Ancestors. On the\ncontrary, to be descended from obscure Parentage, is Dishonourable.\n\nActions proceeding from Equity, joyned with losse, are Honourable;\nas signes of Magnanimity: for Magnanimity is a signe of Power. On the\ncontrary, Craft, Shifting, neglect of Equity, is Dishonourable.\n\nNor does it alter the case of Honour, whether an action (so it be great\nand difficult, and consequently a signe of much power,) be just or\nunjust: for Honour consisteth onely in the opinion of Power. Therefore\nthe ancient Heathen did not thinke they Dishonoured, but greatly\nHonoured the Gods, when they introduced them in their Poems, committing\nRapes, Thefts, and other great, but unjust, or unclean acts: In so much\nas nothing is so much celebrated in Jupiter, as his Adulteries; nor\nin Mercury, as his Frauds, and Thefts: of whose praises, in a hymne\nof Homer, the greatest is this, that being born in the morning, he had\ninvented Musique at noon, and before night, stolen away the Cattell of\nAppollo, from his Herdsmen.\n\nAlso amongst men, till there were constituted great Common-wealths,\nit was thought no dishonour to be a Pyrate, or a High-way Theefe; but\nrather a lawfull Trade, not onely amongst the Greeks, but also amongst\nall other Nations; as is manifest by the Histories of antient time. And\nat this day, in this part of the world, private Duels are, and alwayes\nwill be Honourable, though unlawfull, till such time as there shall be\nHonour ordained for them that refuse, and Ignominy for them that make\nthe Challenge. For Duels also are many times effects of Courage; and the\nground of Courage is alwayes Strength or Skill, which are Power; though\nfor the most part they be effects of rash speaking, and of the fear of\nDishonour, in one, or both the Combatants; who engaged by rashnesse, are\ndriven into the Lists to avoyd disgrace.\n\nScutchions, and coats of Armes haereditary, where they have any eminent\nPriviledges, are Honourable; otherwise not: for their Power consisteth\neither in such Priviledges, or in Riches, or some such thing as is\nequally honoured in other men. This kind of Honour, commonly called\nGentry, has been derived from the Antient Germans. For there never was\nany such thing known, where the German Customes were unknown. Nor is it\nnow any where in use, where the Germans have not inhabited. The antient\nGreek Commanders, when they went to war, had their Shields painted with\nsuch Devises as they pleased; insomuch as an unpainted Buckler was a\nsigne of Poverty, and of a common Souldier: but they transmitted not the\nInheritance of them. The Romans transmitted the Marks of their Families:\nbut they were the Images, not the Devises of their Ancestors. Amongst\nthe people of Asia, Afrique, and America, there is not, nor was ever,\nany such thing. The Germans onely had that custome; from whom it has\nbeen derived into England, France, Spain, and Italy, when in great\nnumbers they either ayded the Romans, or made their own Conquests in\nthese Westerne parts of the world.\n\nFor Germany, being antiently, as all other Countries, in their\nbeginnings, divided amongst an infinite number of little Lords, or\nMasters of Families, that continually had wars one with another; those\nMasters, or Lords, principally to the end they might, when they were\nCovered with Arms, be known by their followers; and partly for ornament,\nboth painted their Armor, or their Scutchion, or Coat, with the picture\nof some Beast, or other thing; and also put some eminent and visible\nmark upon the Crest of their Helmets. And his ornament both of the\nArmes, and Crest, descended by inheritance to their Children; to the\neldest pure, and to the rest with some note of diversity, such as the\nOld master, that is to say in Dutch, the Here-alt thought fit. But when\nmany such Families, joyned together, made a greater Monarchy, this duty\nof the Herealt, to distinguish Scutchions, was made a private Office\na part. And the issue of these Lords, is the great and antient Gentry;\nwhich for the most part bear living creatures, noted for courage, and\nrapine; or Castles, Battlements, Belts, Weapons, Bars, Palisadoes, and\nother notes of War; nothing being then in honour, but vertue military.\nAfterwards, not onely Kings, but popular Common-wealths, gave divers\nmanners of Scutchions, to such as went forth to the War, or returned\nfrom it, for encouragement, or recompence to their service. All which,\nby an observing Reader, may be found in such ancient Histories, Greek\nand Latine, as make mention of the German Nation, and Manners, in their\ntimes.\n\n\n\n\nTitles of Honour\n\nTitles of Honour, such as are Duke, Count, Marquis, and Baron, are\nHonourable; as signifying the value set upon them by the Soveraigne\nPower of the Common-wealth: Which Titles, were in old time titles\nof Office, and Command, derived some from the Romans, some from the\nGermans, and French. Dukes, in Latine Duces, being Generalls in War:\nCounts, Comites, such as bare the Generall company out of friendship;\nand were left to govern and defend places conquered, and pacified:\nMarquises, Marchiones, were Counts that governed the Marches, or bounds\nof the Empire. Which titles of Duke, Count, and Marquis, came into the\nEmpire, about the time of Constantine the Great, from the customes of\nthe German Militia. But Baron, seems to have been a Title of the Gaules,\nand signifies a Great man; such as were the Kings, or Princes men, whom\nthey employed in war about their persons; and seems to be derived from\nVir, to Ber, and Bar, that signified the same in the Language of the\nGaules, that Vir in Latine; and thence to Bero, and Baro: so that such\nmen were called Berones, and after Barones; and (in Spanish) Varones.\nBut he that would know more particularly the originall of Titles of\nHonour, may find it, as I have done this, in Mr. Seldens most excellent\nTreatise of that subject. In processe of time these offices of Honour,\nby occasion of trouble, and for reasons of good and peacable government,\nwere turned into meer Titles; serving for the most part, to distinguish\nthe precedence, place, and order of subjects in the Common-wealth: and\nmen were made Dukes, Counts, Marquises, and Barons of Places, wherein\nthey had neither possession, nor command: and other Titles also, were\ndevised to the same end.\n\n\n\n\nWorthinesse Fitnesse\n\nWORTHINESSE, is a thing different from the worth, or value of a man; and\nalso from his merit, or desert; and consisteth in a particular power,\nor ability for that, whereof he is said to be worthy: which particular\nability, is usually named FITNESSE, or Aptitude.\n\nFor he is Worthiest to be a Commander, to be a Judge, or to have any\nother charge, that is best fitted, with the qualities required to the\nwell discharging of it; and Worthiest of Riches, that has the qualities\nmost requisite for the well using of them: any of which qualities being\nabsent, one may neverthelesse be a Worthy man, and valuable for\nsome thing else. Again, a man may be Worthy of Riches, Office, and\nEmployment, that neverthelesse, can plead no right to have it before\nanother; and therefore cannot be said to merit or deserve it. For Merit,\npraesupposeth a right, and that the thing deserved is due by promise: Of\nwhich I shall say more hereafter, when I shall speak of Contracts.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI. OF THE DIFFERENCE OF MANNERS\n\n\n\n\nWhat Is Here Meant By Manners\n\nBy MANNERS, I mean not here, Decency of behaviour; as how one man should\nsalute another, or how a man should wash his mouth, or pick his teeth\nbefore company, and such other points of the Small Morals; But those\nqualities of man-kind, that concern their living together in Peace, and\nUnity. To which end we are to consider, that the Felicity of this life,\nconsisteth not in the repose of a mind satisfied. For there is no such\nFinis Ultimus, (utmost ayme,) nor Summum Bonum, (greatest good,) as is\nspoken of in the Books of the old Morall Philosophers. Nor can a man\nany more live, whose Desires are at an end, than he, whose Senses and\nImaginations are at a stand. Felicity is a continuall progresse of the\ndesire, from one object to another; the attaining of the former, being\nstill but the way to the later. The cause whereof is, That the object\nof mans desire, is not to enjoy once onely, and for one instant of time;\nbut to assure for ever, the way of his future desire. And therefore the\nvoluntary actions, and inclinations of all men, tend, not only to the\nprocuring, but also to the assuring of a contented life; and differ\nonely in the way: which ariseth partly from the diversity of passions,\nin divers men; and partly from the difference of the knowledge, or\nopinion each one has of the causes, which produce the effect desired.\n\n\n\n\nA Restlesse Desire Of Power, In All Men\n\nSo that in the first place, I put for a generall inclination of all\nmankind, a perpetuall and restlesse desire of Power after power, that\nceaseth onely in Death. And the cause of this, is not alwayes that a man\nhopes for a more intensive delight, than he has already attained to; or\nthat he cannot be content with a moderate power: but because he cannot\nassure the power and means to live well, which he hath present, without\nthe acquisition of more. And from hence it is, that Kings, whose power\nis greatest, turn their endeavours to the assuring it a home by Lawes,\nor abroad by Wars: and when that is done, there succeedeth a new desire;\nin some, of Fame from new Conquest; in others, of ease and sensuall\npleasure; in others, of admiration, or being flattered for excellence in\nsome art, or other ability of the mind.\n\n\n\n\nLove Of Contention From Competition\n\nCompetition of Riches, Honour, command, or other power, enclineth to\nContention, Enmity, and War: because the way of one Competitor, to the\nattaining of his desire, is to kill, subdue, supplant, or repell the\nother. Particularly, competition of praise, enclineth to a reverence of\nAntiquity. For men contend with the living, not with the dead; to these\nascribing more than due, that they may obscure the glory of the other.\n\n\n\n\nCivil Obedience From Love Of Ease\n\nDesire of Ease, and sensuall Delight, disposeth men to obey a common\nPower: because by such Desires, a man doth abandon the protection might\nbe hoped for from his own Industry, and labour.\n\n\n\n\nFrom Feare Of Death Or Wounds\n\nFear of Death, and Wounds, disposeth to the same; and for the same\nreason. On the contrary, needy men, and hardy, not contented with their\npresent condition; as also, all men that are ambitious of Military\ncommand, are enclined to continue the causes of warre; and to stirre up\ntrouble and sedition: for there is no honour Military but by warre; nor\nany such hope to mend an ill game, as by causing a new shuffle.\n\n\n\n\nAnd From Love Of Arts\n\nDesire of Knowledge, and Arts of Peace, enclineth men to obey a common\nPower: For such Desire, containeth a desire of leasure; and consequently\nprotection from some other Power than their own.\n\n\n\n\nLove Of Vertue, From Love Of Praise\n\nDesire of Praise, disposeth to laudable actions, such as please them\nwhose judgement they value; for of these men whom we contemn, we contemn\nalso the Praises. Desire of Fame after death does the same. And though\nafter death, there be no sense of the praise given us on Earth, as being\njoyes, that are either swallowed up in the unspeakable joyes of Heaven,\nor extinguished in the extreme torments of Hell: yet is not such Fame\nvain; because men have a present delight therein, from the foresight\nof it, and of the benefit that may rebound thereby to their posterity:\nwhich though they now see not, yet they imagine; and any thing that is\npleasure in the sense, the same also is pleasure in the imagination.\n\n\n\n\nHate, From Difficulty Of Requiting Great Benefits\n\nTo have received from one, to whom we think our selves equall, greater\nbenefits than there is hope to Requite, disposeth to counterfiet love;\nbut really secret hatred; and puts a man into the estate of a desperate\ndebtor, that in declining the sight of his creditor, tacitely wishes\nhim there, where he might never see him more. For benefits oblige; and\nobligation is thraldome; which is to ones equall, hateful. But to have\nreceived benefits from one, whom we acknowledge our superiour, enclines\nto love; because the obligation is no new depession: and cheerfull\nacceptation, (which men call Gratitude,) is such an honour done to\nthe obliger, as is taken generally for retribution. Also to receive\nbenefits, though from an equall, or inferiour, as long as there is hope\nof requitall, disposeth to love: for in the intention of the receiver,\nthe obligation is of ayd, and service mutuall; from whence proceedeth\nan Emulation of who shall exceed in benefiting; the most noble and\nprofitable contention possible; wherein the victor is pleased with his\nvictory, and the other revenged by confessing it.\n\n\n\n\nAnd From Conscience Of Deserving To Be Hated\n\nTo have done more hurt to a man, than he can, or is willing to expiate,\nenclineth the doer to hate the sufferer. For he must expect revenge, or\nforgivenesse; both which are hatefull.\n\n\n\n\nPromptnesse To Hurt, From Fear\n\nFeare of oppression, disposeth a man to anticipate, or to seek ayd by\nsociety: for there is no other way by which a man can secure his life\nand liberty.\n\n\n\n\nAnd From Distrust Of Their Own Wit\n\nMen that distrust their own subtilty, are in tumult, and sedition,\nbetter disposed for victory, than they that suppose themselves wise,\nor crafty. For these love to consult, the other (fearing to be\ncircumvented,) to strike first. And in sedition, men being alwayes in\nthe procincts of Battell, to hold together, and use all advantages of\nforce, is a better stratagem, than any that can proceed from subtilty of\nWit.\n\n\n\n\nVain Undertaking From Vain-glory\n\nVain-glorious men, such as without being conscious to themselves of\ngreat sufficiency, delight in supposing themselves gallant men, are\nenclined onely to ostentation; but not to attempt: Because when\ndanger or difficulty appears, they look for nothing but to have their\ninsufficiency discovered.\n\nVain-glorious men, such as estimate their sufficiency by the flattery\nof other men, or the fortune of some precedent action, without assured\nground of hope from the true knowledge of themselves, are enclined to\nrash engaging; and in the approach of danger, or difficulty, to retire\nif they can: because not seeing the way of safety, they will rather\nhazard their honour, which may be salved with an excuse; than their\nlives, for which no salve is sufficient.\n\n\n\n\nAmbition, From Opinion Of Sufficiency\n\nMen that have a strong opinion of their own wisdome in matter of\ngovernment, are disposed to Ambition. Because without publique\nEmployment in counsell or magistracy, the honour of their wisdome is\nlost. And therefore Eloquent speakers are enclined to Ambition; for\nEloquence seemeth wisdome, both to themselves and others\n\n\n\n\nIrresolution, From Too Great Valuing Of Small Matters\n\nPusillanimity disposeth men to Irresolution, and consequently to lose\nthe occasions, and fittest opportunities of action. For after men have\nbeen in deliberation till the time of action approach, if it be not\nthen manifest what is best to be done, tis a signe, the difference of\nMotives, the one way and the other, are not great: Therefore not to\nresolve then, is to lose the occasion by weighing of trifles; which is\npusillanimity.\n\nFrugality,(though in poor men a Vertue,) maketh a man unapt to atchieve\nsuch actions, as require the strength of many men at once: For it\nweakeneth their Endeavour, which is to be nourished and kept in vigor by\nReward.\n\nConfidence In Others From Ignorance Of The Marks Of Wisdome and\nKindnesse Eloquence, with flattery, disposeth men to confide in them\nthat have it; because the former is seeming Wisdome, the later seeming\nKindnesse. Adde to them Military reputation, and it disposeth men to\nadhaere, and subject themselves to those men that have them. The two\nformer, having given them caution against danger from him; the later\ngives them caution against danger from others.\n\n\n\n\nAnd From The Ignorance Of Naturall Causes\n\nWant of Science, that is, Ignorance of causes, disposeth, or rather\nconstraineth a man to rely on the advise, and authority of others. For\nall men whom the truth concernes, if they rely not on their own,\nmust rely on the opinion of some other, whom they think wiser than\nthemselves, and see not why he should deceive them.\n\n\n\n\nAnd From Want Of Understanding\n\nIgnorance of the signification of words; which is, want of\nunderstanding, disposeth men to take on trust, not onely the truth they\nknow not; but also the errors; and which is more, the non-sense of them\nthey trust: For neither Error, nor non-sense, can without a perfect\nunderstanding of words, be detected.\n\nFrom the same it proceedeth, that men give different names, to one and\nthe same thing, from the difference of their own passions: As they that\napprove a private opinion, call it Opinion; but they that mislike it,\nHaeresie: and yet haeresie signifies no more than private opinion; but\nhas onely a greater tincture of choler.\n\nFrom the same also it proceedeth, that men cannot distinguish, without\nstudy and great understanding, between one action of many men, and many\nactions of one multitude; as for example, between the one action of\nall the Senators of Rome in killing Catiline, and the many actions of a\nnumber of Senators in killing Caesar; and therefore are disposed to take\nfor the action of the people, that which is a multitude of actions done\nby a multitude of men, led perhaps by the perswasion of one.\n\nAdhaerence To Custome, From Ignorance Of The Nature Of Right And Wrong\nIgnorance of the causes, and originall constitution of Right, Equity,\nLaw, and Justice, disposeth a man to make Custome and Example the rule\nof his actions; in such manner, as to think that Unjust which it\nhath been the custome to punish; and that Just, of the impunity and\napprobation whereof they can produce an Example, or (as the Lawyers\nwhich onely use the false measure of Justice barbarously call it) a\nPrecedent; like little children, that have no other rule of good and\nevill manners, but the correction they receive from their Parents, and\nMasters; save that children are constant to their rule, whereas men are\nnot so; because grown strong, and stubborn, they appeale from custome\nto reason, and from reason to custome, as it serves their turn; receding\nfrom custome when their interest requires it, and setting themselves\nagainst reason, as oft as reason is against them: Which is the cause,\nthat the doctrine of Right and Wrong, is perpetually disputed, both by\nthe Pen and the Sword: whereas the doctrine of Lines, and Figures, is\nnot so; because men care not, in that subject what be truth, as a thing\nthat crosses no mans ambition, profit, or lust. For I doubt not, but if\nit had been a thing contrary to any mans right of dominion, or to the\ninterest of men that have dominion, That The Three Angles Of A Triangle\nShould Be Equall To Two Angles Of A Square; that doctrine should have\nbeen, if not disputed, yet by the burning of all books of Geometry,\nsuppressed, as farre as he whom it concerned was able.\n\nAdhaerence To Private Men, From Ignorance Of The Causes Of Peace\nIgnorance of remote causes, disposeth men to attribute all events, to\nthe causes immediate, and Instrumentall: For these are all the causes\nthey perceive. And hence it comes to passe, that in all places, men that\nare grieved with payments to the Publique, discharge their anger upon\nthe Publicans, that is to say, Farmers, Collectors, and other Officers\nof the publique Revenue; and adhaere to such as find fault with the\npublike Government; and thereby, when they have engaged themselves\nbeyond hope of justification, fall also upon the Supreme Authority, for\nfeare of punishment, or shame of receiving pardon.\n\n\n\n\nCredulity From Ignorance Of Nature\n\nIgnorance of naturall causes disposeth a man to Credulity, so as\nto believe many times impossibilities: for such know nothing to\nthe contrary, but that they may be true; being unable to detect the\nImpossibility. And Credulity, because men love to be hearkened unto in\ncompany, disposeth them to lying: so that Ignorance it selfe without\nMalice, is able to make a man bothe to believe lyes, and tell them; and\nsometimes also to invent them.\n\n\n\n\nCuriosity To Know, From Care Of Future Time\n\nAnxiety for the future time, disposeth men to enquire into the causes\nof things: because the knowledge of them, maketh men the better able to\norder the present to their best advantage.\n\n\n\n\nNaturall Religion, From The Same\n\nCuriosity, or love of the knowledge of causes, draws a man from\nconsideration of the effect, to seek the cause; and again, the cause of\nthat cause; till of necessity he must come to this thought at last, that\nthere is some cause, whereof there is no former cause, but is eternall;\nwhich is it men call God. So that it is impossible to make any profound\nenquiry into naturall causes, without being enclined thereby to believe\nthere is one God Eternall; though they cannot have any Idea of him in\ntheir mind, answerable to his nature. For as a man that is born blind,\nhearing men talk of warming themselves by the fire, and being brought\nto warm himself by the same, may easily conceive, and assure himselfe,\nthere is somewhat there, which men call Fire, and is the cause of the\nheat he feeles; but cannot imagine what it is like; nor have an Idea of\nit in his mind, such as they have that see it: so also, by the visible\nthings of this world, and their admirable order, a man may conceive\nthere is a cause of them, which men call God; and yet not have an Idea,\nor Image of him in his mind.\n\nAnd they that make little, or no enquiry into the naturall causes of\nthings, yet from the feare that proceeds from the ignorance it selfe,\nof what it is that hath the power to do them much good or harm, are\nenclined to suppose, and feign unto themselves, severall kinds of Powers\nInvisible; and to stand in awe of their own imaginations; and in time\nof distresse to invoke them; as also in the time of an expected good\nsuccesse, to give them thanks; making the creatures of their own\nfancy, their Gods. By which means it hath come to passe, that from the\ninnumerable variety of Fancy, men have created in the world innumerable\nsorts of Gods. And this Feare of things invisible, is the naturall Seed\nof that, which every one in himself calleth Religion; and in them that\nworship, or feare that Power otherwise than they do, Superstition.\n\nAnd this seed of Religion, having been observed by many; some of those\nthat have observed it, have been enclined thereby to nourish, dresse,\nand forme it into Lawes; and to adde to it of their own invention,\nany opinion of the causes of future events, by which they thought they\nshould best be able to govern others, and make unto themselves the\ngreatest use of their Powers.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII. OF RELIGION\n\n\n\n\nReligion, In Man Onely\n\nSeeing there are no signes, nor fruit of Religion, but in Man onely;\nthere is no cause to doubt, but that the seed of Religion, is also onely\nin Man; and consisteth in some peculiar quality, or at least in some\neminent degree thereof, not to be found in other Living creatures.\n\n\n\n\nFirst, From His Desire Of Knowing Causes\n\nAnd first, it is peculiar to the nature of Man, to be inquisitive into\nthe Causes of the Events they see, some more, some lesse; but all men so\nmuch, as to be curious in the search of the causes of their own good and\nevill fortune.\n\n\n\n\nFrom The Consideration Of The Beginning Of Things\n\nSecondly, upon the sight of any thing that hath a Beginning, to think\nalso it had a cause, which determined the same to begin, then when it\ndid, rather than sooner or later.\n\n\n\n\nFrom His Observation Of The Sequell Of Things\n\nThirdly, whereas there is no other Felicity of Beasts, but the enjoying\nof their quotidian Food, Ease, and Lusts; as having little, or no\nforesight of the time to come, for want of observation, and memory\nof the order, consequence, and dependance of the things they see; Man\nobserveth how one Event hath been produced by another; and remembreth in\nthem Antecedence and Consequence; And when he cannot assure himselfe of\nthe true causes of things, (for the causes of good and evill fortune for\nthe most part are invisible,) he supposes causes of them, either such\nas his own fancy suggesteth; or trusteth to the Authority of other men,\nsuch as he thinks to be his friends, and wiser than himselfe.\n\nThe Naturall Cause Of Religion, The Anxiety Of The Time To Come The\ntwo first, make Anxiety. For being assured that there be causes of all\nthings that have arrived hitherto, or shall arrive hereafter; it is\nimpossible for a man, who continually endeavoureth to secure himselfe\nagainst the evill he feares, and procure the good he desireth, not to\nbe in a perpetuall solicitude of the time to come; So that every man,\nespecially those that are over provident, are in an estate like to that\nof Prometheus. For as Prometheus, (which interpreted, is, The Prudent\nMan,) was bound to the hill Caucasus, a place of large prospect, where,\nan Eagle feeding on his liver, devoured in the day, as much as was\nrepayred in the night: So that man, which looks too far before him, in\nthe care of future time, hath his heart all the day long, gnawed on by\nfeare of death, poverty, or other calamity; and has no repose, nor pause\nof his anxiety, but in sleep.\n\n\n\n\nWhich Makes Them Fear The Power Of Invisible Things\n\nThis perpetuall feare, alwayes accompanying mankind in the ignorance of\ncauses, as it were in the Dark, must needs have for object something.\nAnd therefore when there is nothing to be seen, there is nothing to\naccuse, either of their good, or evill fortune, but some Power, or Agent\nInvisible: In which sense perhaps it was, that some of the old Poets\nsaid, that the Gods were at first created by humane Feare: which spoken\nof the Gods, (that is to say, of the many Gods of the Gentiles) is\nvery true. But the acknowledging of one God Eternall, Infinite, and\nOmnipotent, may more easily be derived, from the desire men have to\nknow the causes of naturall bodies, and their severall vertues, and\noperations; than from the feare of what was to befall them in time to\ncome. For he that from any effect hee seeth come to passe, should reason\nto the next and immediate cause thereof, and from thence to the cause\nof that cause, and plonge himselfe profoundly in the pursuit of causes;\nshall at last come to this, that there must be (as even the Heathen\nPhilosophers confessed) one First Mover; that is, a First, and an\nEternall cause of all things; which is that which men mean by the name\nof God: And all this without thought of their fortune; the solicitude\nwhereof, both enclines to fear, and hinders them from the search of the\ncauses of other things; and thereby gives occasion of feigning of as\nmany Gods, as there be men that feigne them.\n\n\n\n\nAnd Suppose Them Incorporeall\n\nAnd for the matter, or substance of the Invisible Agents, so fancyed;\nthey could not by naturall cogitation, fall upon any other conceipt, but\nthat it was the same with that of the Soule of man; and that the Soule\nof man, was of the same substance, with that which appeareth in a Dream,\nto one that sleepeth; or in a Looking-glasse, to one that is awake;\nwhich, men not knowing that such apparitions are nothing else but\ncreatures of the Fancy, think to be reall, and externall Substances;\nand therefore call them Ghosts; as the Latines called them Imagines,\nand Umbrae; and thought them Spirits, that is, thin aereall bodies; and\nthose Invisible Agents, which they feared, to bee like them; save that\nthey appear, and vanish when they please. But the opinion that such\nSpirits were Incorporeall, or Immateriall, could never enter into the\nmind of any man by nature; because, though men may put together words of\ncontradictory signification, as Spirit, and Incorporeall; yet they\ncan never have the imagination of any thing answering to them:\nAnd therefore, men that by their own meditation, arrive to the\nacknowledgement of one Infinite, Omnipotent, and Eternall God,\nchoose rather to confesse he is Incomprehensible, and above their\nunderstanding; than to define his Nature By Spirit Incorporeall, and\nthen Confesse their definition to be unintelligible: or if they give him\nsuch a title, it is not Dogmatically, with intention to make the Divine\nNature understood; but Piously, to honour him with attributes, of\nsignifications, as remote as they can from the grossenesse of Bodies\nVisible.\n\n\n\n\nBut Know Not The Way How They Effect Anything\n\nThen, for the way by which they think these Invisible Agents wrought\ntheir effects; that is to say, what immediate causes they used, in\nbringing things to passe, men that know not what it is that we call\nCausing, (that is, almost all men) have no other rule to guesse by, but\nby observing, and remembring what they have seen to precede the like\neffect at some other time, or times before, without seeing between the\nantecedent and subsequent Event, any dependance or connexion at all:\nAnd therefore from the like things past, they expect the like things to\ncome; and hope for good or evill luck, superstitiously, from things that\nhave no part at all in the causing of it: As the Athenians did for their\nwar at Lepanto, demand another Phormio; the Pompeian faction for their\nwarre in Afrique, another Scipio; and others have done in divers other\noccasions since. In like manner they attribute their fortune to a\nstander by, to a lucky or unlucky place, to words spoken, especially\nif the name of God be amongst them; as Charming, and Conjuring (the\nLeiturgy of Witches;) insomuch as to believe, they have power to turn a\nstone into bread, bread into a man, or any thing, into any thing.\n\n\n\n\nBut Honour Them As They Honour Men\n\nThirdly, for the worship which naturally men exhibite to Powers\ninvisible, it can be no other, but such expressions of their reverence,\nas they would use towards men; Gifts, Petitions, Thanks, Submission\nof Body, Considerate Addresses, sober Behaviour, premeditated Words,\nSwearing (that is, assuring one another of their promises,) by invoking\nthem. Beyond that reason suggesteth nothing; but leaves them either to\nrest there; or for further ceremonies, to rely on those they believe to\nbe wiser than themselves.\n\n\n\n\nAnd Attribute To Them All Extraordinary Events\n\nLastly, concerning how these Invisible Powers declare to men the things\nwhich shall hereafter come to passe, especially concerning their good\nor evill fortune in generall, or good or ill successe in any particular\nundertaking, men are naturally at a stand; save that using to conjecture\nof the time to come, by the time past, they are very apt, not onely to\ntake casuall things, after one or two encounters, for Prognostiques\nof the like encounter ever after, but also to believe the like\nPrognostiques from other men, of whom they have once conceived a good\nopinion.\n\n\n\n\nFoure Things, Naturall Seeds Of Religion\n\nAnd in these foure things, Opinion of Ghosts, Ignorance of second\ncauses, Devotion towards what men fear, and Taking of things Casuall for\nPrognostiques, consisteth the Naturall seed of Religion; which by reason\nof the different Fancies, Judgements, and Passions of severall men, hath\ngrown up into ceremonies so different, that those which are used by one\nman, are for the most part ridiculous to another.\n\n\n\n\nMade Different By Culture\n\nFor these seeds have received culture from two sorts of men. One sort\nhave been they, that have nourished, and ordered them, according to\ntheir own invention. The other, have done it, by Gods commandement, and\ndirection: but both sorts have done it, with a purpose to make those men\nthat relyed on them, the more apt to Obedience, Lawes, Peace, Charity,\nand civill Society. So that the Religion of the former sort, is a part\nof humane Politiques; and teacheth part of the duty which Earthly Kings\nrequire of their Subjects. And the Religion of the later sort is\nDivine Politiques; and containeth Precepts to those that have yeelded\nthemselves subjects in the Kingdome of God. Of the former sort, were all\nthe Founders of Common-wealths, and the Law-givers of the Gentiles: Of\nthe later sort, were Abraham, Moses, and our Blessed Saviour; by whom\nhave been derived unto us the Lawes of the Kingdome of God.\n\n\n\n\nThe Absurd Opinion Of Gentilisme\n\nAnd for that part of Religion, which consisteth in opinions concerning\nthe nature of Powers Invisible, there is almost nothing that has a\nname, that has not been esteemed amongst the Gentiles, in one place or\nanother, a God, or Divell; or by their Poets feigned to be inanimated,\ninhabited, or possessed by some Spirit or other.\n\nThe unformed matter of the World, was a God, by the name of Chaos.\n\nThe Heaven, the Ocean, the Planets, the Fire, the Earth, the Winds, were\nso many Gods.\n\nMen, Women, a Bird, a Crocodile, a Calf, a Dogge, a Snake, an Onion,\na Leeke, Deified. Besides, that they filled almost all places, with\nspirits called Daemons; the plains, with Pan, and Panises, or Satyres;\nthe Woods, with Fawnes, and Nymphs; the Sea, with Tritons, and other\nNymphs; every River, and Fountayn, with a Ghost of his name, and with\nNymphs; every house, with it Lares, or Familiars; every man, with his\nGenius; Hell, with Ghosts, and spirituall Officers, as Charon, Cerberus,\nand the Furies; and in the night time, all places with Larvae, Lemures,\nGhosts of men deceased, and a whole kingdome of Fayries, and Bugbears.\nThey have also ascribed Divinity, and built Temples to meer Accidents,\nand Qualities; such as are Time, Night, Day, Peace, Concord, Love,\nContention, Vertue, Honour, Health, Rust, Fever, and the like; which\nwhen they prayed for, or against, they prayed to, as if there were\nGhosts of those names hanging over their heads, and letting fall, or\nwithholding that Good, or Evill, for, or against which they prayed. They\ninvoked also their own Wit, by the name of Muses; their own Ignorance,\nby the name of Fortune; their own Lust, by the name of Cupid; their\nown Rage, by the name Furies; their own privy members by the name of\nPriapus; and attributed their pollutions, to Incubi, and Succubae:\ninsomuch as there was nothing, which a Poet could introduce as a person\nin his Poem, which they did not make either a God, or a Divel.\n\nThe same authors of the Religion of the Gentiles, observing the second\nground for Religion, which is mens Ignorance of causes; and thereby\ntheir aptnesse to attribute their fortune to causes, on which there\nwas no dependence at all apparent, took occasion to obtrude on their\nignorance, in stead of second causes, a kind of second and ministeriall\nGods; ascribing the cause of Foecundity, to Venus; the cause of Arts, to\nApollo; of Subtilty and Craft, to Mercury; of Tempests and stormes,\nto Aeolus; and of other effects, to other Gods: insomuch as there was\namongst the Heathen almost as great variety of Gods, as of businesse.\n\nAnd to the Worship, which naturally men conceived fit to bee used\ntowards their Gods, namely Oblations, Prayers, Thanks, and the rest\nformerly named; the same Legislators of the Gentiles have added their\nImages, both in Picture, and Sculpture; that the more ignorant sort,\n(that is to say, the most part, or generality of the people,) thinking\nthe Gods for whose representation they were made, were really included,\nand as it were housed within them, might so much the more stand in feare\nof them: And endowed them with lands, and houses, and officers, and\nrevenues, set apart from all other humane uses; that is, consecrated,\nand made holy to those their Idols; as Caverns, Groves, Woods,\nMountains, and whole Ilands; and have attributed to them, not onely\nthe shapes, some of Men, some of Beasts, some of Monsters; but also the\nFaculties, and Passions of men and beasts; as Sense, Speech, Sex, Lust,\nGeneration, (and this not onely by mixing one with another, to propagate\nthe kind of Gods; but also by mixing with men, and women, to beget\nmongrill Gods, and but inmates of Heaven, as Bacchus, Hercules,\nand others;) besides, Anger, Revenge, and other passions of living\ncreatures, and the actions proceeding from them, as Fraud, Theft,\nAdultery, Sodomie, and any vice that may be taken for an effect of\nPower, or a cause of Pleasure; and all such Vices, as amongst men are\ntaken to be against Law, rather than against Honour.\n\nLastly, to the Prognostiques of time to come; which are naturally, but\nConjectures upon the Experience of time past; and supernaturall, divine\nRevelation; the same authors of the Religion of the Gentiles, partly\nupon pretended Experience, partly upon pretended Revelation, have\nadded innumerable other superstitious wayes of Divination; and made men\nbelieve they should find their fortunes, sometimes in the ambiguous\nor senslesse answers of the priests at Delphi, Delos, Ammon, and other\nfamous Oracles; which answers, were made ambiguous by designe, to own\nthe event both wayes; or absurd by the intoxicating vapour of the place,\nwhich is very frequent in sulphurous Cavernes: Sometimes in the leaves\nof the Sibills; of whose Prophecyes (like those perhaps of Nostradamus;\nfor the fragments now extant seem to be the invention of later times)\nthere were some books in reputation in the time of the Roman Republique:\nSometimes in the insignificant Speeches of Mad-men, supposed to\nbe possessed with a divine Spirit; which Possession they called\nEnthusiasme; and these kinds of foretelling events, were accounted\nTheomancy, or Prophecy; Sometimes in the aspect of the Starres at their\nNativity; which was called Horoscopy, and esteemed a part of judiciary\nAstrology: Sometimes in their own hopes and feares, called Thumomancy,\nor Presage: Sometimes in the Prediction of Witches, that pretended\nconference with the dead; which is called Necromancy, Conjuring, and\nWitchcraft; and is but juggling and confederate knavery: Sometimes in\nthe Casuall flight, or feeding of birds; called Augury: Sometimes in\nthe Entrayles of a sacrificed beast; which was Aruspicina: Sometimes\nin Dreams: Sometimes in Croaking of Ravens, or chattering of Birds:\nSometimes in the Lineaments of the face; which was called Metoposcopy;\nor by Palmistry in the lines of the hand; in casuall words, called\nOmina: Sometimes in Monsters, or unusuall accidents; as Ecclipses,\nComets, rare Meteors, Earthquakes, Inundations, uncouth Births, and the\nlike, which they called Portenta and Ostenta, because they thought them\nto portend, or foreshew some great Calamity to come; Sometimes, in meer\nLottery, as Crosse and Pile; counting holes in a sive; dipping of Verses\nin Homer, and Virgil; and innumerable other such vaine conceipts. So\neasie are men to be drawn to believe any thing, from such men as have\ngotten credit with them; and can with gentlenesse, and dexterity, take\nhold of their fear, and ignorance.\n\nThe Designes Of The Authors Of The Religion Of The Heathen And therefore\nthe first Founders, and Legislators of Common-wealths amongst the\nGentiles, whose ends were only to keep the people in obedience, and\npeace, have in all places taken care; First, to imprint in their minds a\nbeliefe, that those precepts which they gave concerning Religion, might\nnot be thought to proceed from their own device, but from the dictates\nof some God, or other Spirit; or else that they themselves were of a\nhigher nature than mere mortalls, that their Lawes might the more easily\nbe received: So Numa Pompilius pretended to receive the Ceremonies he\ninstituted amongst the Romans, from the Nymph Egeria: and the first King\nand founder of the Kingdome of Peru, pretended himselfe and his wife to\nbe the children of the Sunne: and Mahomet, to set up his new Religion,\npretended to have conferences with the Holy Ghost, in forme of a Dove.\nSecondly, they have had a care, to make it believed, that the same\nthings were displeasing to the Gods, which were forbidden by the\nLawes. Thirdly, to prescribe Ceremonies, Supplications, Sacrifices, and\nFestivalls, by which they were to believe, the anger of the Gods might\nbe appeased; and that ill success in War, great contagions of Sicknesse,\nEarthquakes, and each mans private Misery, came from the Anger of\nthe Gods; and their Anger from the Neglect of their Worship, or the\nforgetting, or mistaking some point of the Ceremonies required. And\nthough amongst the antient Romans, men were not forbidden to deny, that\nwhich in the Poets is written of the paines, and pleasures after this\nlife; which divers of great authority, and gravity in that state have\nin their Harangues openly derided; yet that beliefe was alwaies more\ncherished, than the contrary.\n\nAnd by these, and such other Institutions, they obtayned in order to\ntheir end, (which was the peace of the Commonwealth,) that the common\npeople in their misfortunes, laying the fault on neglect, or errour in\ntheir Ceremonies, or on their own disobedience to the lawes, were the\nlesse apt to mutiny against their Governors. And being entertained with\nthe pomp, and pastime of Festivalls, and publike Gomes, made in\nhonour of the Gods, needed nothing else but bread, to keep them from\ndiscontent, murmuring, and commotion against the State. And therefore\nthe Romans, that had conquered the greatest part of the then known\nWorld, made no scruple of tollerating any Religion whatsoever in the\nCity of Rome it selfe; unlesse it had somthing in it, that could not\nconsist with their Civill Government; nor do we read, that any Religion\nwas there forbidden, but that of the Jewes; who (being the peculiar\nKingdome of God) thought it unlawfull to acknowledge subjection to any\nmortall King or State whatsoever. And thus you see how the Religion of\nthe Gentiles was a part of their Policy.\n\nThe True Religion, And The Lawes Of Gods Kingdome The Same But where God\nhimselfe, by supernaturall Revelation, planted Religion; there he\nalso made to himselfe a peculiar Kingdome; and gave Lawes, not only of\nbehaviour towards himselfe; but also towards one another; and thereby\nin the Kingdome of God, the Policy, and lawes Civill, are a part of\nReligion; and therefore the distinction of Temporall, and Spirituall\nDomination, hath there no place. It is true, that God is King of all the\nEarth: Yet may he be King of a peculiar, and chosen Nation. For there is\nno more incongruity therein, than that he that hath the generall command\nof the whole Army, should have withall a peculiar Regiment, or Company\nof his own. God is King of all the Earth by his Power: but of his\nchosen people, he is King by Covenant. But to speake more largly of the\nKingdome of God, both by Nature, and Covenant, I have in the following\ndiscourse assigned an other place.\n\n\n\n\nThe Causes Of Change In Religion\n\nFrom the propagation of Religion, it is not hard to understand\nthe causes of the resolution of the same into its first seeds, or\nprinciples; which are only an opinion of a Deity, and Powers invisible,\nand supernaturall; that can never be so abolished out of humane nature,\nbut that new Religions may againe be made to spring out of them, by the\nculture of such men, as for such purpose are in reputation.\n\nFor seeing all formed Religion, is founded at first, upon the faith\nwhich a multitude hath in some one person, whom they believe not only to\nbe a wise man, and to labour to procure their happiness, but also to\nbe a holy man, to whom God himselfe vouchsafeth to declare his will\nsupernaturally; It followeth necessarily, when they that have the\nGoverment of Religion, shall come to have either the wisedome of those\nmen, their sincerity, or their love suspected; or that they shall\nbe unable to shew any probable token of divine Revelation; that the\nReligion which they desire to uphold, must be suspected likewise; and\n(without the feare of the Civill Sword) contradicted and rejected.\n\n\n\n\nInjoyning Beleefe Of Impossibilities\n\nThat which taketh away the reputation of Wisedome, in him that formeth\na Religion, or addeth to it when it is allready formed, is the enjoyning\nof a beliefe of contradictories: For both parts of a contradiction\ncannot possibly be true: and therefore to enjoyne the beliefe of them,\nis an argument of ignorance; which detects the Author in that; and\ndiscredits him in all things else he shall propound as from revelation\nsupernaturall: which revelation a man may indeed have of many things\nabove, but of nothing against naturall reason.\n\n\n\n\nDoing Contrary To The Religion They Establish\n\nThat which taketh away the reputation of Sincerity, is the doing, or\nsaying of such things, as appeare to be signes, that what they require\nother men to believe, is not believed by themselves; all which doings,\nor sayings are therefore called Scandalous, because they be stumbling\nblocks, that make men to fall in the way of Religion: as Injustice,\nCruelty, Prophanesse, Avarice, and Luxury. For who can believe, that he\nthat doth ordinarily such actions, as proceed from any of these\nrootes, believeth there is any such Invisible Power to be feared, as he\naffrighteth other men withall, for lesser faults?\n\nThat which taketh away the reputation of Love, is the being detected of\nprivate ends: as when the beliefe they require of others, conduceth or\nseemeth to conduce to the acquiring of Dominion, Riches, Dignity, or\nsecure Pleasure, to themselves onely, or specially. For that which men\nreap benefit by to themselves, they are thought to do for their own\nsakes, and not for love of others\n\n\n\n\nWant Of The Testimony Of Miracles\n\nLastly, the testimony that men can render of divine Calling, can be no\nother, than the operation of Miracles; or true Prophecy, (which also is\na Miracle;) or extraordinary Felicity. And therefore, to those points\nof Religion, which have been received from them that did such Miracles;\nthose that are added by such, as approve not their Calling by some\nMiracle, obtain no greater beliefe, than what the Custome, and Lawes of\nthe places, in which they be educated, have wrought into them. For as\nin naturall things, men of judgement require naturall signes,\nand arguments; so in supernaturall things, they require signes\nsupernaturall, (which are Miracles,) before they consent inwardly, and\nfrom their hearts.\n\nAll which causes of the weakening of mens faith, do manifestly appear\nin the Examples following. First, we have the Example of the children\nof Israel; who when Moses, that had approved his Calling to them by\nMiracles, and by the happy conduct of them out of Egypt, was absent but\n40 dayes, revolted from the worship of the true God, recommended to\nthem by him; and setting up (Exod.32 1,2) a Golden Calfe for their God,\nrelapsed into the Idolatry of the Egyptians; from whom they had been\nso lately delivered. And again, after Moses, Aaron, Joshua, and that\ngeneration which had seen the great works of God in Israel, (Judges\n2 11) were dead; another generation arose, and served Baal. So that\nMiracles fayling, Faith also failed.\n\nAgain, when the sons of Samuel, (1 Sam.8.3) being constituted by their\nfather Judges in Bersabee, received bribes, and judged unjustly, the\npeople of Israel refused any more to have God to be their King, in other\nmanner than he was King of other people; and therefore cryed out to\nSamuel, to choose them a King after the manner of the Nations. So that\nJustice Fayling, Faith also fayled: Insomuch, as they deposed their God,\nfrom reigning over them.\n\nAnd whereas in the planting of Christian Religion, the Oracles ceased\nin all parts of the Roman Empire, and the number of Christians encreased\nwonderfully every day, and in every place, by the preaching of the\nApostles, and Evangelists; a great part of that successe, may reasonably\nbe attributed, to the contempt, into which the Priests of the Gentiles\nof that time, had brought themselves, by their uncleannesse, avarice,\nand jugling between Princes. Also the Religion of the Church of Rome,\nwas partly, for the same cause abolished in England, and many other\nparts of Christendome; insomuch, as the fayling of Vertue in the\nPastors, maketh Faith faile in the People: and partly from bringing\nof the Philosophy, and doctrine of Aristotle into Religion, by the\nSchoole-men; from whence there arose so many contradictions, and\nabsurdities, as brought the Clergy into a reputation both of Ignorance,\nand of Fraudulent intention; and enclined people to revolt from them,\neither against the will of their own Princes, as in France, and Holland;\nor with their will, as in England.\n\nLastly, amongst the points by the Church of Rome declared necessary for\nSalvation, there be so many, manifestly to the advantage of the Pope,\nand of his spirituall subjects, residing in the territories of other\nChristian Princes, that were it not for the mutuall emulation of those\nPrinces, they might without warre, or trouble, exclude all forraign\nAuthority, as easily as it has been excluded in England. For who is\nthere that does not see, to whose benefit it conduceth, to have it\nbelieved, that a King hath not his Authority from Christ, unlesse a\nBishop crown him? That a King, if he be a Priest, cannot Marry? That\nwhether a Prince be born in lawfull Marriage, or not, must be judged by\nAuthority from Rome? That Subjects may be freed from their Alleageance,\nif by the Court of Rome, the King be judged an Heretique? That a King\n(as Chilperique of France) may be deposed by a Pope (as Pope Zachary,)\nfor no cause; and his Kingdome given to one of his Subjects? That the\nClergy, and Regulars, in what Country soever, shall be exempt from the\nJurisdiction of their King, in cases criminall? Or who does not see, to\nwhose profit redound the Fees of private Masses, and Vales of Purgatory;\nwith other signes of private interest, enough to mortifie the most\nlively Faith, if (as I sayd) the civill Magistrate, and Custome did not\nmore sustain it, than any opinion they have of the Sanctity, Wisdome,\nor Probity of their Teachers? So that I may attribute all the changes\nof Religion in the world, to one and the some cause; and that is,\nunpleasing Priests; and those not onely amongst Catholiques, but even in\nthat Church that hath presumed most of Reformation.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII. OF THE NATURALL CONDITION OF MANKIND,\n\nAS CONCERNING THEIR FELICITY, AND MISERY\n\n\nNature hath made men so equall, in the faculties of body, and mind; as\nthat though there bee found one man sometimes manifestly stronger\nin body, or of quicker mind then another; yet when all is reckoned\ntogether, the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable,\nas that one man can thereupon claim to himselfe any benefit, to which\nanother may not pretend, as well as he. For as to the strength of body,\nthe weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret\nmachination, or by confederacy with others, that are in the same danger\nwith himselfe.\n\nAnd as to the faculties of the mind, (setting aside the arts grounded\nupon words, and especially that skill of proceeding upon generall, and\ninfallible rules, called Science; which very few have, and but in few\nthings; as being not a native faculty, born with us; nor attained,\n(as Prudence,) while we look after somewhat els,) I find yet a greater\nequality amongst men, than that of strength. For Prudence, is but\nExperience; which equall time, equally bestowes on all men, in those\nthings they equally apply themselves unto. That which may perhaps make\nsuch equality incredible, is but a vain conceipt of ones owne wisdome,\nwhich almost all men think they have in a greater degree, than the\nVulgar; that is, than all men but themselves, and a few others, whom by\nFame, or for concurring with themselves, they approve. For such is the\nnature of men, that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be\nmore witty, or more eloquent, or more learned; Yet they will hardly\nbelieve there be many so wise as themselves: For they see their own wit\nat hand, and other mens at a distance. But this proveth rather that men\nare in that point equall, than unequall. For there is not ordinarily a\ngreater signe of the equall distribution of any thing, than that every\nman is contented with his share.\n\n\n\n\nFrom Equality Proceeds Diffidence\n\nFrom this equality of ability, ariseth equality of hope in the attaining\nof our Ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which\nneverthelesse they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the\nway to their End, (which is principally their owne conservation, and\nsometimes their delectation only,) endeavour to destroy, or subdue one\nan other. And from hence it comes to passe, that where an Invader hath\nno more to feare, than an other mans single power; if one plant, sow,\nbuild, or possesse a convenient Seat, others may probably be expected to\ncome prepared with forces united, to dispossesse, and deprive him, not\nonly of the fruit of his labour, but also of his life, or liberty. And\nthe Invader again is in the like danger of another.\n\n\n\n\nFrom Diffidence Warre\n\nAnd from this diffidence of one another, there is no way for any man to\nsecure himselfe, so reasonable, as Anticipation; that is, by force, or\nwiles, to master the persons of all men he can, so long, till he see no\nother power great enough to endanger him: And this is no more than his\nown conservation requireth, and is generally allowed. Also because there\nbe some, that taking pleasure in contemplating their own power in\nthe acts of conquest, which they pursue farther than their security\nrequires; if others, that otherwise would be glad to be at ease within\nmodest bounds, should not by invasion increase their power, they would\nnot be able, long time, by standing only on their defence, to subsist.\nAnd by consequence, such augmentation of dominion over men, being\nnecessary to a mans conservation, it ought to be allowed him.\n\nAgaine, men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great deale of\ngriefe) in keeping company, where there is no power able to over-awe\nthem all. For every man looketh that his companion should value him, at\nthe same rate he sets upon himselfe: And upon all signes of contempt,\nor undervaluing, naturally endeavours, as far as he dares (which amongst\nthem that have no common power, to keep them in quiet, is far enough\nto make them destroy each other,) to extort a greater value from his\ncontemners, by dommage; and from others, by the example.\n\nSo that in the nature of man, we find three principall causes of\nquarrel. First, Competition; Secondly, Diffidence; Thirdly, Glory.\n\nThe first, maketh men invade for Gain; the second, for Safety; and\nthe third, for Reputation. The first use Violence, to make themselves\nMasters of other mens persons, wives, children, and cattell; the second,\nto defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different\nopinion, and any other signe of undervalue, either direct in their\nPersons, or by reflexion in their Kindred, their Friends, their Nation,\ntheir Profession, or their Name.\n\n\n\n\nOut Of Civil States,\n\nThere Is Alwayes Warre Of Every One Against Every One Hereby it is\nmanifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep\nthem all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre;\nand such a warre, as is of every man, against every man. For WARRE,\nconsisteth not in Battell onely, or the act of fighting; but in a tract\nof time, wherein the Will to contend by Battell is sufficiently known:\nand therefore the notion of Time, is to be considered in the nature of\nWarre; as it is in the nature of Weather. For as the nature of Foule\nweather, lyeth not in a showre or two of rain; but in an inclination\nthereto of many dayes together: So the nature of War, consisteth not in\nactuall fighting; but in the known disposition thereto, during all the\ntime there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is PEACE.\n\n\n\n\nThe Incommodites Of Such A War\n\nWhatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man\nis Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men\nlive without other security, than what their own strength, and their\nown invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is\nno place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and\nconsequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the\ncommodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no\nInstruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force;\nno Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no\nLetters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and\ndanger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty,\nbrutish, and short.\n\nIt may seem strange to some man, that has not well weighed these things;\nthat Nature should thus dissociate, and render men apt to invade,\nand destroy one another: and he may therefore, not trusting to this\nInference, made from the Passions, desire perhaps to have the same\nconfirmed by Experience. Let him therefore consider with himselfe, when\ntaking a journey, he armes himselfe, and seeks to go well accompanied;\nwhen going to sleep, he locks his dores; when even in his house he\nlocks his chests; and this when he knows there bee Lawes, and publike\nOfficers, armed, to revenge all injuries shall bee done him; what\nopinion he has of his fellow subjects, when he rides armed; of his\nfellow Citizens, when he locks his dores; and of his children, and\nservants, when he locks his chests. Does he not there as much accuse\nmankind by his actions, as I do by my words? But neither of us accuse\nmans nature in it. The Desires, and other Passions of man, are in\nthemselves no Sin. No more are the Actions, that proceed from those\nPassions, till they know a Law that forbids them; which till Lawes be\nmade they cannot know: nor can any Law be made, till they have agreed\nupon the Person that shall make it.\n\nIt may peradventure be thought, there was never such a time, nor\ncondition of warre as this; and I believe it was never generally so,\nover all the world: but there are many places, where they live so now.\nFor the savage people in many places of America, except the government\nof small Families, the concord whereof dependeth on naturall lust, have\nno government at all; and live at this day in that brutish manner, as\nI said before. Howsoever, it may be perceived what manner of life there\nwould be, where there were no common Power to feare; by the manner of\nlife, which men that have formerly lived under a peacefull government,\nuse to degenerate into, in a civill Warre.\n\nBut though there had never been any time, wherein particular men were in\na condition of warre one against another; yet in all times, Kings, and\npersons of Soveraigne authority, because of their Independency, are\nin continuall jealousies, and in the state and posture of Gladiators;\nhaving their weapons pointing, and their eyes fixed on one another;\nthat is, their Forts, Garrisons, and Guns upon the Frontiers of their\nKingdomes; and continuall Spyes upon their neighbours; which is a\nposture of War. But because they uphold thereby, the Industry of their\nSubjects; there does not follow from it, that misery, which accompanies\nthe Liberty of particular men.\n\n\n\n\nIn Such A Warre, Nothing Is Unjust\n\nTo this warre of every man against every man, this also is consequent;\nthat nothing can be Unjust. The notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and\nInjustice have there no place. Where there is no common Power, there is\nno Law: where no Law, no Injustice. Force, and Fraud, are in warre the\ntwo Cardinall vertues. Justice, and Injustice are none of the Faculties\nneither of the Body, nor Mind. If they were, they might be in a man that\nwere alone in the world, as well as his Senses, and Passions. They\nare Qualities, that relate to men in Society, not in Solitude. It is\nconsequent also to the same condition, that there be no Propriety, no\nDominion, no Mine and Thine distinct; but onely that to be every mans\nthat he can get; and for so long, as he can keep it. And thus much\nfor the ill condition, which man by meer Nature is actually placed in;\nthough with a possibility to come out of it, consisting partly in the\nPassions, partly in his Reason.\n\n\n\n\nThe Passions That Incline Men To Peace\n\nThe Passions that encline men to Peace, are Feare of Death; Desire of\nsuch things as are necessary to commodious living; and a Hope by their\nIndustry to obtain them. And Reason suggesteth convenient Articles of\nPeace, upon which men may be drawn to agreement. These Articles, are\nthey, which otherwise are called the Lawes of Nature: whereof I shall\nspeak more particularly, in the two following Chapters.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV. OF THE FIRST AND SECOND NATURALL LAWES, AND OF CONTRACTS\n\n\n\n\nRight Of Nature What\n\nThe RIGHT OF NATURE, which Writers commonly call Jus Naturale, is the\nLiberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himselfe, for\nthe preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life;\nand consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own Judgement, and\nReason, hee shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.\n\n\n\n\nLiberty What\n\nBy LIBERTY, is understood, according to the proper signification of the\nword, the absence of externall Impediments: which Impediments, may oft\ntake away part of a mans power to do what hee would; but cannot hinder\nhim from using the power left him, according as his judgement, and\nreason shall dictate to him.\n\n\n\n\nA Law Of Nature What\n\nA LAW OF NATURE, (Lex Naturalis,) is a Precept, or generall Rule,\nfound out by Reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which\nis destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the\nsame; and to omit, that, by which he thinketh it may be best preserved.\nFor though they that speak of this subject, use to confound Jus, and\nLex, Right and Law; yet they ought to be distinguished; because RIGHT,\nconsisteth in liberty to do, or to forbeare; Whereas LAW, determineth,\nand bindeth to one of them: so that Law, and Right, differ as much,\nas Obligation, and Liberty; which in one and the same matter are\ninconsistent.\n\n\n\n\nNaturally Every Man Has Right To Everything\n\nAnd because the condition of Man, (as hath been declared in the\nprecedent Chapter) is a condition of Warre of every one against every\none; in which case every one is governed by his own Reason; and there\nis nothing he can make use of, that may not be a help unto him, in\npreserving his life against his enemyes; It followeth, that in such a\ncondition, every man has a Right to every thing; even to one anothers\nbody. And therefore, as long as this naturall Right of every man to\nevery thing endureth, there can be no security to any man, (how strong\nor wise soever he be,) of living out the time, which Nature ordinarily\nalloweth men to live.\n\n\n\n\nThe Fundamental Law Of Nature\n\nAnd consequently it is a precept, or generall rule of Reason, \"That\nevery man, ought to endeavour Peace, as farre as he has hope of\nobtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use,\nall helps, and advantages of Warre.\" The first branch, of which Rule,\ncontaineth the first, and Fundamentall Law of Nature; which is, \"To seek\nPeace, and follow it.\" The Second, the summe of the Right of Nature;\nwhich is, \"By all means we can, to defend our selves.\"\n\n\n\n\nThe Second Law Of Nature\n\nFrom this Fundamentall Law of Nature, by which men are commanded to\nendeavour Peace, is derived this second Law; \"That a man be willing,\nwhen others are so too, as farre-forth, as for Peace, and defence of\nhimselfe he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all\nthings; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as\nhe would allow other men against himselfe.\" For as long as every man\nholdeth this Right, of doing any thing he liketh; so long are all men in\nthe condition of Warre. But if other men will not lay down their Right,\nas well as he; then there is no Reason for any one, to devest himselfe\nof his: For that were to expose himselfe to Prey, (which no man is bound\nto) rather than to dispose himselfe to Peace. This is that Law of the\nGospell; \"Whatsoever you require that others should do to you, that do\nye to them.\" And that Law of all men, \"Quod tibi feiri non vis, alteri\nne feceris.\"\n\n\n\n\nWhat it is to lay down a Right\n\nTo Lay Downe a mans Right to any thing, is to Devest himselfe of the\nLiberty, of hindring another of the benefit of his own Right to the\nsame. For he that renounceth, or passeth away his Right, giveth not to\nany other man a Right which he had not before; because there is nothing\nto which every man had not Right by Nature: but onely standeth out of\nhis way, that he may enjoy his own originall Right, without hindrance\nfrom him; not without hindrance from another. So that the effect which\nredoundeth to one man, by another mans defect of Right, is but so much\ndiminution of impediments to the use of his own Right originall.\n\n\n\n\nRenouncing (or) Transferring Right What; Obligation Duty Justice\n\nRight is layd aside, either by simply Renouncing it; or by Transferring\nit to another. By Simply RENOUNCING; when he cares not to whom the\nbenefit thereof redoundeth. By TRANSFERRING; when he intendeth the\nbenefit thereof to some certain person, or persons. And when a man hath\nin either manner abandoned, or granted away his Right; then is he said\nto be OBLIGED, or BOUND, not to hinder those, to whom such Right is\ngranted, or abandoned, from the benefit of it: and that he Ought, and it\nhis DUTY, not to make voyd that voluntary act of his own: and that such\nhindrance is INJUSTICE, and INJURY, as being Sine Jure; the Right being\nbefore renounced, or transferred. So that Injury, or Injustice, in\nthe controversies of the world, is somewhat like to that, which in the\ndisputations of Scholers is called Absurdity. For as it is there called\nan Absurdity, to contradict what one maintained in the Beginning: so in\nthe world, it is called Injustice, and Injury, voluntarily to undo that,\nwhich from the beginning he had voluntarily done. The way by which a man\neither simply Renounceth, or Transferreth his Right, is a Declaration,\nor Signification, by some voluntary and sufficient signe, or signes,\nthat he doth so Renounce, or Transferre; or hath so Renounced, or\nTransferred the same, to him that accepteth it. And these Signes are\neither Words onely, or Actions onely; or (as it happeneth most often)\nboth Words and Actions. And the same are the BONDS, by which men are\nbound, and obliged: Bonds, that have their strength, not from their own\nNature, (for nothing is more easily broken then a mans word,) but from\nFeare of some evill consequence upon the rupture.\n\n\n\n\nNot All Rights Are Alienable\n\nWhensoever a man Transferreth his Right, or Renounceth it; it is either\nin consideration of some Right reciprocally transferred to himselfe; or\nfor some other good he hopeth for thereby. For it is a voluntary act:\nand of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some Good To\nHimselfe. And therefore there be some Rights, which no man can be\nunderstood by any words, or other signes, to have abandoned, or\ntransferred. As first a man cannot lay down the right of resisting them,\nthat assault him by force, to take away his life; because he cannot be\nunderstood to ayme thereby, at any Good to himselfe. The same may be\nsayd of Wounds, and Chayns, and Imprisonment; both because there is\nno benefit consequent to such patience; as there is to the patience of\nsuffering another to be wounded, or imprisoned: as also because a man\ncannot tell, when he seeth men proceed against him by violence, whether\nthey intend his death or not. And lastly the motive, and end for which\nthis renouncing, and transferring or Right is introduced, is nothing\nelse but the security of a mans person, in his life, and in the means of\nso preserving life, as not to be weary of it. And therefore if a man by\nwords, or other signes, seem to despoyle himselfe of the End, for which\nthose signes were intended; he is not to be understood as if he meant\nit, or that it was his will; but that he was ignorant of how such words\nand actions were to be interpreted.\n\n\n\n\nContract What\n\nThe mutuall transferring of Right, is that which men call CONTRACT.\n\nThere is difference, between transferring of Right to the Thing; and\ntransferring, or tradition, that is, delivery of the Thing it selfe. For\nthe Thing may be delivered together with the Translation of the Right;\nas in buying and selling with ready mony; or exchange of goods, or\nlands: and it may be delivered some time after.\n\n\n\n\nCovenant What\n\nAgain, one of the Contractors, may deliver the Thing contracted for on\nhis part, and leave the other to perform his part at some determinate\ntime after, and in the mean time be trusted; and then the Contract on\nhis part, is called PACT, or COVENANT: Or both parts may contract now,\nto performe hereafter: in which cases, he that is to performe in time\nto come, being trusted, his performance is called Keeping Of Promise, or\nFaith; and the fayling of performance (if it be voluntary) Violation Of\nFaith.\n\n\n\n\nFree-gift\n\nWhen the transferring of Right, is not mutuall; but one of the parties\ntransferreth, in hope to gain thereby friendship, or service from\nanother, or from his friends; or in hope to gain the reputation of\nCharity, or Magnanimity; or to deliver his mind from the pain of\ncompassion; or in hope of reward in heaven; This is not Contract, but\nGIFT, FREEGIFT, GRACE: which words signifie one and the same thing.\n\n\n\n\nSignes Of Contract Expresse\n\nSignes of Contract, are either Expresse, or By Inference. Expresse, are\nwords spoken with understanding of what they signifie; And such words\nare either of the time Present, or Past; as, I Give, I Grant, I Have\nGiven, I Have Granted, I Will That This Be Yours: Or of the future;\nas, I Will Give, I Will Grant; which words of the future, are called\nPromise.\n\n\n\n\nSignes Of Contract By Inference\n\nSignes by Inference, are sometimes the consequence of Words; sometimes\nthe consequence of Silence; sometimes the consequence of Actions;\nsometimes the consequence of Forbearing an Action: and generally a signe\nby Inference, of any Contract, is whatsoever sufficiently argues the\nwill of the Contractor.\n\n\n\n\nFree Gift Passeth By Words Of The Present Or Past\n\nWords alone, if they be of the time to come, and contain a bare promise,\nare an insufficient signe of a Free-gift and therefore not obligatory.\nFor if they be of the time to Come, as, To Morrow I Will Give, they\nare a signe I have not given yet, and consequently that my right is not\ntransferred, but remaineth till I transferre it by some other Act. But\nif the words be of the time Present, or Past, as, \"I have given, or do\ngive to be delivered to morrow,\" then is my to morrows Right given away\nto day; and that by the vertue of the words, though there were no\nother argument of my will. And there is a great difference in the\nsignification of these words, Volos Hoc Tuum Esse Cras, and Cros Dabo;\nthat is between \"I will that this be thine to morrow,\" and, \"I will\ngive it to thee to morrow:\" For the word I Will, in the former manner\nof speech, signifies an act of the will Present; but in the later, it\nsignifies a promise of an act of the will to Come: and therefore the\nformer words, being of the Present, transferre a future right; the\nlater, that be of the Future, transferre nothing. But if there be other\nsignes of the Will to transferre a Right, besides Words; then, though\nthe gift be Free, yet may the Right be understood to passe by words of\nthe future: as if a man propound a Prize to him that comes first to the\nend of a race, The gift is Free; and though the words be of the\nFuture, yet the Right passeth: for if he would not have his words so be\nunderstood, he should not have let them runne.\n\nSignes Of Contract Are Words Both Of The Past, Present, and Future In\nContracts, the right passeth, not onely where the words are of the time\nPresent, or Past; but also where they are of the Future; because all\nContract is mutuall translation, or change of Right; and therefore he\nthat promiseth onely, because he hath already received the benefit for\nwhich he promiseth, is to be understood as if he intended the Right\nshould passe: for unlesse he had been content to have his words so\nunderstood, the other would not have performed his part first. And\nfor that cause, in buying, and selling, and other acts of Contract, A\nPromise is equivalent to a Covenant; and therefore obligatory.\n\n\n\n\nMerit What\n\nHe that performeth first in the case of a Contract, is said to MERIT\nthat which he is to receive by the performance of the other; and he hath\nit as Due. Also when a Prize is propounded to many, which is to be given\nto him onely that winneth; or mony is thrown amongst many, to be enjoyed\nby them that catch it; though this be a Free Gift; yet so to Win, or\nso to Catch, is to Merit, and to have it as DUE. For the Right is\ntransferred in the Propounding of the Prize, and in throwing down the\nmony; though it be not determined to whom, but by the Event of the\ncontention. But there is between these two sorts of Merit, this\ndifference, that In Contract, I Merit by vertue of my own power, and the\nContractors need; but in this case of Free Gift, I am enabled to\nMerit onely by the benignity of the Giver; In Contract, I merit at The\nContractors hand that hee should depart with his right; In this case of\ngift, I Merit not that the giver should part with his right; but that\nwhen he has parted with it, it should be mine, rather than anothers.\nAnd this I think to be the meaning of that distinction of the Schooles,\nbetween Meritum Congrui, and Meritum Condigni. For God Almighty, having\npromised Paradise to those men (hoodwinkt with carnall desires,) that\ncan walk through this world according to the Precepts, and Limits\nprescribed by him; they say, he that shall so walk, shall Merit Paradise\nEx Congruo. But because no man can demand a right to it, by his own\nRighteousnesse, or any other power in himselfe, but by the Free Grace of\nGod onely; they say, no man can Merit Paradise Ex Condigno. This I say,\nI think is the meaning of that distinction; but because Disputers do not\nagree upon the signification of their own termes of Art, longer than it\nserves their turn; I will not affirme any thing of their meaning:\nonely this I say; when a gift is given indefinitely, as a prize to be\ncontended for, he that winneth Meriteth, and may claime the Prize as\nDue.\n\n\n\n\nCovenants Of Mutuall Trust, When Invalid\n\nIf a Covenant be made, wherein neither of the parties performe\npresently, but trust one another; in the condition of meer Nature,\n(which is a condition of Warre of every man against every man,) upon\nany reasonable suspition, it is Voyd; But if there be a common Power set\nover them bothe, with right and force sufficient to compell performance;\nit is not Voyd. For he that performeth first, has no assurance the other\nwill performe after; because the bonds of words are too weak to bridle\nmens ambition, avarice, anger, and other Passions, without the feare of\nsome coerceive Power; which in the condition of meer Nature, where all\nmen are equall, and judges of the justnesse of their own fears cannot\npossibly be supposed. And therefore he which performeth first, does\nbut betray himselfe to his enemy; contrary to the Right (he can never\nabandon) of defending his life, and means of living.\n\nBut in a civill estate, where there is a Power set up to constrain\nthose that would otherwise violate their faith, that feare is no more\nreasonable; and for that cause, he which by the Covenant is to perform\nfirst, is obliged so to do.\n\nThe cause of Feare, which maketh such a Covenant invalid, must be\nalwayes something arising after the Covenant made; as some new fact,\nor other signe of the Will not to performe; else it cannot make the\nCovenant Voyd. For that which could not hinder a man from promising,\nought not to be admitted as a hindrance of performing.\n\n\n\n\nRight To The End, Containeth Right To The Means\n\nHe that transferreth any Right, transferreth the Means of enjoying it,\nas farre as lyeth in his power. As he that selleth Land, is understood\nto transferre the Herbage, and whatsoever growes upon it; Nor can he\nthat sells a Mill turn away the Stream that drives it. And they that\ngive to a man The Right of government in Soveraignty, are understood\nto give him the right of levying mony to maintain Souldiers; and of\nappointing Magistrates for the administration of Justice.\n\n\n\n\nNo Covenant With Beasts\n\nTo make Covenant with bruit Beasts, is impossible; because not\nunderstanding our speech, they understand not, nor accept of any\ntranslation of Right; nor can translate any Right to another; and\nwithout mutuall acceptation, there is no Covenant.\n\n\n\n\nNor With God Without Speciall Revelation\n\nTo make Covenant with God, is impossible, but by Mediation of such\nas God speaketh to, either by Revelation supernaturall, or by his\nLieutenants that govern under him, and in his Name; For otherwise we\nknow not whether our Covenants be accepted, or not. And therefore they\nthat Vow any thing contrary to any law of Nature, Vow in vain; as being\na thing unjust to pay such Vow. And if it be a thing commanded by the\nLaw of Nature, it is not the Vow, but the Law that binds them.\n\n\n\n\nNo Covenant, But Of Possible And Future\n\nThe matter, or subject of a Covenant, is alwayes something that falleth\nunder deliberation; (For to Covenant, is an act of the Will; that is to\nsay an act, and the last act, of deliberation;) and is therefore alwayes\nunderstood to be something to come; and which is judged Possible for him\nthat Covenanteth, to performe.\n\nAnd therefore, to promise that which is known to be Impossible, is no\nCovenant. But if that prove impossible afterwards, which before was\nthought possible, the Covenant is valid, and bindeth, (though not to the\nthing it selfe,) yet to the value; or, if that also be impossible, to\nthe unfeigned endeavour of performing as much as is possible; for to\nmore no man can be obliged.\n\n\n\n\nCovenants How Made Voyd\n\nMen are freed of their Covenants two wayes; by Performing; or by being\nForgiven. For Performance, is the naturall end of obligation; and\nForgivenesse, the restitution of liberty; as being a retransferring of\nthat Right, in which the obligation consisted.\n\n\n\n\nCovenants Extorted By Feare Are Valide\n\nCovenants entred into by fear, in the condition of meer Nature, are\nobligatory. For example, if I Covenant to pay a ransome, or service for\nmy life, to an enemy; I am bound by it. For it is a Contract, wherein\none receiveth the benefit of life; the other is to receive mony,\nor service for it; and consequently, where no other Law (as in the\ncondition, of meer Nature) forbiddeth the performance, the Covenant\nis valid. Therefore Prisoners of warre, if trusted with the payment of\ntheir Ransome, are obliged to pay it; And if a weaker Prince, make a\ndisadvantageous peace with a stronger, for feare; he is bound to keep\nit; unlesse (as hath been sayd before) there ariseth some new, and just\ncause of feare, to renew the war. And even in Common-wealths, if I be\nforced to redeem my selfe from a Theefe by promising him mony, I am\nbound to pay it, till the Civill Law discharge me. For whatsoever I may\nlawfully do without Obligation, the same I may lawfully Covenant to do\nthrough feare: and what I lawfully Covenant, I cannot lawfully break.\n\n\n\n\nThe Former Covenant To One, Makes Voyd The Later To Another\n\nA former Covenant, makes voyd a later. For a man that hath passed away\nhis Right to one man to day, hath it not to passe to morrow to another:\nand therefore the later promise passeth no Right, but is null.\n\n\n\n\nA Mans Covenant Not To Defend Himselfe, Is Voyd\n\nA Covenant not to defend my selfe from force, by force, is alwayes voyd.\nFor (as I have shewed before) no man can transferre, or lay down his\nRight to save himselfe from Death, Wounds, and Imprisonment, (the\navoyding whereof is the onely End of laying down any Right,)\nand therefore the promise of not resisting force, in no Covenant\ntransferreth any right; nor is obliging. For though a man may Covenant\nthus, \"Unlesse I do so, or so, kill me;\" he cannot Covenant thus \"Unless\nI do so, or so, I will not resist you, when you come to kill me.\" For\nman by nature chooseth the lesser evill, which is danger of death in\nresisting; rather than the greater, which is certain and present death\nin not resisting. And this is granted to be true by all men, in\nthat they lead Criminals to Execution, and Prison, with armed men,\nnotwithstanding that such Criminals have consented to the Law, by which\nthey are condemned.\n\n\n\n\nNo Man Obliged To Accuse Himselfe\n\nA Covenant to accuse ones Selfe, without assurance of pardon, is\nlikewise invalide. For in the condition of Nature, where every man is\nJudge, there is no place for Accusation: and in the Civill State, the\nAccusation is followed with Punishment; which being Force, a man is\nnot obliged not to resist. The same is also true, of the Accusation of\nthose, by whose Condemnation a man falls into misery; as of a Father,\nWife, or Benefactor. For the Testimony of such an Accuser, if it be not\nwillingly given, is praesumed to be corrupted by Nature; and therefore\nnot to be received: and where a mans Testimony is not to be credited,\nhis not bound to give it. Also Accusations upon Torture, are not to\nbe reputed as Testimonies. For Torture is to be used but as means of\nconjecture, and light, in the further examination, and search of truth;\nand what is in that case confessed, tendeth to the ease of him that is\nTortured; not to the informing of the Torturers: and therefore ought\nnot to have the credit of a sufficient Testimony: for whether he deliver\nhimselfe by true, or false Accusation, he does it by the Right of\npreserving his own life.\n\n\n\n\nThe End Of An Oath; The Forme Of As Oath\n\nThe force of Words, being (as I have formerly noted) too weak to hold\nmen to the performance of their Covenants; there are in mans nature, but\ntwo imaginable helps to strengthen it. And those are either a Feare\nof the consequence of breaking their word; or a Glory, or Pride in\nappearing not to need to breake it. This later is a Generosity too\nrarely found to be presumed on, especially in the pursuers of Wealth,\nCommand, or sensuall Pleasure; which are the greatest part of Mankind.\nThe Passion to be reckoned upon, is Fear; whereof there be two very\ngenerall Objects: one, the Power of Spirits Invisible; the other, the\nPower of those men they shall therein Offend. Of these two, though the\nformer be the greater Power, yet the feare of the later is commonly\nthe greater Feare. The Feare of the former is in every man, his own\nReligion: which hath place in the nature of man before Civill Society.\nThe later hath not so; at least not place enough, to keep men to their\npromises; because in the condition of meer Nature, the inequality of\nPower is not discerned, but by the event of Battell. So that before the\ntime of Civill Society, or in the interruption thereof by Warre, there\nis nothing can strengthen a Covenant of Peace agreed on, against the\ntemptations of Avarice, Ambition, Lust, or other strong desire, but the\nfeare of that Invisible Power, which they every one Worship as God; and\nFeare as a Revenger of their perfidy. All therefore that can be done\nbetween two men not subject to Civill Power, is to put one another\nto swear by the God he feareth: Which Swearing or OATH, is a Forme Of\nSpeech, Added To A Promise; By Which He That Promiseth, Signifieth, That\nUnlesse He Performe, He Renounceth The Mercy Of His God, Or Calleth To\nHim For Vengeance On Himselfe. Such was the Heathen Forme, \"Let Jupiter\nkill me else, as I kill this Beast.\" So is our Forme, \"I shall do thus,\nand thus, so help me God.\" And this, with the Rites and Ceremonies,\nwhich every one useth in his own Religion, that the feare of breaking\nfaith might be the greater.\n\n\n\n\nNo Oath, But By God\n\nBy this it appears, that an Oath taken according to any other Forme, or\nRite, then his, that sweareth, is in vain; and no Oath: And there is no\nSwearing by any thing which the Swearer thinks not God. For though men\nhave sometimes used to swear by their Kings, for feare, or flattery; yet\nthey would have it thereby understood, they attributed to them Divine\nhonour. And that Swearing unnecessarily by God, is but prophaning of his\nname: and Swearing by other things, as men do in common discourse, is\nnot Swearing, but an impious Custome, gotten by too much vehemence of\ntalking.\n\n\n\n\nAn Oath Addes Nothing To The Obligation\n\nIt appears also, that the Oath addes nothing to the Obligation. For a\nCovenant, if lawfull, binds in the sight of God, without the Oath,\nas much as with it; if unlawfull, bindeth not at all; though it be\nconfirmed with an Oath.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV. OF OTHER LAWES OF NATURE\n\n\n\n\nThe Third Law Of Nature, Justice\n\nFrom that law of Nature, by which we are obliged to transferre to\nanother, such Rights, as being retained, hinder the peace of Mankind,\nthere followeth a Third; which is this, That Men Performe Their\nCovenants Made: without which, Covenants are in vain, and but Empty\nwords; and the Right of all men to all things remaining, wee are still\nin the condition of Warre.\n\n\n\n\nJustice And Injustice What\n\nAnd in this law of Nature, consisteth the Fountain and Originall of\nJUSTICE. For where no Covenant hath preceded, there hath no Right been\ntransferred, and every man has right to every thing; and consequently,\nno action can be Unjust. But when a Covenant is made, then to break it\nis Unjust: And the definition of INJUSTICE, is no other than The Not\nPerformance Of Covenant. And whatsoever is not Unjust, is Just.\n\nJustice And Propriety Begin With The Constitution of Common-wealth\nBut because Covenants of mutuall trust, where there is a feare of not\nperformance on either part, (as hath been said in the former Chapter,)\nare invalid; though the Originall of Justice be the making of Covenants;\nyet Injustice actually there can be none, till the cause of such feare\nbe taken away; which while men are in the naturall condition of Warre,\ncannot be done. Therefore before the names of Just, and Unjust can have\nplace, there must be some coercive Power, to compell men equally to\nthe performance of their Covenants, by the terrour of some punishment,\ngreater than the benefit they expect by the breach of their Covenant;\nand to make good that Propriety, which by mutuall Contract men acquire,\nin recompence of the universall Right they abandon: and such power there\nis none before the erection of a Common-wealth. And this is also to be\ngathered out of the ordinary definition of Justice in the Schooles: For\nthey say, that \"Justice is the constant Will of giving to every man his\nown.\" And therefore where there is no Own, that is, no Propriety, there\nis no Injustice; and where there is no coerceive Power erected, that is,\nwhere there is no Common-wealth, there is no Propriety; all men having\nRight to all things: Therefore where there is no Common-wealth, there\nnothing is Unjust. So that the nature of Justice, consisteth in keeping\nof valid Covenants: but the Validity of Covenants begins not but with\nthe Constitution of a Civill Power, sufficient to compell men to keep\nthem: And then it is also that Propriety begins.\n\n\n\n\nJustice Not Contrary To Reason\n\nThe Foole hath sayd in his heart, there is no such thing as Justice;\nand sometimes also with his tongue; seriously alleaging, that every mans\nconservation, and contentment, being committed to his own care, there\ncould be no reason, why every man might not do what he thought conduced\nthereunto; and therefore also to make, or not make; keep, or not keep\nCovenants, was not against Reason, when it conduced to ones benefit.\nHe does not therein deny, that there be Covenants; and that they are\nsometimes broken, sometimes kept; and that such breach of them may\nbe called Injustice, and the observance of them Justice: but he\nquestioneth, whether Injustice, taking away the feare of God, (for the\nsame Foole hath said in his heart there is no God,) may not sometimes\nstand with that Reason, which dictateth to every man his own good; and\nparticularly then, when it conduceth to such a benefit, as shall put a\nman in a condition, to neglect not onely the dispraise, and revilings,\nbut also the power of other men. The Kingdome of God is gotten by\nviolence; but what if it could be gotten by unjust violence? were it\nagainst Reason so to get it, when it is impossible to receive hurt by\nit? and if it be not against Reason, it is not against Justice; or else\nJustice is not to be approved for good. From such reasoning as this,\nSuccesfull wickednesse hath obtained the Name of Vertue; and some that\nin all other things have disallowed the violation of Faith; yet have\nallowed it, when it is for the getting of a Kingdome. And the Heathen\nthat believed, that Saturn was deposed by his son Jupiter, believed\nneverthelesse the same Jupiter to be the avenger of Injustice: Somewhat\nlike to a piece of Law in Cokes Commentaries on Litleton; where he\nsayes, If the right Heire of the Crown be attainted of Treason; yet the\nCrown shall descend to him, and Eo Instante the Atteynder be voyd; From\nwhich instances a man will be very prone to inferre; that when the Heire\napparent of a Kingdome, shall kill him that is in possession, though his\nfather; you may call it Injustice, or by what other name you will; yet\nit can never be against Reason, seeing all the voluntary actions of\nmen tend to the benefit of themselves; and those actions are most\nReasonable, that conduce most to their ends. This specious reasoning is\nnevertheless false.\n\nFor the question is not of promises mutuall, where there is no security\nof performance on either side; as when there is no Civill Power erected\nover the parties promising; for such promises are no Covenants: But\neither where one of the parties has performed already; or where there\nis a Power to make him performe; there is the question whether it be\nagainst reason, that is, against the benefit of the other to performe,\nor not. And I say it is not against reason. For the manifestation\nwhereof, we are to consider; First, that when a man doth a thing, which\nnotwithstanding any thing can be foreseen, and reckoned on, tendeth to\nhis own destruction, howsoever some accident which he could not expect,\narriving may turne it to his benefit; yet such events do not make it\nreasonably or wisely done. Secondly, that in a condition of Warre,\nwherein every man to every man, for want of a common Power to keep them\nall in awe, is an Enemy, there is no man can hope by his own strength,\nor wit, to defend himselfe from destruction, without the help\nof Confederates; where every one expects the same defence by the\nConfederation, that any one else does: and therefore he which declares\nhe thinks it reason to deceive those that help him, can in reason expect\nno other means of safety, than what can be had from his own single\nPower. He therefore that breaketh his Covenant, and consequently\ndeclareth that he thinks he may with reason do so, cannot be received\ninto any Society, that unite themselves for Peace and defence, but\nby the errour of them that receive him; nor when he is received, be\nretayned in it, without seeing the danger of their errour; which errours\na man cannot reasonably reckon upon as the means of his security; and\ntherefore if he be left, or cast out of Society, he perisheth; and if he\nlive in Society, it is by the errours of other men, which he could not\nforesee, nor reckon upon; and consequently against the reason of his\npreservation; and so, as all men that contribute not to his destruction,\nforbear him onely out of ignorance of what is good for themselves.\n\nAs for the Instance of gaining the secure and perpetuall felicity of\nHeaven, by any way; it is frivolous: there being but one way imaginable;\nand that is not breaking, but keeping of Covenant.\n\nAnd for the other Instance of attaining Soveraignty by Rebellion; it is\nmanifest, that though the event follow, yet because it cannot reasonably\nbe expected, but rather the contrary; and because by gaining it so,\nothers are taught to gain the same in like manner, the attempt thereof\nis against reason. Justice therefore, that is to say, Keeping of\nCovenant, is a Rule of Reason, by which we are forbidden to do any thing\ndestructive to our life; and consequently a Law of Nature.\n\nThere be some that proceed further; and will not have the Law of Nature,\nto be those Rules which conduce to the preservation of mans life on\nearth; but to the attaining of an eternall felicity after death; to\nwhich they think the breach of Covenant may conduce; and consequently\nbe just and reasonable; (such are they that think it a work of merit\nto kill, or depose, or rebell against, the Soveraigne Power constituted\nover them by their own consent.) But because there is no naturall\nknowledge of mans estate after death; much lesse of the reward that is\nthen to be given to breach of Faith; but onely a beliefe grounded upon\nother mens saying, that they know it supernaturally, or that they know\nthose, that knew them, that knew others, that knew it supernaturally;\nBreach of Faith cannot be called a Precept of Reason, or Nature.\n\n\n\n\nCovenants Not Discharged By The Vice Of The Person To Whom Made\n\nOthers, that allow for a Law of Nature, the keeping of Faith, do\nneverthelesse make exception of certain persons; as Heretiques, and\nsuch as use not to performe their Covenant to others: And this also is\nagainst reason. For if any fault of a man, be sufficient to discharge\nour Covenant made; the same ought in reason to have been sufficient to\nhave hindred the making of it.\n\n\n\n\nJustice Of Men, And Justice Of Actions What\n\nThe names of Just, and Unjust, when they are attributed to Men, signifie\none thing; and when they are attributed to Actions, another. When they\nare attributed to Men, they signifie Conformity, or Inconformity of\nManners, to Reason. But when they are attributed to Actions, they\nsignifie the Conformity, or Inconformity to Reason, not of Manners, or\nmanner of life, but of particular Actions. A Just man therefore, is he\nthat taketh all the care he can, that his Actions may be all Just: and\nan Unjust man, is he that neglecteth it. And such men are more often\nin our Language stiled by the names of Righteous, and Unrighteous; then\nJust, and Unjust; though the meaning be the same. Therefore a Righteous\nman, does not lose that Title, by one, or a few unjust Actions, that\nproceed from sudden Passion, or mistake of Things, or Persons: nor does\nan Unrighteous man, lose his character, for such Actions, as he does,\nof forbeares to do, for feare: because his Will is not framed by the\nJustice, but by the apparant benefit of what he is to do. That which\ngives to humane Actions the relish of Justice, is a certain Noblenesse\nor Gallantnesse of courage, (rarely found,) by which a man scorns to\nbe beholding for the contentment of his life, to fraud, or breach of\npromise. This Justice of the Manners, is that which is meant, where\nJustice is called a Vertue; and Injustice a Vice.\n\nBut the Justice of Actions denominates men, not Just, but Guiltlesse;\nand the Injustice of the same, (which is also called Injury,) gives them\nbut the name of Guilty.\n\n\n\n\nJustice Of Manners, And Justice Of Actions\n\nAgain, the Injustice of Manners, is the disposition, or aptitude to\ndo Injurie; and is Injustice before it proceed to Act; and without\nsupposing any individuall person injured. But the Injustice of an\nAction, (that is to say Injury,) supposeth an individuall person\nInjured; namely him, to whom the Covenant was made: And therefore many\ntimes the injury is received by one man, when the dammage redoundeth\nto another. As when The Master commandeth his servant to give mony to a\nstranger; if it be not done, the Injury is done to the Master, whom\nhe had before Covenanted to obey; but the dammage redoundeth to the\nstranger, to whom he had no Obligation; and therefore could not Injure\nhim. And so also in Common-wealths, private men may remit to one another\ntheir debts; but not robberies or other violences, whereby they are\nendammaged; because the detaining of Debt, is an Injury to themselves;\nbut Robbery and Violence, are Injuries to the Person of the\nCommon-wealth.\n\n\n\n\nNothing Done To A Man, By His Own Consent Can Be Injury\n\nWhatsoever is done to a man, conformable to his own Will signified to\nthe doer, is no Injury to him. For if he that doeth it, hath not passed\naway his originall right to do what he please, by some Antecedent\nCovenant, there is no breach of Covenant; and therefore no Injury done\nhim. And if he have; then his Will to have it done being signified, is a\nrelease of that Covenant; and so again there is no Injury done him.\n\n\n\n\nJustice Commutative, And Distributive\n\nJustice of Actions, is by Writers divided into Commutative, and\nDistributive; and the former they say consisteth in proportion\nArithmeticall; the later in proportion Geometricall. Commutative\ntherefore, they place in the equality of value of the things contracted\nfor; And Distributive, in the distribution of equall benefit, to men of\nequall merit. As if it were Injustice to sell dearer than we buy; or to\ngive more to a man than he merits. The value of all things contracted\nfor, is measured by the Appetite of the Contractors: and therefore the\njust value, is that which they be contented to give. And Merit (besides\nthat which is by Covenant, where the performance on one part, meriteth\nthe performance of the other part, and falls under Justice Commutative,\nnot Distributive,) is not due by Justice; but is rewarded of Grace\nonely. And therefore this distinction, in the sense wherein it useth to\nbe expounded, is not right. To speak properly, Commutative Justice,\nis the Justice of a Contractor; that is, a Performance of Covenant,\nin Buying, and Selling; Hiring, and Letting to Hire; Lending, and\nBorrowing; Exchanging, Bartering, and other acts of Contract.\n\nAnd Distributive Justice, the Justice of an Arbitrator; that is to say,\nthe act of defining what is Just. Wherein, (being trusted by them that\nmake him Arbitrator,) if he performe his Trust, he is said to distribute\nto every man his own: and his is indeed Just Distribution, and may\nbe called (though improperly) Distributive Justice; but more properly\nEquity; which also is a Law of Nature, as shall be shewn in due place.\n\n\n\n\nThe Fourth Law Of Nature, Gratitude\n\nAs Justice dependeth on Antecedent Covenant; so does Gratitude depend\non Antecedent Grace; that is to say, Antecedent Free-gift: and is the\nfourth Law of Nature; which may be conceived in this Forme, \"That a man\nwhich receiveth Benefit from another of meer Grace, Endeavour that he\nwhich giveth it, have no reasonable cause to repent him of his good\nwill.\" For no man giveth, but with intention of Good to himselfe;\nbecause Gift is Voluntary; and of all Voluntary Acts, the Object is to\nevery man his own Good; of which if men see they shall be frustrated,\nthere will be no beginning of benevolence, or trust; nor consequently of\nmutuall help; nor of reconciliation of one man to another; and therefore\nthey are to remain still in the condition of War; which is contrary to\nthe first and Fundamentall Law of Nature, which commandeth men to Seek\nPeace. The breach of this Law, is called Ingratitude; and hath the same\nrelation to Grace, that Injustice hath to Obligation by Covenant.\n\n\n\n\nThe Fifth, Mutuall accommodation, or Compleasance\n\nA fifth Law of Nature, is COMPLEASANCE; that is to say, \"That every\nman strive to accommodate himselfe to the rest.\" For the understanding\nwhereof, we may consider, that there is in mens aptnesse to Society;\na diversity of Nature, rising from their diversity of Affections; not\nunlike to that we see in stones brought together for building of an\nAedifice. For as that stone which by the asperity, and irregularity of\nFigure, takes more room from others, than it selfe fills; and for\nthe hardnesse, cannot be easily made plain, and thereby hindereth the\nbuilding, is by the builders cast away as unprofitable, and troublesome:\nso also, a man that by asperity of Nature, will strive to retain those\nthings which to himselfe are superfluous, and to others necessary; and\nfor the stubbornness of his Passions, cannot be corrected, is to be\nleft, or cast out of Society, as combersome thereunto. For seeing every\nman, not onely by Right, but also by necessity of Nature, is supposed\nto endeavour all he can, to obtain that which is necessary for his\nconservation; He that shall oppose himselfe against it, for things\nsuperfluous, is guilty of the warre that thereupon is to follow; and\ntherefore doth that, which is contrary to the fundamentall Law of\nNature, which commandeth To Seek Peace. The observers of this Law,\nmay be called SOCIABLE, (the Latines call them Commodi;) The contrary,\nStubborn, Insociable, Froward, Intractable.\n\n\n\n\nThe Sixth, Facility To Pardon\n\nA sixth Law of Nature is this, \"That upon caution of the Future time,\na man ought to pardon the offences past of them that repenting, desire\nit.\" For PARDON, is nothing but granting of Peace; which though granted\nto them that persevere in their hostility, be not Peace, but Feare; yet\nnot granted to them that give caution of the Future time, is signe of an\naversion to Peace; and therefore contrary to the Law of Nature.\n\n\n\n\nThe Seventh, That In Revenges, Men Respect Onely The Future Good\n\nA seventh is, \" That in Revenges, (that is, retribution of evil for\nevil,) Men look not at the greatnesse of the evill past, but the\ngreatnesse of the good to follow.\" Whereby we are forbidden to inflict\npunishment with any other designe, than for correction of the offender,\nor direction of others. For this Law is consequent to the next before\nit, that commandeth Pardon, upon security of the Future Time. Besides,\nRevenge without respect to the Example, and profit to come, is a\ntriumph, or glorying in the hurt of another, tending to no end; (for the\nEnd is alwayes somewhat to Come;) and glorying to no end, is vain-glory,\nand contrary to reason; and to hurt without reason, tendeth to the\nintroduction of Warre; which is against the Law of Nature; and is\ncommonly stiled by the name of Cruelty.\n\n\n\n\nThe Eighth, Against Contumely\n\nAnd because all signes of hatred, or contempt, provoke to fight;\ninsomuch as most men choose rather to hazard their life, than not to be\nrevenged; we may in the eighth place, for a Law of Nature set down this\nPrecept, \"That no man by deed, word, countenance, or gesture, declare\nHatred, or Contempt of another.\" The breach of which Law, is commonly\ncalled Contumely.\n\n\n\n\nThe Ninth, Against Pride\n\nThe question who is the better man, has no place in the condition of\nmeer Nature; where, (as has been shewn before,) all men are equall. The\ninequallity that now is, has been introduced by the Lawes civill. I know\nthat Aristotle in the first booke of his Politiques, for a foundation of\nhis doctrine, maketh men by Nature, some more worthy to Command, meaning\nthe wiser sort (such as he thought himselfe to be for his Philosophy;)\nothers to Serve, (meaning those that had strong bodies, but were not\nPhilosophers as he;) as if Master and Servant were not introduced by\nconsent of men, but by difference of Wit; which is not only against\nreason; but also against experience. For there are very few so foolish,\nthat had not rather governe themselves, than be governed by others:\nNor when the wise in their own conceit, contend by force, with them who\ndistrust their owne wisdome, do they alwaies, or often, or almost at any\ntime, get the Victory. If Nature therefore have made men equall, that\nequalitie is to be acknowledged; or if Nature have made men unequall;\nyet because men that think themselves equall, will not enter into\nconditions of Peace, but upon Equall termes, such equalitie must be\nadmitted. And therefore for the ninth Law of Nature, I put this, \"That\nevery man acknowledge other for his Equall by Nature.\" The breach of\nthis Precept is Pride.\n\n\n\n\nThe Tenth Against Arrogance\n\nOn this law, dependeth another, \"That at the entrance into conditions of\nPeace, no man require to reserve to himselfe any Right, which he is not\ncontent should be reserved to every one of the rest.\" As it is necessary\nfor all men that seek peace, to lay down certaine Rights of Nature; that\nis to say, not to have libertie to do all they list: so is it necessarie\nfor mans life, to retaine some; as right to governe their owne bodies;\nenjoy aire, water, motion, waies to go from place to place; and all\nthings else without which a man cannot live, or not live well. If in\nthis case, at the making of Peace, men require for themselves, that\nwhich they would not have to be granted to others, they do contrary\nto the precedent law, that commandeth the acknowledgement of naturall\nequalitie, and therefore also against the law of Nature. The observers\nof this law, are those we call Modest, and the breakers Arrogant Men.\nThe Greeks call the violation of this law pleonexia; that is, a desire\nof more than their share.\n\n\n\n\nThe Eleventh Equity\n\nAlso \"If a man be trusted to judge between man and man,\" it is a precept\nof the Law of Nature, \"that he deale Equally between them.\" For without\nthat, the Controversies of men cannot be determined but by Warre.\nHe therefore that is partiall in judgment, doth what in him lies, to\ndeterre men from the use of Judges, and Arbitrators; and consequently,\n(against the fundamentall Lawe of Nature) is the cause of Warre.\n\nThe observance of this law, from the equall distribution to each man, of\nthat which in reason belongeth to him, is called EQUITY, and (as I have\nsayd before) distributive justice: the violation, Acception Of Persons,\nProsopolepsia.\n\n\n\n\nThe Twelfth, Equall Use Of Things Common\n\nAnd from this followeth another law, \"That such things as cannot be\ndivided, be enjoyed in Common, if it can be; and if the quantity of the\nthing permit, without Stint; otherwise Proportionably to the number of\nthem that have Right.\" For otherwise the distribution is Unequall, and\ncontrary to Equitie.\n\n\n\n\nThe Thirteenth, Of Lot\n\nBut some things there be, that can neither be divided, nor enjoyed in\ncommon. Then, The Law of Nature, which prescribeth Equity, requireth,\n\"That the Entire Right; or else, (making the use alternate,) the First\nPossession, be determined by Lot.\" For equall distribution, is of\nthe Law of Nature; and other means of equall distribution cannot be\nimagined.\n\n\n\n\nThe Fourteenth, Of Primogeniture, And First Seising\n\nOf Lots there be two sorts, Arbitrary, and Naturall. Arbitrary, is\nthat which is agreed on by the Competitors; Naturall, is either\nPrimogeniture, (which the Greek calls Kleronomia, which signifies, Given\nby Lot;) or First Seisure.\n\nAnd therefore those things which cannot be enjoyed in common, nor\ndivided, ought to be adjudged to the First Possessor; and is some cases\nto the First-Borne, as acquired by Lot.\n\n\n\n\nThe Fifteenth, Of Mediators\n\nIt is also a Law of Nature, \"That all men that mediate Peace, be allowed\nsafe Conduct.\" For the Law that commandeth Peace, as the End, commandeth\nIntercession, as the Means; and to Intercession the Means is safe\nConduct.\n\n\n\n\nThe Sixteenth, Of Submission To Arbitrement\n\nAnd because, though men be never so willing to observe these Lawes,\nthere may neverthelesse arise questions concerning a mans action; First,\nwhether it were done, or not done; Secondly (if done) whether against\nthe Law, or not against the Law; the former whereof, is called a\nquestion Of Fact; the later a question Of Right; therefore unlesse the\nparties to the question, Covenant mutually to stand to the sentence\nof another, they are as farre from Peace as ever. This other, to whose\nSentence they submit, is called an ARBITRATOR. And therefore it is of\nthe Law of Nature, \"That they that are at controversie, submit their\nRight to the judgement of an Arbitrator.\"\n\n\n\n\nThe Seventeenth, No Man Is His Own Judge\n\nAnd seeing every man is presumed to do all things in order to his own\nbenefit, no man is a fit Arbitrator in his own cause: and if he were\nnever so fit; yet Equity allowing to each party equall benefit, if one\nbe admitted to be Judge, the other is to be admitted also; & so the\ncontroversie, that is, the cause of War, remains, against the Law of\nNature.\n\n\n\n\nThe Eighteenth, No Man To Be Judge, That Has In Him Cause Of Partiality\n\nFor the same reason no man in any Cause ought to be received for\nArbitrator, to whom greater profit, or honour, or pleasure apparently\nariseth out of the victory of one party, than of the other: for he hath\ntaken (though an unavoydable bribe, yet) a bribe; and no man can be\nobliged to trust him. And thus also the controversie, and the condition\nof War remaineth, contrary to the Law of Nature.\n\n\n\n\nThe Nineteenth, Of Witnesse\n\nAnd in a controversie of Fact, the Judge being to give no more credit\nto one, than to the other, (if there be no other Arguments) must give\ncredit to a third; or to a third and fourth; or more: For else the\nquestion is undecided, and left to force, contrary to the Law of Nature.\n\nThese are the Lawes of Nature, dictating Peace, for a means of the\nconservation of men in multitudes; and which onely concern the doctrine\nof Civill Society. There be other things tending to the destruction of\nparticular men; as Drunkenness, and all other parts of Intemperance;\nwhich may therefore also be reckoned amongst those things which the Law\nof Nature hath forbidden; but are not necessary to be mentioned, nor are\npertinent enough to this place.\n\n\n\n\nA Rule, By Which The Laws Of Nature May Easily Be Examined\n\nAnd though this may seem too subtile a deduction of the Lawes of Nature,\nto be taken notice of by all men; whereof the most part are too busie in\ngetting food, and the rest too negligent to understand; yet to leave\nall men unexcusable, they have been contracted into one easie sum,\nintelligible even to the meanest capacity; and that is, \"Do not that to\nanother, which thou wouldest not have done to thy selfe;\" which sheweth\nhim, that he has no more to do in learning the Lawes of Nature, but,\nwhen weighing the actions of other men with his own, they seem too\nheavy, to put them into the other part of the ballance, and his own into\ntheir place, that his own passions, and selfe-love, may adde nothing to\nthe weight; and then there is none of these Lawes of Nature that will\nnot appear unto him very reasonable.\n\n\n\n\nThe Lawes Of Nature Oblige In Conscience Alwayes,\n\nBut In Effect Then Onely When There Is Security The Lawes of Nature\noblige In Foro Interno; that is to say, they bind to a desire they\nshould take place: but In Foro Externo; that is, to the putting them\nin act, not alwayes. For he that should be modest, and tractable, and\nperforme all he promises, in such time, and place, where no man els\nshould do so, should but make himselfe a prey to others, and procure his\nown certain ruine, contrary to the ground of all Lawes of Nature, which\ntend to Natures preservation. And again, he that shall observe the same\nLawes towards him, observes them not himselfe, seeketh not Peace, but\nWar; & consequently the destruction of his Nature by Violence.\n\nAnd whatsoever Lawes bind In Foro Interno, may be broken, not onely by\na fact contrary to the Law but also by a fact according to it, in case a\nman think it contrary. For though his Action in this case, be according\nto the Law; which where the Obligation is In Foro Interno, is a breach.\n\n\n\n\nThe Laws Of Nature Are Eternal;\n\nThe Lawes of Nature are Immutable and Eternall, For Injustice,\nIngratitude, Arrogance, Pride, Iniquity, Acception of persons, and the\nrest, can never be made lawfull. For it can never be that Warre shall\npreserve life, and Peace destroy it.\n\n\n\n\nAnd Yet Easie\n\nThe same Lawes, because they oblige onely to a desire, and endeavour, I\nmean an unfeigned and constant endeavour, are easie to be observed. For\nin that they require nothing but endeavour; he that endeavoureth their\nperformance, fulfilleth them; and he that fulfilleth the Law, is Just.\n\n\n\n\nThe Science Of These Lawes, Is The True Morall Philosophy\n\nAnd the Science of them, is the true and onely Moral Philosophy. For\nMorall Philosophy is nothing else but the Science of what is Good, and\nEvill, in the conversation, and Society of mankind. Good, and Evill,\nare names that signifie our Appetites, and Aversions; which in different\ntempers, customes, and doctrines of men, are different: And divers men,\ndiffer not onely in their Judgement, on the senses of what is pleasant,\nand unpleasant to the tast, smell, hearing, touch, and sight; but also\nof what is conformable, or disagreeable to Reason, in the actions of\ncommon life. Nay, the same man, in divers times, differs from himselfe;\nand one time praiseth, that is, calleth Good, what another time\nhe dispraiseth, and calleth Evil: From whence arise Disputes,\nControversies, and at last War. And therefore so long as man is in the\ncondition of meer Nature, (which is a condition of War,) as private\nAppetite is the measure of Good, and Evill: and consequently all men\nagree on this, that Peace is Good, and therefore also the way, or\nmeans of Peace, which (as I have shewed before) are Justice, Gratitude,\nModesty, Equity, Mercy, & the rest of the Laws of Nature, are good; that\nis to say, Morall Vertues; and their contrarie Vices, Evill. Now the\nscience of Vertue and Vice, is Morall Philosophie; and therfore the true\nDoctrine of the Lawes of Nature, is the true Morall Philosophie. But the\nWriters of Morall Philosophie, though they acknowledge the same Vertues\nand Vices; Yet not seeing wherein consisted their Goodnesse; nor that\nthey come to be praised, as the meanes of peaceable, sociable, and\ncomfortable living; place them in a mediocrity of passions: as if not\nthe Cause, but the Degree of daring, made Fortitude; or not the Cause,\nbut the Quantity of a gift, made Liberality.\n\nThese dictates of Reason, men use to call by the name of Lawes; but\nimproperly: for they are but Conclusions, or Theoremes concerning what\nconduceth to the conservation and defence of themselves; whereas Law,\nproperly is the word of him, that by right hath command over others. But\nyet if we consider the same Theoremes, as delivered in the word of\nGod, that by right commandeth all things; then are they properly called\nLawes.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI. OF PERSONS, AUTHORS, AND THINGS PERSONATED\n\n\n\nA Person What\n\nA PERSON, is he \"whose words or actions are considered, either as his\nown, or as representing the words or actions of an other man, or of any\nother thing to whom they are attributed, whether Truly or by Fiction.\"\n\n\n\n\nPerson Naturall, And Artificiall\n\nWhen they are considered as his owne, then is he called a Naturall\nPerson: And when they are considered as representing the words and\nactions of an other, then is he a Feigned or Artificiall person.\n\n\n\n\nThe Word Person, Whence\n\nThe word Person is latine: instead whereof the Greeks have Prosopon,\nwhich signifies the Face, as Persona in latine signifies the Disguise,\nor Outward Appearance of a man, counterfeited on the Stage; and somtimes\nmore particularly that part of it, which disguiseth the face, as a Mask\nor Visard: And from the Stage, hath been translated to any Representer\nof speech and action, as well in Tribunalls, as Theaters. So that a\nPerson, is the same that an Actor is, both on the Stage and in common\nConversation; and to Personate, is to Act, or Represent himselfe, or an\nother; and he that acteth another, is said to beare his Person, or\nact in his name; (in which sence Cicero useth it where he saies, \"Unus\nSustineo Tres Personas; Mei, Adversarii, & Judicis, I beare three\nPersons; my own, my Adversaries, and the Judges;\") and is called in\ndiverse occasions, diversly; as a Representer, or Representative, a\nLieutenant, a Vicar, an Attorney, a Deputy, a Procurator, an Actor, and\nthe like.\n\n\n\n\nActor, Author; Authority\n\nOf Persons Artificiall, some have their words and actions Owned by\nthose whom they represent. And then the Person is the Actor; and he that\nowneth his words and actions, is the AUTHOR: In which case the\nActor acteth by Authority. For that which in speaking of goods and\npossessions, is called an Owner, and in latine Dominus, in Greeke\nKurios; speaking of Actions, is called Author. And as the Right of\npossession, is called Dominion; so the Right of doing any Action, is\ncalled AUTHORITY. So that by Authority, is alwayes understood a Right\nof doing any act: and Done By Authority, done by Commission, or Licence\nfrom him whose right it is.\n\n\n\n\nCovenants By Authority, Bind The Author\n\nFrom hence it followeth, that when the Actor maketh a Covenant by\nAuthority, he bindeth thereby the Author, no lesse than if he had made\nit himselfe; and no lesse subjecteth him to all the consequences of the\nsame. And therfore all that hath been said formerly, (Chap. 14) of the\nnature of Covenants between man and man in their naturall capacity,\nis true also when they are made by their Actors, Representers, or\nProcurators, that have authority from them, so far-forth as is in their\nCommission, but no farther.\n\nAnd therefore he that maketh a Covenant with the Actor, or Representer,\nnot knowing the Authority he hath, doth it at his own perill. For no man\nis obliged by a Covenant, whereof he is not Author; nor consequently by\na Covenant made against, or beside the Authority he gave.\n\n\n\n\nBut Not The Actor\n\nWhen the Actor doth any thing against the Law of Nature by command of\nthe Author, if he be obliged by former Covenant to obey him, not he, but\nthe Author breaketh the Law of Nature: for though the Action be against\nthe Law of Nature; yet it is not his: but contrarily; to refuse to do\nit, is against the Law of Nature, that forbiddeth breach of Covenant.\n\n\n\n\nThe Authority Is To Be Shewne\n\nAnd he that maketh a Covenant with the Author, by mediation of the\nActor, not knowing what Authority he hath, but onely takes his word;\nin case such Authority be not made manifest unto him upon demand, is\nno longer obliged: For the Covenant made with the Author, is not valid,\nwithout his Counter-assurance. But if he that so Covenanteth, knew\nbefore hand he was to expect no other assurance, than the Actors word;\nthen is the Covenant valid; because the Actor in this case maketh\nhimselfe the Author. And therefore, as when the Authority is evident,\nthe Covenant obligeth the Author, not the Actor; so when the Authority\nis feigned, it obligeth the Actor onely; there being no Author but\nhimselfe.\n\n\n\n\nThings Personated, Inanimate\n\nThere are few things, that are uncapable of being represented by\nFiction. Inanimate things, as a Church, an Hospital, a Bridge, may\nbe Personated by a Rector, Master, or Overseer. But things Inanimate,\ncannot be Authors, nor therefore give Authority to their Actors: Yet the\nActors may have Authority to procure their maintenance, given them by\nthose that are Owners, or Governours of those things. And therefore,\nsuch things cannot be Personated, before there be some state of Civill\nGovernment.\n\n\n\n\nIrrational\n\nLikewise Children, Fooles, and Mad-men that have no use of Reason, may\nbe Personated by Guardians, or Curators; but can be no Authors (during\nthat time) of any action done by them, longer then (when they shall\nrecover the use of Reason) they shall judge the same reasonable.\nYet during the Folly, he that hath right of governing them, may give\nAuthority to the Guardian. But this again has no place but in a State\nCivill, because before such estate, there is no Dominion of Persons.\n\n\n\n\nFalse Gods\n\nAn Idol, or meer Figment of the brain, my be Personated; as were the\nGods of the Heathen; which by such Officers as the State appointed, were\nPersonated, and held Possessions, and other Goods, and Rights, which men\nfrom time to time dedicated, and consecrated unto them. But idols cannot\nbe Authors: for a Idol is nothing. The Authority proceeded from the\nState: and therefore before introduction of Civill Government, the Gods\nof the Heathen could not be Personated.\n\n\n\n\nThe True God\n\nThe true God may be Personated. As he was; first, by Moses; who governed\nthe Israelites, (that were not his, but Gods people,) not in his own\nname, with Hoc Dicit Moses; but in Gods Name, with Hoc Dicit Dominus.\nSecondly, by the son of man, his own Son our Blessed Saviour Jesus\nChrist, that came to reduce the Jewes, and induce all Nations into the\nKingdome of his Father; not as of himselfe, but as sent from his Father.\nAnd thirdly, by the Holy Ghost, or Comforter, speaking, and working\nin the Apostles: which Holy Ghost, was a Comforter that came not of\nhimselfe; but was sent, and proceeded from them both.\n\n\n\n\nA Multitude Of Men, How One Person\n\nA Multitude of men, are made One Person, when they are by one man, or\none Person, Represented; so that it be done with the consent of\nevery one of that Multitude in particular. For it is the Unity of the\nRepresenter, not the Unity of the Represented, that maketh the Person\nOne. And it is the Representer that beareth the Person, and but one\nPerson: And Unity, cannot otherwise be understood in Multitude.\n\n\n\n\nEvery One Is Author\n\nAnd because the Multitude naturally is not One, but Many; they cannot\nbe understood for one; but many Authors, of every thing their\nRepresentative faith, or doth in their name; Every man giving their\ncommon Representer, Authority from himselfe in particular; and owning\nall the actions the Representer doth, in case they give him Authority\nwithout stint: Otherwise, when they limit him in what, and how farre\nhe shall represent them, none of them owneth more, than they gave him\ncommission to Act.\n\n\n\n\nAn Actor May Be Many Men Made One By Plurality Of Voyces\n\nAnd if the Representative consist of many men, the voyce of the greater\nnumber, must be considered as the voyce of them all. For if the lesser\nnumber pronounce (for example) in the Affirmative, and the greater in\nthe Negative, there will be Negatives more than enough to destroy\nthe Affirmatives; and thereby the excesse of Negatives, standing\nuncontradicted, are the onely voyce the Representative hath.\n\n\n\n\nRepresentatives, When The Number Is Even, Unprofitable\n\nAnd a Representative of even number, especially when the number is\nnot great, whereby the contradictory voyces are oftentimes equall, is\ntherefore oftentimes mute, and uncapable of Action. Yet in some cases\ncontradictory voyces equall in number, may determine a question; as in\ncondemning, or absolving, equality of votes, even in that they condemne\nnot, do absolve; but not on the contrary condemne, in that they absolve\nnot. For when a Cause is heard; not to condemne, is to absolve; but on\nthe contrary, to say that not absolving, is condemning, is not true. The\nlike it is in a deliberation of executing presently, or deferring\ntill another time; For when the voyces are equall, the not decreeing\nExecution, is a decree of Dilation.\n\n\n\n\nNegative Voyce\n\nOr if the number be odde, as three, or more, (men, or assemblies;)\nwhereof every one has by a Negative Voice, authority to take away the\neffect of all the Affirmative Voices of the rest, This number is no\nRepresentative; because by the diversity of Opinions, and Interests of\nmen, it becomes oftentimes, and in cases of the greatest consequence, a\nmute Person, and unapt, as for may things else, so for the government of\na Multitude, especially in time of Warre.\n\nOf Authors there be two sorts. The first simply so called; which I have\nbefore defined to be him, that owneth the Action of another simply.\nThe second is he, that owneth an Action, or Covenant of another\nconditionally; that is to say, he undertaketh to do it, if the\nother doth it not, at, or before a certain time. And these Authors\nconditionall, are generally called SURETYES, in Latine Fidejussores, and\nSponsores; and particularly for Debt, Praedes; and for Appearance before\na Judge, or Magistrate, Vades.\n\n\n\n\n\nPART II. OF COMMON-WEALTH\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII. OF THE CAUSES, GENERATION, AND DEFINITION OF A\nCOMMON-WEALTH\n\n\n\n\nThe End Of Common-wealth, Particular Security\n\nThe finall Cause, End, or Designe of men, (who naturally love Liberty,\nand Dominion over others,) in the introduction of that restraint upon\nthemselves, (in which wee see them live in Common-wealths,) is the\nforesight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life\nthereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable\ncondition of Warre, which is necessarily consequent (as hath been shewn)\nto the naturall Passions of men, when there is no visible Power to keep\nthem in awe, and tye them by feare of punishment to the performance of\ntheir Covenants, and observation of these Lawes of Nature set down in\nthe fourteenth and fifteenth Chapters.\n\n\n\n\nWhich Is Not To Be Had From The Law Of Nature:\n\nFor the Lawes of Nature (as Justice, Equity, Modesty, Mercy, and (in\nsumme) Doing To Others, As Wee Would Be Done To,) if themselves, without\nthe terrour of some Power, to cause them to be observed, are contrary to\nour naturall Passions, that carry us to Partiality, Pride, Revenge, and\nthe like. And Covenants, without the Sword, are but Words, and of no\nstrength to secure a man at all. Therefore notwithstanding the Lawes of\nNature, (which every one hath then kept, when he has the will to keep\nthem, when he can do it safely,) if there be no Power erected, or not\ngreat enough for our security; every man will and may lawfully rely on\nhis own strength and art, for caution against all other men. And in all\nplaces, where men have lived by small Families, to robbe and spoyle one\nanother, has been a Trade, and so farre from being reputed against the\nLaw of Nature, that the greater spoyles they gained, the greater was\ntheir honour; and men observed no other Lawes therein, but the Lawes of\nHonour; that is, to abstain from cruelty, leaving to men their lives,\nand instruments of husbandry. And as small Familyes did then; so now\ndo Cities and Kingdomes which are but greater Families (for their own\nsecurity) enlarge their Dominions, upon all pretences of danger, and\nfear of Invasion, or assistance that may be given to Invaders, endeavour\nas much as they can, to subdue, or weaken their neighbours, by open\nforce, and secret arts, for want of other Caution, justly; and are\nrememdbred for it in after ages with honour.\n\n\n\n\nNor From The Conjunction Of A Few Men Or Familyes\n\nNor is it the joyning together of a small number of men, that gives them\nthis security; because in small numbers, small additions on the one side\nor the other, make the advantage of strength so great, as is sufficient\nto carry the Victory; and therefore gives encouragement to an Invasion.\nThe Multitude sufficient to confide in for our Security, is not\ndetermined by any certain number, but by comparison with the Enemy we\nfeare; and is then sufficient, when the odds of the Enemy is not of so\nvisible and conspicuous moment, to determine the event of warre, as to\nmove him to attempt.\n\n\n\n\nNor From A Great Multitude, Unlesse Directed By One Judgement\n\nAnd be there never so great a Multitude; yet if their actions be\ndirected according to their particular judgements, and particular\nappetites, they can expect thereby no defence, nor protection, neither\nagainst a Common enemy, nor against the injuries of one another. For\nbeing distracted in opinions concerning the best use and application\nof their strength, they do not help, but hinder one another; and reduce\ntheir strength by mutuall opposition to nothing: whereby they are\neasily, not onely subdued by a very few that agree together; but also\nwhen there is no common enemy, they make warre upon each other, for\ntheir particular interests. For if we could suppose a great Multitude of\nmen to consent in the observation of Justice, and other Lawes of Nature,\nwithout a common Power to keep them all in awe; we might as well suppose\nall Man-kind to do the same; and then there neither would be nor need to\nbe any Civill Government, or Common-wealth at all; because there would\nbe Peace without subjection.\n\n\n\n\nAnd That Continually\n\nNor is it enough for the security, which men desire should last all\nthe time of their life, that they be governed, and directed by one\njudgement, for a limited time; as in one Battell, or one Warre. For\nthough they obtain a Victory by their unanimous endeavour against a\nforraign enemy; yet afterwards, when either they have no common enemy,\nor he that by one part is held for an enemy, is by another part held for\na friend, they must needs by the difference of their interests dissolve,\nand fall again into a Warre amongst themselves.\n\n\n\n\nWhy Certain Creatures Without Reason, Or Speech,\n\n\n\n\nDo Neverthelesse Live In Society, Without Any Coercive Power\n\nIt is true, that certain living creatures, as Bees, and Ants, live\nsociably one with another, (which are therefore by Aristotle numbred\namongst Politicall creatures;) and yet have no other direction, than\ntheir particular judgements and appetites; nor speech, whereby one of\nthem can signifie to another, what he thinks expedient for the common\nbenefit: and therefore some man may perhaps desire to know, why Man-kind\ncannot do the same. To which I answer,\n\nFirst, that men are continually in competition for Honour and Dignity,\nwhich these creatures are not; and consequently amongst men there\nariseth on that ground, Envy and Hatred, and finally Warre; but amongst\nthese not so.\n\nSecondly, that amongst these creatures, the Common good differeth not\nfrom the Private; and being by nature enclined to their private, they\nprocure thereby the common benefit. But man, whose Joy consisteth\nin comparing himselfe with other men, can relish nothing but what is\neminent.\n\nThirdly, that these creatures, having not (as man) the use of reason,\ndo not see, nor think they see any fault, in the administration of their\ncommon businesse: whereas amongst men, there are very many, that thinke\nthemselves wiser, and abler to govern the Publique, better than the\nrest; and these strive to reforme and innovate, one this way, another\nthat way; and thereby bring it into Distraction and Civill warre.\n\nFourthly, that these creatures, though they have some use of voice, in\nmaking knowne to one another their desires, and other affections; yet\nthey want that art of words, by which some men can represent to others,\nthat which is Good, in the likenesse of Evill; and Evill, in the\nlikenesse of Good; and augment, or diminish the apparent greatnesse of\nGood and Evill; discontenting men, and troubling their Peace at their\npleasure.\n\nFiftly, irrationall creatures cannot distinguish betweene Injury, and\nDammage; and therefore as long as they be at ease, they are not offended\nwith their fellowes: whereas Man is then most troublesome, when he is\nmost at ease: for then it is that he loves to shew his Wisdome, and\ncontroule the Actions of them that governe the Common-wealth.\n\nLastly, the agreement of these creatures is Naturall; that of men, is\nby Covenant only, which is Artificiall: and therefore it is no wonder\nif there be somewhat else required (besides Covenant) to make their\nAgreement constant and lasting; which is a Common Power, to keep them in\nawe, and to direct their actions to the Common Benefit.\n\n\n\n\nThe Generation Of A Common-wealth\n\nThe only way to erect such a Common Power, as may be able to defend them\nfrom the invasion of Forraigners, and the injuries of one another, and\nthereby to secure them in such sort, as that by their owne industrie,\nand by the fruites of the Earth, they may nourish themselves and live\ncontentedly; is, to conferre all their power and strength upon one\nMan, or upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their Wills,\nby plurality of voices, unto one Will: which is as much as to say, to\nappoint one man, or Assembly of men, to beare their Person; and every\none to owne, and acknowledge himselfe to be Author of whatsoever he\nthat so beareth their Person, shall Act, or cause to be Acted, in those\nthings which concerne the Common Peace and Safetie; and therein to\nsubmit their Wills, every one to his Will, and their Judgements, to his\nJudgment. This is more than Consent, or Concord; it is a reall Unitie of\nthem all, in one and the same Person, made by Covenant of every man with\nevery man, in such manner, as if every man should say to every man, \"I\nAuthorise and give up my Right of Governing my selfe, to this Man, or to\nthis Assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy Right\nto him, and Authorise all his Actions in like manner.\" This done, the\nMultitude so united in one Person, is called a COMMON-WEALTH, in latine\nCIVITAS. This is the Generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather (to\nspeake more reverently) of that Mortall God, to which wee owe under the\nImmortall God, our peace and defence. For by this Authoritie, given him\nby every particular man in the Common-Wealth, he hath the use of so\nmuch Power and Strength conferred on him, that by terror thereof, he is\ninabled to forme the wills of them all, to Peace at home, and mutuall\nayd against their enemies abroad.\n\n\n\n\nThe Definition Of A Common-wealth\n\nAnd in him consisteth the Essence of the Common-wealth; which (to\ndefine it,) is \"One Person, of whose Acts a great Multitude, by mutuall\nCovenants one with another, have made themselves every one the Author,\nto the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall\nthink expedient, for their Peace and Common Defence.\"\n\n\n\n\nSoveraigne, And Subject, What\n\nAnd he that carryeth this Person, as called SOVERAIGNE, and said to have\nSoveraigne Power; and every one besides, his SUBJECT.\n\nThe attaining to this Soveraigne Power, is by two wayes. One, by\nNaturall force; as when a man maketh his children, to submit themselves,\nand their children to his government, as being able to destroy them if\nthey refuse, or by Warre subdueth his enemies to his will, giving them\ntheir lives on that condition. The other, is when men agree amongst\nthemselves, to submit to some Man, or Assembly of men, voluntarily, on\nconfidence to be protected by him against all others. This later, may be\ncalled a Politicall Common-wealth, or Common-wealth by Institution; and\nthe former, a Common-wealth by Acquisition. And first, I shall speak of\na Common-wealth by Institution.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII. OF THE RIGHTS OF SOVERAIGNES BY INSTITUTION\n\n\n\n\nThe Act Of Instituting A Common-wealth, What\n\nA Common-wealth is said to be Instituted, when a Multitude of men do\nAgree, and Covenant, Every One With Every One, that to whatsoever Man,\nor Assembly Of Men, shall be given by the major part, the Right\nto Present the Person of them all, (that is to say, to be their\nRepresentative;) every one, as well he that Voted For It, as he that\nVoted Against It, shall Authorise all the Actions and Judgements, of\nthat Man, or Assembly of men, in the same manner, as if they were his\nown, to the end, to live peaceably amongst themselves, and be protected\nagainst other men.\n\n\n\n\nThe Consequences To Such Institution, Are\n\n\n\n\nI. The Subjects Cannot Change The Forme Of Government\n\n\n\n\nFrom this Institution of a Common-wealth are derived all the Rights, and\nFacultyes of him, or them, on whom the Soveraigne Power is conferred by\nthe consent of the People assembled.\n\nFirst, because they Covenant, it is to be understood, they are not\nobliged by former Covenant to any thing repugnant hereunto. And\nConsequently they that have already Instituted a Common-wealth, being\nthereby bound by Covenant, to own the Actions, and Judgements of one,\ncannot lawfully make a new Covenant, amongst themselves, to be obedient\nto any other, in any thing whatsoever, without his permission. And\ntherefore, they that are subjects to a Monarch, cannot without his leave\ncast off Monarchy, and return to the confusion of a disunited Multitude;\nnor transferre their Person from him that beareth it, to another Man,\nor other Assembly of men: for they are bound, every man to every man,\nto Own, and be reputed Author of all, that he that already is their\nSoveraigne, shall do, and judge fit to be done: so that any one man\ndissenting, all the rest should break their Covenant made to that man,\nwhich is injustice: and they have also every man given the Soveraignty\nto him that beareth their Person; and therefore if they depose him,\nthey take from him that which is his own, and so again it is injustice.\nBesides, if he that attempteth to depose his Soveraign, be killed, or\npunished by him for such attempt, he is author of his own punishment,\nas being by the Institution, Author of all his Soveraign shall do: And\nbecause it is injustice for a man to do any thing, for which he may be\npunished by his own authority, he is also upon that title, unjust.\nAnd whereas some men have pretended for their disobedience to their\nSoveraign, a new Covenant, made, not with men, but with God; this also\nis unjust: for there is no Covenant with God, but by mediation of some\nbody that representeth Gods Person; which none doth but Gods Lieutenant,\nwho hath the Soveraignty under God. But this pretence of Covenant with\nGod, is so evident a lye, even in the pretenders own consciences, that\nit is not onely an act of an unjust, but also of a vile, and unmanly\ndisposition.\n\n\n\n\n2. Soveraigne Power Cannot Be Forfeited\n\nSecondly, Because the Right of bearing the Person of them all, is given\nto him they make Soveraigne, by Covenant onely of one to another, and\nnot of him to any of them; there can happen no breach of Covenant on the\npart of the Soveraigne; and consequently none of his Subjects, by any\npretence of forfeiture, can be freed from his Subjection. That he which\nis made Soveraigne maketh no Covenant with his Subjects beforehand, is\nmanifest; because either he must make it with the whole multitude, as\none party to the Covenant; or he must make a severall Covenant with\nevery man. With the whole, as one party, it is impossible; because as\nyet they are not one Person: and if he make so many severall Covenants\nas there be men, those Covenants after he hath the Soveraignty are voyd,\nbecause what act soever can be pretended by any one of them for breach\nthereof, is the act both of himselfe, and of all the rest, because done\nin the Person, and by the Right of every one of them in particular.\nBesides, if any one, or more of them, pretend a breach of the Covenant\nmade by the Soveraigne at his Institution; and others, or one other of\nhis Subjects, or himselfe alone, pretend there was no such breach,\nthere is in this case, no Judge to decide the controversie: it returns\ntherefore to the Sword again; and every man recovereth the right of\nProtecting himselfe by his own strength, contrary to the designe they\nhad in the Institution. It is therefore in vain to grant Soveraignty by\nway of precedent Covenant. The opinion that any Monarch receiveth his\nPower by Covenant, that is to say on Condition, proceedeth from want\nof understanding this easie truth, that Covenants being but words, and\nbreath, have no force to oblige, contain, constrain, or protect any man,\nbut what it has from the publique Sword; that is, from the untyed hands\nof that Man, or Assembly of men that hath the Soveraignty, and whose\nactions are avouched by them all, and performed by the strength of them\nall, in him united. But when an Assembly of men is made Soveraigne; then\nno man imagineth any such Covenant to have past in the Institution; for\nno man is so dull as to say, for example, the People of Rome, made\na Covenant with the Romans, to hold the Soveraignty on such or such\nconditions; which not performed, the Romans might lawfully depose the\nRoman People. That men see not the reason to be alike in a Monarchy, and\nin a Popular Government, proceedeth from the ambition of some, that\nare kinder to the government of an Assembly, whereof they may hope to\nparticipate, than of Monarchy, which they despair to enjoy.\n\n\n\n\n3. No Man Can Without Injustice Protest Against The\n\nInstitution Of The Soveraigne Declared By The Major Part. Thirdly,\nbecause the major part hath by consenting voices declared a Soveraigne;\nhe that dissented must now consent with the rest; that is, be contented\nto avow all the actions he shall do, or else justly be destroyed by the\nrest. For if he voluntarily entered into the Congregation of them that\nwere assembled, he sufficiently declared thereby his will (and therefore\ntacitely covenanted) to stand to what the major part should ordayne: and\ntherefore if he refuse to stand thereto, or make Protestation against\nany of their Decrees, he does contrary to his Covenant, and therfore\nunjustly. And whether he be of the Congregation, or not; and whether his\nconsent be asked, or not, he must either submit to their decrees, or\nbe left in the condition of warre he was in before; wherein he might\nwithout injustice be destroyed by any man whatsoever.\n\n\n\n\n4. The Soveraigns Actions Cannot Be Justly Accused By The Subject\n\nFourthly, because every Subject is by this Institution Author of all the\nActions, and Judgements of the Soveraigne Instituted; it followes, that\nwhatsoever he doth, it can be no injury to any of his Subjects; nor\nought he to be by any of them accused of Injustice. For he that doth any\nthing by authority from another, doth therein no injury to him by whose\nauthority he acteth: But by this Institution of a Common-wealth, every\nparticular man is Author of all the Soveraigne doth; and consequently\nhe that complaineth of injury from his Soveraigne, complaineth of that\nwhereof he himselfe is Author; and therefore ought not to accuse any man\nbut himselfe; no nor himselfe of injury; because to do injury to ones\nselfe, is impossible. It is true that they that have Soveraigne\npower, may commit Iniquity; but not Injustice, or Injury in the proper\nsignification.\n\n\n\n\n5. What Soever The Soveraigne Doth, Is Unpunishable By The Subject\n\nFiftly, and consequently to that which was sayd last, no man that hath\nSoveraigne power can justly be put to death, or otherwise in any manner\nby his Subjects punished. For seeing every Subject is author of the\nactions of his Soveraigne; he punisheth another, for the actions\ncommitted by himselfe.\n\n\n\n\n6. The Soveraigne Is Judge Of What Is Necessary For The Peace\n\nAnd Defence Of His Subjects\n\nAnd because the End of this Institution, is the Peace and Defence of\nthem all; and whosoever has right to the End, has right to the Means;\nit belongeth of Right, to whatsoever Man, or Assembly that hath the\nSoveraignty, to be Judge both of the meanes of Peace and Defence;\nand also of the hindrances, and disturbances of the same; and to do\nwhatsoever he shall think necessary to be done, both beforehand, for the\npreserving of Peace and Security, by prevention of discord at home and\nHostility from abroad; and, when Peace and Security are lost, for the\nrecovery of the same. And therefore,\n\n\n\n\nAnd Judge Of What Doctrines Are Fit To Be Taught Them\n\nSixtly, it is annexed to the Soveraignty, to be Judge of what Opinions\nand Doctrines are averse, and what conducing to Peace; and consequently,\non what occasions, how farre, and what, men are to be trusted withall,\nin speaking to Multitudes of people; and who shall examine the Doctrines\nof all bookes before they be published. For the Actions of men proceed\nfrom their Opinions; and in the wel governing of Opinions, consisteth\nthe well governing of mens Actions, in order to their Peace, and\nConcord. And though in matter of Doctrine, nothing ought to be regarded\nbut the Truth; yet this is not repugnant to regulating of the same by\nPeace. For Doctrine Repugnant to Peace, can no more be True, than Peace\nand Concord can be against the Law of Nature. It is true, that in\na Common-wealth, where by the negligence, or unskilfullnesse of\nGovernours, and Teachers, false Doctrines are by time generally\nreceived; the contrary Truths may be generally offensive; Yet the most\nsudden, and rough busling in of a new Truth, that can be, does never\nbreake the Peace, but onely somtimes awake the Warre. For those men that\nare so remissely governed, that they dare take up Armes, to defend, or\nintroduce an Opinion, are still in Warre; and their condition not Peace,\nbut only a Cessation of Armes for feare of one another; and they live\nas it were, in the procincts of battaile continually. It belongeth\ntherefore to him that hath the Soveraign Power, to be Judge, or\nconstitute all Judges of Opinions and Doctrines, as a thing necessary to\nPeace, thereby to prevent Discord and Civill Warre.\n\n\n\n\n7. The Right Of Making Rules, Whereby The Subject May\n\nEvery Man Know What Is So His Owne, As No Other Subject\n\nCan Without Injustice Take It From Him\n\nSeventhly, is annexed to the Soveraigntie, the whole power of\nprescribing the Rules, whereby every man may know, what Goods he may\nenjoy and what Actions he may doe, without being molested by any of\nhis fellow Subjects: And this is it men Call Propriety. For before\nconstitution of Soveraign Power (as hath already been shewn) all men had\nright to all things; which necessarily causeth Warre: and therefore this\nProprietie, being necessary to Peace, and depending on Soveraign Power,\nis the Act of the Power, in order to the publique peace. These Rules of\nPropriety (or Meum and Tuum) and of Good, Evill, Lawfull and Unlawfull\nin the actions of subjects, are the Civill Lawes, that is to say, the\nlawes of each Commonwealth in particular; though the name of Civill Law\nbe now restrained to the antient Civill Lawes of the City of Rome; which\nbeing the head of a great part of the World, her Lawes at that time were\nin these parts the Civill Law.\n\n\n\n\n8. To Him Also Belongeth The Right Of All Judicature\n\nAnd Decision Of Controversies:\n\nEightly, is annexed to the Soveraigntie, the Right of Judicature; that\nis to say, of hearing and deciding all Controversies, which may arise\nconcerning Law, either Civill, or naturall, or concerning Fact. For\nwithout the decision of Controversies, there is no protection of one\nSubject, against the injuries of another; the Lawes concerning Meum and\nTuum are in vaine; and to every man remaineth, from the naturall and\nnecessary appetite of his own conservation, the right of protecting\nhimselfe by his private strength, which is the condition of Warre; and\ncontrary to the end for which every Common-wealth is instituted.\n\n\n\n\n9. And Of Making War, And Peace, As He Shall Think Best:\n\nNinthly, is annexed to the Soveraignty, the Right of making Warre, and\nPeace with other Nations, and Common-wealths; that is to say, of\nJudging when it is for the publique good, and how great forces are to\nbe assembled, armed, and payd for that end; and to levy mony upon the\nSubjects, to defray the expenses thereof. For the Power by which the\npeople are to be defended, consisteth in their Armies; and the strength\nof an Army, in the union of their strength under one Command; which\nCommand the Soveraign Instituted, therefore hath; because the command\nof the Militia, without other Institution, maketh him that hath it\nSoveraign. And therefore whosoever is made Generall of an Army, he that\nhath the Soveraign Power is alwayes Generallissimo.\n\n\n\n\n10. And Of Choosing All Counsellours, And Ministers,\n\nBoth Of Peace, And Warre:\n\nTenthly, is annexed to the Soveraignty, the choosing of all\nCouncellours, Ministers, Magistrates, and Officers, both in peace, and\nWar. For seeing the Soveraign is charged with the End, which is the\ncommon Peace and Defence; he is understood to have Power to use such\nMeans, as he shall think most fit for his discharge.\n\n\n\n\n11. And Of Rewarding, And Punishing, And That (Where No\n\nFormer Law hath Determined The Measure Of It) Arbitrary:\n\nEleventhly, to the Soveraign is committed the Power of Rewarding\nwith riches, or honour; and of Punishing with corporall, or pecuniary\npunishment, or with ignominy every Subject according to the Lawe he hath\nformerly made; or if there be no Law made, according as he shall judge\nmost to conduce to the encouraging of men to serve the Common-wealth, or\ndeterring of them from doing dis-service to the same.\n\n\n\n\n12. And Of Honour And Order\n\nLastly, considering what values men are naturally apt to set upon\nthemselves; what respect they look for from others; and how little they\nvalue other men; from whence continually arise amongst them, Emulation,\nQuarrells, Factions, and at last Warre, to the destroying of one\nanother, and diminution of their strength against a Common Enemy; It\nis necessary that there be Lawes of Honour, and a publique rate of the\nworth of such men as have deserved, or are able to deserve well of the\nCommon-wealth; and that there be force in the hands of some or other, to\nput those Lawes in execution. But it hath already been shown, that not\nonely the whole Militia, or forces of the Common-wealth; but also the\nJudicature of all Controversies, is annexed to the Soveraignty. To the\nSoveraign therefore it belongeth also to give titles of Honour; and to\nappoint what Order of place, and dignity, each man shall hold; and what\nsignes of respect, in publique or private meetings, they shall give to\none another.\n\n\n\n\nThese Rights Are Indivisible\n\nThese are the Rights, which make the Essence of Soveraignty; and which\nare the markes, whereby a man may discern in what Man, or Assembly\nof men, the Soveraign Power is placed, and resideth. For these are\nincommunicable, and inseparable. The Power to coyn Mony; to dispose of\nthe estate and persons of Infant heires; to have praeemption in\nMarkets; and all other Statute Praerogatives, may be transferred by the\nSoveraign; and yet the Power to protect his Subject be retained. But if\nhe transferre the Militia, he retains the Judicature in vain, for want\nof execution of the Lawes; Or if he grant away the Power of raising\nMony; the Militia is in vain: or if he give away the government of\ndoctrines, men will be frighted into rebellion with the feare of\nSpirits. And so if we consider any one of the said Rights, we shall\npresently see, that the holding of all the rest, will produce no\neffect, in the conservation of Peace and Justice, the end for which all\nCommon-wealths are Instituted. And this division is it, whereof it is\nsaid, \"A kingdome divided in it selfe cannot stand:\" For unlesse this\ndivision precede, division into opposite Armies can never happen. If\nthere had not first been an opinion received of the greatest part of\nEngland, that these Powers were divided between the King, and the Lords,\nand the House of Commons, the people had never been divided, and\nfallen into this Civill Warre; first between those that disagreed\nin Politiques; and after between the Dissenters about the liberty of\nReligion; which have so instructed men in this point of Soveraign Right,\nthat there be few now (in England,) that do not see, that these Rights\nare inseparable, and will be so generally acknowledged, at the next\nreturn of Peace; and so continue, till their miseries are forgotten; and\nno longer, except the vulgar be better taught than they have hetherto\nbeen.\n\n\n\n\nAnd Can By No Grant Passe Away Without Direct\n\nRenouncing Of The Soveraign Power\n\nAnd because they are essentiall and inseparable Rights, it follows\nnecessarily, that in whatsoever, words any of them seem to be granted\naway, yet if the Soveraign Power it selfe be not in direct termes\nrenounced, and the name of Soveraign no more given by the Grantees to\nhim that Grants them, the Grant is voyd: for when he has granted all he\ncan, if we grant back the Soveraignty, all is restored, as inseparably\nannexed thereunto.\n\n\n\n\nThe Power And Honour Of Subjects Vanisheth In The Presence\n\nOf The Power Soveraign\n\nThis great Authority being indivisible, and inseparably annexed to the\nSoveraignty, there is little ground for the opinion of them, that say of\nSoveraign Kings, though they be Singulis Majores, of greater Power than\nevery one of their Subjects, yet they be Universis Minores, of lesse\npower than them all together. For if by All Together, they mean not\nthe collective body as one person, then All Together, and Every One,\nsignifie the same; and the speech is absurd. But if by All Together,\nthey understand them as one Person (which person the Soveraign bears,)\nthen the power of all together, is the same with the Soveraigns power;\nand so again the speech is absurd; which absurdity they see well enough,\nwhen the Soveraignty is in an Assembly of the people; but in a Monarch\nthey see it not; and yet the power of Soveraignty is the same in\nwhomsoever it be placed.\n\nAnd as the Power, so also the Honour of the Soveraign, ought to be\ngreater, than that of any, or all the Subjects. For in the Soveraignty\nis the fountain of Honour. The dignities of Lord, Earle, Duke, and\nPrince are his Creatures. As in the presence of the Master, the Servants\nare equall, and without any honour at all; So are the Subjects, in the\npresence of the Soveraign. And though they shine some more, some lesse,\nwhen they are out of his sight; yet in his presence, they shine no more\nthan the Starres in presence of the Sun.\n\n\n\n\nSoveraigne Power Not Hurtfull As The Want Of It,\n\nAnd The Hurt Proceeds For The Greatest Part From Not\n\nSubmitting Readily, To A Lesse\n\nBut a man may here object, that the Condition of Subjects is very\nmiserable; as being obnoxious to the lusts, and other irregular passions\nof him, or them that have so unlimited a Power in their hands. And\ncommonly they that live under a Monarch, think it the fault of Monarchy;\nand they that live under the government of Democracy, or other\nSoveraign Assembly, attribute all the inconvenience to that forme of\nCommon-wealth; whereas the Power in all formes, if they be perfect\nenough to protect them, is the same; not considering that the estate\nof Man can never be without some incommodity or other; and that the\ngreatest, that in any forme of Government can possibly happen to the\npeople in generall, is scarce sensible, in respect of the miseries, and\nhorrible calamities, that accompany a Civill Warre; or that dissolute\ncondition of masterlesse men, without subjection to Lawes, and a\ncoercive Power to tye their hands from rapine, and revenge: nor\nconsidering that the greatest pressure of Soveraign Governours,\nproceedeth not from any delight, or profit they can expect in the\ndammage, or weakening of their subjects, in whose vigor, consisteth\ntheir own selves, that unwillingly contributing to their own defence,\nmake it necessary for their Governours to draw from them what they can\nin time of Peace, that they may have means on any emergent occasion, or\nsudden need, to resist, or take advantage on their Enemies. For all men\nare by nature provided of notable multiplying glasses, (that is their\nPassions and Self-love,) through which, every little payment appeareth a\ngreat grievance; but are destitute of those prospective glasses, (namely\nMorall and Civill Science,) to see a farre off the miseries that hang\nover them, and cannot without such payments be avoyded.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX. OF THE SEVERALL KINDS OF COMMON-WEALTH BY INSTITUTION,\n\nAND OF SUCCESSION TO THE SOVERAIGNE POWER\n\n\n\n\nThe Different Formes Of Common-wealths But Three\n\nThe difference of Common-wealths, consisteth in the difference of the\nSoveraign, or the Person representative of all and every one of the\nMultitude. And because the Soveraignty is either in one Man, or in an\nAssembly of more than one; and into that Assembly either Every man hath\nright to enter, or not every one, but Certain men distinguished from the\nrest; it is manifest, there can be but Three kinds of Common-wealth. For\nthe Representative must needs be One man, or More: and if more, then it\nis the Assembly of All, or but of a Part. When the Representative is One\nman, then is the Common-wealth a MONARCHY: when an Assembly of All that\nwill come together, then it is a DEMOCRACY, or Popular Common-wealth:\nwhen an Assembly of a Part onely, then it is called an ARISTOCRACY.\nOther kind of Common-wealth there can be none: for either One, or\nMore, or All must have the Soveraign Power (which I have shewn to be\nindivisible) entire.\n\n\n\n\nTyranny And Oligarchy, But Different Names Of Monarchy, And Aristocracy\n\nThere be other names of Government, in the Histories, and books of\nPolicy; as Tyranny, and Oligarchy: But they are not the names of other\nFormes of Government, but of the same Formes misliked. For they that\nare discontented under Monarchy, call it Tyranny; and they that are\ndispleased with Aristocracy, called it Oligarchy: so also, they which\nfind themselves grieved under a Democracy, call it Anarchy, (which\nsignifies want of Government;) and yet I think no man believes, that\nwant of Government, is any new kind of Government: nor by the same\nreason ought they to believe, that the Government is of one kind, when\nthey like it, and another, when they mislike it, or are oppressed by the\nGovernours.\n\n\n\n\nSubordinate Representatives Dangerous\n\nIt is manifest, that men who are in absolute liberty, may, if they\nplease, give Authority to One Man, to represent them every one; as\nwell as give such Authority to any Assembly of men whatsoever; and\nconsequently may subject themselves, if they think good, to a Monarch,\nas absolutely, as to any other Representative. Therefore, where there is\nalready erected a Soveraign Power, there can be no other Representative\nof the same people, but onely to certain particular ends, by the\nSoveraign limited. For that were to erect two Soveraigns; and every\nman to have his person represented by two Actors, that by opposing one\nanother, must needs divide that Power, which (if men will live in Peace)\nis indivisible, and thereby reduce the Multitude into the condition of\nWarre, contrary to the end for which all Soveraignty is instituted. And\ntherefore as it is absurd, to think that a Soveraign Assembly, inviting\nthe People of their Dominion, to send up their Deputies, with power\nto make known their Advise, or Desires, should therefore hold such\nDeputies, rather than themselves, for the absolute Representative of\nthe people: so it is absurd also, to think the same in a Monarchy. And\nI know not how this so manifest a truth, should of late be so little\nobserved; that in a Monarchy, he that had the Soveraignty from a descent\nof 600 years, was alone called Soveraign, had the title of Majesty from\nevery one of his Subjects, and was unquestionably taken by them\nfor their King; was notwithstanding never considered as their\nRepresentative; that name without contradiction passing for the title\nof those men, which at his command were sent up by the people to carry\ntheir Petitions, and give him (if he permitted it) their advise. Which\nmay serve as an admonition, for those that are the true, and absolute\nRepresentative of a People, to instruct men in the nature of that\nOffice, and to take heed how they admit of any other generall\nRepresentation upon any occasion whatsoever, if they mean to discharge\nthe truth committed to them.\n\n\n\n\nComparison Of Monarchy, With Soveraign Assemblyes\n\nThe difference between these three kindes of Common-wealth, consisteth\nnot in the difference of Power; but in the difference of Convenience, or\nAptitude to produce the Peace, and Security of the people; for which end\nthey were instituted. And to compare Monarchy with the other two, we may\nobserve; First, that whosoever beareth the Person of the people, or\nis one of that Assembly that bears it, beareth also his own naturall\nPerson. And though he be carefull in his politique Person to procure\nthe common interest; yet he is more, or no lesse carefull to procure the\nprivate good of himselfe, his family, kindred and friends; and for the\nmost part, if the publique interest chance to crosse the private, he\npreferrs the private: for the Passions of men, are commonly more potent\nthan their Reason. From whence it follows, that where the publique and\nprivate interest are most closely united, there is the publique most\nadvanced. Now in Monarchy, the private interest is the same with the\npublique. The riches, power, and honour of a Monarch arise onely from\nthe riches, strength and reputation of his Subjects. For no King can\nbe rich, nor glorious, nor secure; whose Subjects are either poore, or\ncontemptible, or too weak through want, or dissention, to maintain a\nwar against their enemies: Whereas in a Democracy, or Aristocracy, the\npublique prosperity conferres not so much to the private fortune of one\nthat is corrupt, or ambitious, as doth many times a perfidious advice, a\ntreacherous action, or a Civill warre.\n\nSecondly, that a Monarch receiveth counsell of whom, when, and where he\npleaseth; and consequently may heare the opinion of men versed in the\nmatter about which he deliberates, of what rank or quality soever, and\nas long before the time of action, and with as much secrecy, as he will.\nBut when a Soveraigne Assembly has need of Counsell, none are admitted\nbut such as have a Right thereto from the beginning; which for the\nmost part are of those who have beene versed more in the acquisition\nof Wealth than of Knowledge; and are to give their advice in long\ndiscourses, which may, and do commonly excite men to action, but\nnot governe them in it. For the Understanding is by the flame of the\nPassions, never enlightned, but dazled: Nor is there any place, or time,\nwherein an Assemblie can receive Counsell with secrecie, because of\ntheir owne Multitude.\n\nThirdly, that the Resolutions of a Monarch, are subject to no other\nInconstancy, than that of Humane Nature; but in Assemblies, besides that\nof Nature, there ariseth an Inconstancy from the Number. For the absence\nof a few, that would have the Resolution once taken, continue firme,\n(which may happen by security, negligence, or private impediments,) or\nthe diligent appearance of a few of the contrary opinion, undoes to day,\nall that was concluded yesterday.\n\nFourthly, that a Monarch cannot disagree with himselfe, out of envy, or\ninterest; but an Assembly may; and that to such a height, as may produce\na Civill Warre.\n\nFifthly, that in Monarchy there is this inconvenience; that any Subject,\nby the power of one man, for the enriching of a favourite or flatterer,\nmay be deprived of all he possesseth; which I confesse is a great and\ninevitable inconvenience. But the same may as well happen, where the\nSoveraigne Power is in an Assembly: for their power is the same; and\nthey are as subject to evill Counsell, and to be seduced by Orators, as\na Monarch by Flatterers; and becoming one an others Flatterers, serve\none anothers Covetousnesse and Ambition by turnes. And whereas the\nFavorites of an Assembly, are many; and the Kindred much more numerous,\nthan of any Monarch. Besides, there is no Favourite of a Monarch, which\ncannot as well succour his friends, as hurt his enemies: But Orators,\nthat is to say, Favourites of Soveraigne Assemblies, though they have\ngreat power to hurt, have little to save. For to accuse, requires lesse\nEloquence (such is mans Nature) than to excuse; and condemnation, than\nabsolution more resembles Justice.\n\nSixtly, that it is an inconvenience in Monarchie, that the Soveraigntie\nmay descend upon an Infant, or one that cannot discerne between Good and\nEvill: and consisteth in this, that the use of his Power, must be in the\nhand of another Man, or of some Assembly of men, which are to governe by\nhis right, and in his name; as Curators, and Protectors of his Person,\nand Authority. But to say there is inconvenience, in putting the use of\nthe Soveraign Power, into the hand of a Man, or an Assembly of men; is\nto say that all Government is more Inconvenient, than Confusion, and\nCivill Warre. And therefore all the danger that can be pretended, must\narise from the Contention of those, that for an office of so great\nhonour, and profit, may become Competitors. To make it appear, that\nthis inconvenience, proceedeth not from that forme of Government we call\nMonarchy, we are to consider, that the precedent Monarch, hath appointed\nwho shall have the Tuition of his Infant Successor, either expressely\nby Testament, or tacitly, by not controlling the Custome in that\ncase received: And then such inconvenience (if it happen) is to be\nattributed, not to the Monarchy, but to the Ambition, and Injustice of\nthe Subjects; which in all kinds of Government, where the people are\nnot well instructed in their Duty, and the Rights of Soveraignty, is\nthe same. Or else the precedent Monarch, hath not at all taken order for\nsuch Tuition; And then the Law of Nature hath provided this sufficient\nrule, That the Tuition shall be in him, that hath by Nature most\ninterest in the preservation of the Authority of the Infant, and to whom\nleast benefit can accrue by his death, or diminution. For seeing every\nman by nature seeketh his own benefit, and promotion; to put an Infant\ninto the power of those, that can promote themselves by his destruction,\nor dammage, is not Tuition, but Trechery. So that sufficient provision\nbeing taken, against all just quarrell, about the Government under a\nChild, if any contention arise to the disturbance of the publique Peace,\nit is not to be attributed to the forme of Monarchy, but to the ambition\nof Subjects, and ignorance of their Duty. On the other side, there is\nno great Common-wealth, the Soveraignty whereof is in a great Assembly,\nwhich is not, as to consultations of Peace, and Warre, and making of\nLawes, in the same condition, as if the Government were in a Child. For\nas a Child wants the judgement to dissent from counsell given him, and\nis thereby necessitated to take the advise of them, or him, to whom he\nis committed: So an Assembly wanteth the liberty, to dissent from the\ncounsell of the major part, be it good, or bad. And as a Child has need\nof a Tutor, or Protector, to preserve his Person, and Authority: So also\n(in great Common-wealths,) the Soveraign Assembly, in all great dangers\nand troubles, have need of Custodes Libertatis; that is of Dictators, or\nProtectors of their Authoritie; which are as much as Temporary Monarchs;\nto whom for a time, they may commit the entire exercise of their Power;\nand have (at the end of that time) been oftner deprived thereof, than\nInfant Kings, by their Protectors, Regents, or any other Tutors.\n\nThough the Kinds of Soveraigntie be, as I have now shewn, but three;\nthat is to say, Monarchie, where one Man has it; or Democracie, where\nthe generall Assembly of Subjects hath it; or Aristocracie, where it is\nin an Assembly of certain persons nominated, or otherwise distinguished\nfrom the rest: Yet he that shall consider the particular Common-wealthes\nthat have been, and are in the world, will not perhaps easily reduce\nthem to three, and may thereby be inclined to think there be other\nFormes, arising from these mingled together. As for example, Elective\nKingdomes; where Kings have the Soveraigne Power put into their hands\nfor a time; of Kingdomes, wherein the King hath a power limited: which\nGovernments, are nevertheless by most Writers called Monarchie. Likewise\nif a Popular, or Aristocraticall Common-wealth, subdue an Enemies\nCountrie, and govern the same, by a President, Procurator, or\nother Magistrate; this may seeme perhaps at first sight, to be a\nDemocraticall, or Aristocraticall Government. But it is not so. For\nElective Kings, are not Soveraignes, but Ministers of the Soveraigne;\nnor limited Kings Soveraignes, but Ministers of them that have the\nSoveraigne Power: nor are those Provinces which are in subjection to a\nDemocracie, or Aristocracie of another Common-wealth, Democratically, or\nAristocratically governed, but Monarchically.\n\nAnd first, concerning an Elective King, whose power is limited to\nhis life, as it is in many places of Christendome at this day; or to\ncertaine Yeares or Moneths, as the Dictators power amongst the Romans;\nIf he have Right to appoint his Successor, he is no more Elective but\nHereditary. But if he have no Power to elect his Successor, then there\nis some other Man, or Assembly known, which after his decease may elect\na new, or else the Common-wealth dieth, and dissolveth with him, and\nreturneth to the condition of Warre. If it be known who have the power\nto give the Soveraigntie after his death, it is known also that the\nSoveraigntie was in them before: For none have right to give that which\nthey have not right to possesse, and keep to themselves, if they think\ngood. But if there be none that can give the Soveraigntie, after the\ndecease of him that was first elected; then has he power, nay he is\nobliged by the Law of Nature, to provide, by establishing his Successor,\nto keep those that had trusted him with the Government, from relapsing\ninto the miserable condition of Civill warre. And consequently he was,\nwhen elected, a Soveraign absolute.\n\nSecondly, that King whose power is limited, is not superiour to him, or\nthem that have the power to limit it; and he that is not superiour, is\nnot supreme; that is to say not Soveraign. The Soveraignty therefore\nwas alwaies in that Assembly which had the Right to Limit him; and\nby consequence the government not Monarchy, but either Democracy, or\nAristocracy; as of old time in Sparta; where the Kings had a priviledge\nto lead their Armies; but the Soveraignty was in the Ephori.\n\nThirdly, whereas heretofore the Roman People, governed the land of Judea\n(for example) by a President; yet was not Judea therefore a Democracy;\nbecause they were not governed by any Assembly, into which, any of\nthem, had right to enter; nor by an Aristocracy; because they were\nnot governed by any Assembly, into which, any man could enter by their\nElection: but they were governed by one Person, which though as to the\npeople of Rome was an Assembly of the people, or Democracy; yet as to\nthe people of Judea, which had no right at all of participating in the\ngovernment, was a Monarch. For though where the people are governed\nby an Assembly, chosen by themselves out of their own number, the\ngovernment is called a Democracy, or Aristocracy; yet when they are\ngoverned by an Assembly, not of their own choosing, 'tis a Monarchy; not\nof One man, over another man; but of one people, over another people.\n\n\n\n\nOf The Right Of Succession\n\nOf all these Formes of Government, the matter being mortall, so that not\nonely Monarchs, but also whole Assemblies dy, it is necessary for the\nconservation of the peace of men, that as there was order taken for\nan Artificiall Man, so there be order also taken, for an Artificiall\nEternity of life; without which, men that are governed by an Assembly,\nshould return into the condition of Warre in every age; and they\nthat are governed by One man, as soon as their Governour dyeth. This\nArtificiall Eternity, is that which men call the Right of Succession.\n\nThere is no perfect forme of Government, where the disposing of the\nSuccession is not in the present Soveraign. For if it be in any other\nparticular Man, or private Assembly, it is in a person subject, and may\nbe assumed by the Soveraign at his pleasure; and consequently the Right\nis in himselfe. And if it be in no particular man, but left to a new\nchoyce; then is the Common-wealth dissolved; and the Right is in him\nthat can get it; contrary to the intention of them that did institute\nthe Common-wealth, for their perpetuall, and not temporary security.\n\nIn a Democracy, the whole Assembly cannot faile, unlesse the Multitude\nthat are to be governed faile. And therefore questions of the right of\nSuccession, have in that forme of Government no place at all.\n\nIn an Aristocracy, when any of the Assembly dyeth, the election of\nanother into his room belongeth to the Assembly, as the Soveraign, to\nwhom belongeth the choosing of all Counsellours, and Officers. For that\nwhich the Representative doth, as Actor, every one of the Subjects doth,\nas Author. And though the Soveraign assembly, may give Power to others,\nto elect new men, for supply of their Court; yet it is still by their\nAuthority, that the Election is made; and by the same it may (when the\npublique shall require it) be recalled.\n\nThe Present Monarch Hath Right To Dispose Of The Succession The greatest\ndifficultie about the right of Succession, is in Monarchy: And the\ndifficulty ariseth from this, that at first sight, it is not manifest\nwho is to appoint the Successor; nor many times, who it is whom he\nhath appointed. For in both these cases, there is required a more exact\nratiocination, than every man is accustomed to use. As to the question,\nwho shall appoint the Successor, of a Monarch that hath the Soveraign\nAuthority; that is to say, (for Elective Kings and Princes have not the\nSoveraign Power in propriety, but in use only,) we are to consider, that\neither he that is in possession, has right to dispose of the Succession,\nor else that right is again in the dissolved Multitude. For the death\nof him that hath the Soveraign power in propriety, leaves the Multitude\nwithout any Soveraign at all; that is, without any Representative in\nwhom they should be united, and be capable of doing any one action at\nall: And therefore they are incapable of Election of any new Monarch;\nevery man having equall right to submit himselfe to such as he thinks\nbest able to protect him, or if he can, protect himselfe by his owne\nsword; which is a returne to Confusion, and to the condition of a War of\nevery man against every man, contrary to the end for which Monarchy had\nits first Institution. Therfore it is manifest, that by the Institution\nof Monarchy, the disposing of the Successor, is alwaies left to the\nJudgment and Will of the present Possessor.\n\nAnd for the question (which may arise sometimes) who it is that the\nMonarch in possession, hath designed to the succession and inheritance\nof his power; it is determined by his expresse Words, and Testament; or\nby other tacite signes sufficient.\n\n\n\n\nSuccession Passeth By Expresse Words;\n\nBy expresse Words, or Testament, when it is declared by him in his life\ntime, viva voce, or by Writing; as the first Emperours of Rome declared\nwho should be their Heires. For the word Heire does not of it selfe\nimply the Children, or nearest Kindred of a man; but whomsoever a man\nshall any way declare, he would have to succeed him in his Estate.\nIf therefore a Monarch declare expresly, that such a man shall be his\nHeire, either by Word or Writing, then is that man immediately after the\ndecease of his Predecessor, Invested in the right of being Monarch.\n\n\n\n\nOr, By Not Controlling A Custome;\n\nBut where Testament, and expresse Words are wanting, other naturall\nsignes of the Will are to be followed: whereof the one is Custome. And\ntherefore where the Custome is, that the next of Kindred absolutely\nsucceedeth, there also the next of Kindred hath right to the Succession;\nfor that, if the will of him that was in posession had been otherwise,\nhe might easily have declared the same in his life time. And likewise\nwhere the Custome is, that the next of the Male Kindred succeedeth,\nthere also the right of Succession is in the next of the Kindred Male,\nfor the same reason. And so it is if the Custome were to advance the\nFemale. For whatsoever Custome a man may by a word controule, and does\nnot, it is a naturall signe he would have that Custome stand.\n\n\n\n\nOr, By Presumption Of Naturall Affection\n\nBut where neither Custome, nor Testament hath preceded, there it is\nto be understood, First, that a Monarchs will is, that the government\nremain Monarchicall; because he hath approved that government in\nhimselfe. Secondly, that a Child of his own, Male, or Female, be\npreferred before any other; because men are presumed to be more enclined\nby nature, to advance their own children, than the children of other\nmen; and of their own, rather a Male than a Female; because men, are\nnaturally fitter than women, for actions of labour and danger. Thirdly,\nwhere his own Issue faileth, rather a Brother than a stranger; and so\nstill the neerer in bloud, rather than the more remote, because it is\nalwayes presumed that the neerer of kin, is the neerer in affection; and\n'tis evident that a man receives alwayes, by reflexion, the most honour\nfrom the greatnesse of his neerest kindred.\n\n\n\n\nTo Dispose Of The Succession, Though To A King Of Another Nation,\n\nNot Unlawfull\n\nBut if it be lawfull for a Monarch to dispose of the Succession by words\nof Contract, or Testament, men may perhaps object a great inconvenience:\nfor he may sell, or give his Right of governing to a stranger; which,\nbecause strangers (that is, men not used to live under the same\ngovernment, not speaking the same language) do commonly undervalue one\nanother, may turn to the oppression of his Subjects; which is indeed\na great inconvenience; but it proceedeth not necessarily from the\nsubjection to a strangers government, but from the unskilfulnesse of the\nGovernours, ignorant of the true rules of Politiques. And therefore\nthe Romans when they had subdued many Nations, to make their Government\ndigestible, were wont to take away that grievance, as much as they\nthought necessary, by giving sometimes to whole Nations, and sometimes\nto Principall men of every Nation they conquered, not onely the\nPrivileges, but also the Name of Romans; and took many of them into the\nSenate, and Offices of charge, even in the Roman City. And this was it\nour most wise King, King James, aymed at, in endeavouring the Union of\nhis two Realms of England and Scotland. Which if he could have obtained,\nhad in all likelihood prevented the Civill warres, which make both those\nKingdomes at this present, miserable. It is not therefore any injury to\nthe people, for a Monarch to dispose of the Succession by Will; though\nby the fault of many Princes, it hath been sometimes found inconvenient.\nOf the lawfulnesse of it, this also is an argument, that whatsoever\ninconvenience can arrive by giving a Kingdome to a stranger, may arrive\nalso by so marrying with strangers, as the Right of Succession may\ndescend upon them: yet this by all men is accounted lawfull.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX. OF DOMINION PATERNALL AND DESPOTICALL\n\n\nA Common-wealth by Acquisition, is that, where the Soveraign Power is\nacquired by Force; And it is acquired by force, when men singly, or\nmany together by plurality of voyces, for fear of death, or bonds, do\nauthorise all the actions of that Man, or Assembly, that hath their\nlives and liberty in his Power.\n\n\n\n\nWherein Different From A Common-wealth By Institution\n\nAnd this kind of Dominion, or Soveraignty, differeth from Soveraignty by\nInstitution, onely in this, That men who choose their Soveraign, do it\nfor fear of one another, and not of him whom they Institute: But in this\ncase, they subject themselves, to him they are afraid of. In both cases\nthey do it for fear: which is to be noted by them, that hold all such\nCovenants, as proceed from fear of death, or violence, voyd: which if\nit were true, no man, in any kind of Common-wealth, could be obliged\nto Obedience. It is true, that in a Common-wealth once Instituted, or\nacquired, Promises proceeding from fear of death, or violence, are no\nCovenants, nor obliging, when the thing promised is contrary to the\nLawes; But the reason is not, because it was made upon fear, but because\nhe that promiseth, hath no right in the thing promised. Also, when he\nmay lawfully performe, and doth not, it is not the Invalidity of\nthe Covenant, that absolveth him, but the Sentence of the Soveraign.\nOtherwise, whensoever a man lawfully promiseth, he unlawfully breaketh:\nBut when the Soveraign, who is the Actor, acquitteth him, then he is\nacquitted by him that exorted the promise, as by the Author of such\nabsolution.\n\n\n\n\nThe Rights Of Soveraignty The Same In Both\n\nBut the Rights, and Consequences of Soveraignty, are the same in both.\nHis Power cannot, without his consent, be Transferred to another: He\ncannot Forfeit it: He cannot be Accused by any of his Subjects, of\nInjury: He cannot be Punished by them: He is Judge of what is necessary\nfor Peace; and Judge of Doctrines: He is Sole Legislator; and Supreme\nJudge of Controversies; and of the Times, and Occasions of Warre,\nand Peace: to him it belongeth to choose Magistrates, Counsellours,\nCommanders, and all other Officers, and Ministers; and to determine of\nRewards, and punishments, Honour, and Order. The reasons whereof, are\nthe same which are alledged in the precedent Chapter, for the same\nRights, and Consequences of Soveraignty by Institution.\n\n\n\n\nDominion Paternall How Attained Not By Generation, But By Contract\n\nDominion is acquired two wayes; By Generation, and by Conquest. The\nright of Dominion by Generation, is that, which the Parent hath over\nhis Children; and is called PATERNALL. And is not so derived from the\nGeneration, as if therefore the Parent had Dominion over his Child\nbecause he begat him; but from the Childs Consent, either expresse, or\nby other sufficient arguments declared. For as to the Generation, God\nhath ordained to man a helper; and there be alwayes two that are equally\nParents: the Dominion therefore over the Child, should belong equally to\nboth; and he be equally subject to both, which is impossible; for no man\ncan obey two Masters. And whereas some have attributed the Dominion to\nthe Man onely, as being of the more excellent Sex; they misreckon in it.\nFor there is not always that difference of strength or prudence between\nthe man and the woman, as that the right can be determined without War.\nIn Common-wealths, this controversie is decided by the Civill Law: and\nfor the most part, (but not alwayes) the sentence is in favour of the\nFather; because for the most part Common-wealths have been erected by\nthe Fathers, not by the Mothers of families. But the question lyeth\nnow in the state of meer Nature; where there are supposed no lawes\nof Matrimony; no lawes for the Education of Children; but the Law of\nNature, and the naturall inclination of the Sexes, one to another, and\nto their children. In this condition of meer Nature, either the Parents\nbetween themselves dispose of the dominion over the Child by Contract;\nor do not dispose thereof at all. If they dispose thereof, the right\npasseth according to the Contract. We find in History that the Amazons\nContracted with the Men of the neighbouring Countries, to whom they had\nrecourse for issue, that the issue Male should be sent back, but the\nFemale remain with themselves: so that the dominion of the Females was\nin the Mother.\n\n\n\n\nOr Education;\n\nIf there be no Contract, the Dominion is in the Mother. For in the\ncondition of Meer Nature, where there are no Matrimoniall lawes, it\ncannot be known who is the Father, unlesse it be declared by the Mother:\nand therefore the right of Dominion over the Child dependeth on her\nwill, and is consequently hers. Again, seeing the Infant is first in the\npower of the Mother; so as she may either nourish, or expose it, if she\nnourish it, it oweth its life to the Mother; and is therefore obliged to\nobey her, rather than any other; and by consequence the Dominion over\nit is hers. But if she expose it, and another find, and nourish it, the\nDominion is in him that nourisheth it. For it ought to obey him by whom\nit is preserved; because preservation of life being the end, for which\none man becomes subject to another, every man is supposed to promise\nobedience, to him, in whose power it is to save, or destroy him.\n\n\n\n\nOr Precedent Subjection Of One Of The Parents To The Other\n\nIf the Mother be the Fathers subject, the Child, is in the Fathers\npower: and if the Father be the Mothers subject, (as when a Soveraign\nQueen marrieth one of her subjects,) the Child is subject to the Mother;\nbecause the Father also is her subject.\n\nIf a man and a woman, Monarches of two severall Kingdomes, have a Child,\nand contract concerning who shall have the Dominion of him, the Right of\nthe Dominion passeth by the Contract. If they contract not, the Dominion\nfolloweth the Dominion of the place of his residence. For the Soveraign\nof each Country hath Dominion over all that reside therein.\n\nHe that hath the Dominion over the Child, hath Dominion also over their\nChildrens Children. For he that hath Dominion over the person of a man,\nhath Dominion over all that is his; without which, Dominion were but a\nTitle, without the effect.\n\n\n\n\nThe Right Of Succession Followeth The Rules Of The Rights Of Possession\n\nThe Right of Succession to Paternall dominion, proceedeth in the same\nmanner, as doth the Right of Succession to Monarchy; of which I have\nalready sufficiently spoken in the precedent chapter.\n\n\n\n\nDespoticall Dominion, How Attained\n\nDominion acquired by Conquest, or Victory in war, is that which some\nWriters call DESPOTICALL, from Despotes, which signifieth a Lord, or\nMaster; and is the Dominion of the Master over his Servant. And this\nDominion is then acquired to the Victor, when the Vanquished, to avoyd\nthe present stroke of death, covenanteth either in expresse words, or by\nother sufficient signes of the Will, that so long as his life, and\nthe liberty of his body is allowed him, the Victor shall have the use\nthereof, at his pleasure. And after such Covenant made, the Vanquished\nis a SERVANT, and not before: for by the word Servant (whether it be\nderived from Servire, to Serve, or from Servare, to Save, which I leave\nto Grammarians to dispute) is not meant a Captive, which is kept in\nprison, or bonds, till the owner of him that took him, or bought him\nof one that did, shall consider what to do with him: (for such men,\n(commonly called Slaves,) have no obligation at all; but may break their\nbonds, or the prison; and kill, or carry away captive their Master,\njustly:) but one, that being taken, hath corporall liberty allowed him;\nand upon promise not to run away, nor to do violence to his Master, is\ntrusted by him.\n\n\n\n\nNot By The Victory, But By The Consent Of The Vanquished\n\nIt is not therefore the Victory, that giveth the right of Dominion over\nthe Vanquished, but his own Covenant. Nor is he obliged because he is\nConquered; that is to say, beaten, and taken, or put to flight; but\nbecause he commeth in, and submitteth to the Victor; Nor is the Victor\nobliged by an enemies rendring himselfe, (without promise of life,) to\nspare him for this his yeelding to discretion; which obliges not the\nVictor longer, than in his own discretion hee shall think fit.\n\nAnd that men do, when they demand (as it is now called) Quarter, (which\nthe Greeks called Zogria, taking alive,) is to evade the present fury of\nthe Victor, by Submission, and to compound for their life, with Ransome,\nor Service: and therefore he that hath Quarter, hath not his life given,\nbut deferred till farther deliberation; For it is not an yeelding on\ncondition of life, but to discretion. And then onely is his life in\nsecurity, and his service due, when the Victor hath trusted him with his\ncorporall liberty. For Slaves that work in Prisons, or Fetters, do it\nnot of duty, but to avoyd the cruelty of their task-masters.\n\nThe Master of the Servant, is Master also of all he hath; and may exact\nthe use thereof; that is to say, of his goods, of his labour, of his\nservants, and of his children, as often as he shall think fit. For he\nholdeth his life of his Master, by the covenant of obedience; that is,\nof owning, and authorising whatsoever the Master shall do. And in case\nthe Master, if he refuse, kill him, or cast him into bonds, or otherwise\npunish him for his disobedience, he is himselfe the author of the same;\nand cannot accuse him of injury.\n\nIn summe the Rights and Consequences of both Paternall and Despoticall\nDominion, are the very same with those of a Soveraign by Institution;\nand for the same reasons: which reasons are set down in the precedent\nchapter. So that for a man that is Monarch of divers Nations, whereof he\nhath, in one the Soveraignty by Institution of the people assembled, and\nin another by Conquest, that is by the Submission of each particular,\nto avoyd death or bonds; to demand of one Nation more than of the other,\nfrom the title of Conquest, as being a Conquered Nation, is an act of\nignorance of the Rights of Soveraignty. For the Soveraign is absolute\nover both alike; or else there is no Soveraignty at all; and so every\nman may Lawfully protect himselfe, if he can, with his own sword, which\nis the condition of war.\n\n\n\n\nDifference Between A Family And A Kingdom\n\nBy this it appears, that a great Family if it be not part of some\nCommon-wealth, is of it self, as to the Rights of Soveraignty, a little\nMonarchy; whether that Family consist of a man and his children; or of\na man and his servants; or of a man, and his children, and servants\ntogether: wherein the Father of Master is the Soveraign. But yet a\nFamily is not properly a Common-wealth; unlesse it be of that power by\nits own number, or by other opportunities, as not to be subdued without\nthe hazard of war. For where a number of men are manifestly too weak to\ndefend themselves united, every one may use his own reason in time of\ndanger, to save his own life, either by flight, or by submission to\nthe enemy, as hee shall think best; in the same manner as a very small\ncompany of souldiers, surprised by an army, may cast down their armes,\nand demand quarter, or run away, rather than be put to the sword. And\nthus much shall suffice; concerning what I find by speculation, and\ndeduction, of Soveraign Rights, from the nature, need, and designes\nof men, in erecting of Commonwealths, and putting themselves under\nMonarchs, or Assemblies, entrusted with power enough for their\nprotection.\n\n\n\n\nThe Right Of Monarchy From Scripture\n\nLet us now consider what the Scripture teacheth in the same point. To\nMoses, the children of Israel say thus. (Exod. 20. 19) \"Speak thou to\nus, and we will heare thee; but let not God speak to us, lest we dye.\"\nThis is absolute obedience to Moses. Concerning the Right of Kings, God\nhimself by the mouth of Samuel, saith, (1 Sam. 8. 11, 12, &c.) \"This\nshall be the Right of the King you will have to reigne over you. He\nshall take your sons, and set them to drive his Chariots, and to be his\nhorsemen, and to run before his chariots; and gather in his harvest; and\nto make his engines of War, and Instruments of his chariots; and shall\ntake your daughters to make perfumes, to be his Cookes, and Bakers. He\nshall take your fields, your vine-yards, and your olive-yards, and give\nthem to his servants. He shall take the tyth of your corne and wine, and\ngive it to the men of his chamber, and to his other servants. He shall\ntake your man-servants, and your maid-servants, and the choice of your\nyouth, and employ them in his businesse. He shall take the tyth of your\nflocks; and you shall be his servants.\" This is absolute power, and\nsummed up in the last words, \"you shall be his servants.\" Againe, when\nthe people heard what power their King was to have, yet they consented\nthereto, and say thus, (Verse. 19 &c.) \"We will be as all other nations,\nand our King shall judge our causes, and goe before us, to conduct our\nwars.\" Here is confirmed the Right that Soveraigns have, both to the\nMilitia, and to all Judicature; in which is conteined as absolute power,\nas one man can possibly transferre to another. Again, the prayer of\nKing Salomon to God, was this. (1 Kings 3. 9) \"Give to thy servant\nunderstanding, to judge thy people, and to discerne between Good and\nEvill.\" It belongeth therefore to the Soveraigne to bee Judge, and\nto praescribe the Rules of Discerning Good and Evill; which Rules are\nLawes; and therefore in him is the Legislative Power. Saul sought\nthe life of David; yet when it was in his power to slay Saul, and his\nServants would have done it, David forbad them, saying (1 Sam. 24. 9)\n\"God forbid I should do such an act against my Lord, the anoynted of\nGod.\" For obedience of servants St. Paul saith, (Coll. 3. 20) \"Servants\nobey your masters in All things,\" and, (Verse. 22) \"Children obey your\nParents in All things.\" There is simple obedience in those that are\nsubject to Paternall, or Despoticall Dominion. Again, (Math. 23. 2,3)\n\"The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chayre and therefore All that\nthey shall bid you observe, that observe and do.\" There again is simple\nobedience. And St. Paul, (Tit. 3. 2) \"Warn them that they subject\nthemselves to Princes, and to those that are in Authority, & obey\nthem.\" This obedience is also simple. Lastly, our Saviour himselfe\nacknowledges, that men ought to pay such taxes as are by Kings imposed,\nwhere he sayes, \"Give to Caesar that which is Caesars;\" and payed such\ntaxes himselfe. And that the Kings word, is sufficient to take any thing\nfrom any subject, when there is need; and that the King is Judge of that\nneed: For he himselfe, as King of the Jewes, commanded his Disciples to\ntake the Asse, and Asses Colt to carry him into Jerusalem, saying, (Mat.\n21. 2,3) \"Go into the Village over against you, and you shall find a\nshee Asse tyed, and her Colt with her, unty them, and bring them to me.\nAnd if any man ask you, what you mean by it, Say the Lord hath need\nof them: And they will let them go.\" They will not ask whether his\nnecessity be a sufficient title; nor whether he be judge of that\nnecessity; but acquiesce in the will of the Lord.\n\nTo these places may be added also that of Genesis, (Gen. 3. 5) \"You\nshall be as Gods, knowing Good and Evill.\" and verse 11. \"Who told thee\nthat thou wast naked? hast thou eaten of the tree, of which I commanded\nthee thou shouldest not eat?\" For the Cognisance of Judicature of Good\nand Evill, being forbidden by the name of the fruit of the tree of\nKnowledge, as a triall of Adams obedience; The Divell to enflame the\nAmbition of the woman, to whom that fruit already seemed beautifull,\ntold her that by tasting it, they should be as Gods, knowing Good and\nEvill. Whereupon having both eaten, they did indeed take upon them\nGods office, which is Judicature of Good and Evill; but acquired no new\nability to distinguish between them aright. And whereas it is sayd, that\nhaving eaten, they saw they were naked; no man hath so interpreted that\nplace, as if they had formerly blind, as saw not their own skins: the\nmeaning is plain, that it was then they first judged their nakednesse\n(wherein it was Gods will to create them) to be uncomely; and by being\nashamed, did tacitely censure God himselfe. And thereupon God saith,\n\"Hast thou eaten, &c.\" as if he should say, doest thou that owest me\nobedience, take upon thee to judge of my Commandements? Whereby it is\ncleerly, (though Allegorically,) signified, that the Commands of\nthem that have the right to command, are not by their Subjects to be\ncensured, nor disputed.\n\n\n\n\nSoveraign Power Ought In All Common-wealths To Be Absolute\n\nSo it appeareth plainly, to my understanding, both from Reason, and\nScripture, that the Soveraign Power, whether placed in One Man, as in\nMonarchy, or in one Assembly of men, as in Popular, and Aristocraticall\nCommon-wealths, is as great, as possibly men can be imagined to make\nit. And though of so unlimited a Power, men may fancy many evill\nconsequences, yet the consequences of the want of it, which is\nperpetuall warre of every man against his neighbour, are much worse. The\ncondition of man in this life shall never be without Inconveniences; but\nthere happeneth in no Common-wealth any great Inconvenience, but what\nproceeds from the Subjects disobedience, and breach of those Covenants,\nfrom which the Common-wealth had its being. And whosoever thinking\nSoveraign Power too great, will seek to make it lesse; must subject\nhimselfe, to the Power, that can limit it; that is to say, to a greater.\n\nThe greatest objection is, that of the Practise; when men ask, where,\nand when, such Power has by Subjects been acknowledged. But one may\nask them again, when, or where has there been a Kingdome long free from\nSedition and Civill Warre. In those Nations, whose Common-wealths have\nbeen long-lived, and not been destroyed, but by forraign warre, the\nSubjects never did dispute of the Soveraign Power. But howsoever, an\nargument for the Practise of men, that have not sifted to the bottom,\nand with exact reason weighed the causes, and nature of Common-wealths,\nand suffer daily those miseries, that proceed from the ignorance\nthereof, is invalid. For though in all places of the world, men should\nlay the foundation of their houses on the sand, it could not thence be\ninferred, that so it ought to be. The skill of making, and maintaining\nCommon-wealths, consisteth in certain Rules, as doth Arithmetique and\nGeometry; not (as Tennis-play) on Practise onely: which Rules, neither\npoor men have the leisure, nor men that have had the leisure, have\nhitherto had the curiosity, or the method to find out.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI. OF THE LIBERTY OF SUBJECTS\n\n\n\n\nLiberty What\n\nLiberty, or FREEDOME, signifieth (properly) the absence of Opposition;\n(by Opposition, I mean externall Impediments of motion;) and may\nbe applyed no lesse to Irrational, and Inanimate creatures, than to\nRationall. For whatsoever is so tyed, or environed, as it cannot move,\nbut within a certain space, which space is determined by the opposition\nof some externall body, we say it hath not Liberty to go further. And\nso of all living creatures, whilest they are imprisoned, or restrained,\nwith walls, or chayns; and of the water whilest it is kept in by banks,\nor vessels, that otherwise would spread it selfe into a larger space, we\nuse to say, they are not at Liberty, to move in such manner, as without\nthose externall impediments they would. But when the impediment of\nmotion, is in the constitution of the thing it selfe, we use not to\nsay, it wants the Liberty; but the Power to move; as when a stone lyeth\nstill, or a man is fastned to his bed by sicknesse.\n\n\n\n\nWhat It Is To Be Free\n\nAnd according to this proper, and generally received meaning of the\nword, A FREE-MAN, is \"he, that in those things, which by his strength\nand wit he is able to do, is not hindred to doe what he has a will\nto.\" But when the words Free, and Liberty, are applyed to any thing but\nBodies, they are abused; for that which is not subject to Motion, is not\nsubject to Impediment: And therefore, when 'tis said (for example) The\nway is free, no liberty of the way is signified, but of those that walk\nin it without stop. And when we say a Guift is free, there is not meant\nany liberty of the Guift, but of the Giver, that was not bound by any\nlaw, or Covenant to give it. So when we Speak Freely, it is not the\nliberty of voice, or pronunciation, but of the man, whom no law hath\nobliged to speak otherwise then he did. Lastly, from the use of the\nword Freewill, no liberty can be inferred to the will, desire, or\ninclination, but the liberty of the man; which consisteth in this, that\nhe finds no stop, in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination\nto doe.\n\n\n\n\nFeare And Liberty Consistent\n\nFeare and Liberty are consistent; as when a man throweth his goods into\nthe Sea for Feare the ship should sink, he doth it neverthelesse very\nwillingly, and may refuse to doe it if he will: It is therefore the\naction, of one that was Free; so a man sometimes pays his debt, only for\nFeare of Imprisonment, which because no body hindred him from detaining,\nwas the action of a man at Liberty. And generally all actions which men\ndoe in Common-wealths, for Feare of the law, or actions, which the doers\nhad Liberty to omit.\n\n\n\n\nLiberty And Necessity Consistent\n\nLiberty and Necessity are Consistent: As in the water, that hath not\nonly Liberty, but a Necessity of descending by the Channel: so likewise\nin the Actions which men voluntarily doe; which (because they proceed\nfrom their will) proceed from Liberty; and yet because every act of\nmans will, and every desire, and inclination proceedeth from some cause,\nwhich causes in a continuall chaine (whose first link in the hand of\nGod the first of all causes) proceed from Necessity. So that to him\nthat could see the connexion of those causes, the Necessity of all\nmens voluntary actions, would appeare manifest. And therefore God, that\nseeth, and disposeth all things, seeth also that the Liberty of man\nin doing what he will, is accompanied with the Necessity of doing that\nwhich God will, & no more, nor lesse. For though men may do many things,\nwhich God does not command, nor is therefore Author of them; yet they\ncan have no passion, nor appetite to any thing, of which appetite Gods\nwill is not the cause. And did not his will assure the Necessity of mans\nwill, and consequently of all that on mans will dependeth, the Liberty\nof men would be a contradiction, and impediment to the omnipotence and\nLiberty of God. And this shall suffice, (as to the matter in hand) of\nthat naturall Liberty, which only is properly called Liberty.\n\n\n\n\nArtificiall Bonds, Or Covenants\n\nBut as men, for the atteyning of peace, and conservation of themselves\nthereby, have made an Artificiall Man, which we call a Common-wealth; so\nalso have they made Artificiall Chains, called Civill Lawes, which they\nthemselves, by mutuall covenants, have fastned at one end, to the lips\nof that Man, or Assembly, to whom they have given the Soveraigne Power;\nand at the other end to their own Ears. These Bonds in their own nature\nbut weak, may neverthelesse be made to hold, by the danger, though not\nby the difficulty of breaking them.\n\n\n\n\nLiberty Of Subjects Consisteth In Liberty From Covenants\n\nIn relation to these Bonds only it is, that I am to speak now, of the\nLiberty of Subjects. For seeing there is no Common-wealth in the world,\nfor the regulating of all the actions, and words of men, (as being\na thing impossible:) it followeth necessarily, that in all kinds of\nactions, by the laws praetermitted, men have the Liberty, of doing what\ntheir own reasons shall suggest, for the most profitable to themselves.\nFor if wee take Liberty in the proper sense, for corporall Liberty; that\nis to say, freedome from chains, and prison, it were very absurd for men\nto clamor as they doe, for the Liberty they so manifestly enjoy. Againe,\nif we take Liberty, for an exemption from Lawes, it is no lesse absurd,\nfor men to demand as they doe, that Liberty, by which all other men may\nbe masters of their lives. And yet as absurd as it is, this is it they\ndemand; not knowing that the Lawes are of no power to protect them,\nwithout a Sword in the hands of a man, or men, to cause those laws to\nbe put in execution. The Liberty of a Subject, lyeth therefore only\nin those things, which in regulating their actions, the Soveraign hath\npraetermitted; such as is the Liberty to buy, and sell, and otherwise\ncontract with one another; to choose their own aboad, their own diet,\ntheir own trade of life, and institute their children as they themselves\nthink fit; & the like.\n\n\n\n\nLiberty Of The Subject Consistent With Unlimited Power Of The Soveraign\n\nNeverthelesse we are not to understand, that by such Liberty, the\nSoveraign Power of life, and death, is either abolished, or limited. For\nit has been already shewn, that nothing the Soveraign Representative\ncan doe to a Subject, on what pretence soever, can properly be called\nInjustice, or Injury; because every Subject is Author of every act the\nSoveraign doth; so that he never wanteth Right to any thing, otherwise,\nthan as he himself is the Subject of God, and bound thereby to observe\nthe laws of Nature. And therefore it may, and doth often happen in\nCommon-wealths, that a Subject may be put to death, by the command of\nthe Soveraign Power; and yet neither doe the other wrong: as when Jeptha\ncaused his daughter to be sacrificed: In which, and the like cases,\nhe that so dieth, had Liberty to doe the action, for which he is\nneverthelesse, without Injury put to death. And the same holdeth also\nin a Soveraign Prince, that putteth to death an Innocent Subject. For\nthough the action be against the law of Nature, as being contrary to\nEquitie, (as was the killing of Uriah, by David;) yet it was not an\nInjurie to Uriah; but to God. Not to Uriah, because the right to doe\nwhat he pleased, was given him by Uriah himself; And yet to God, because\nDavid was Gods Subject; and prohibited all Iniquitie by the law of\nNature. Which distinction, David himself, when he repented the fact,\nevidently confirmed, saying, \"To thee only have I sinned.\" In the same\nmanner, the people of Athens, when they banished the most potent of\ntheir Common-wealth for ten years, thought they committed no Injustice;\nand yet they never questioned what crime he had done; but what hurt he\nwould doe: Nay they commanded the banishment of they knew not whom; and\nevery Citizen bringing his Oystershell into the market place, written\nwith the name of him he desired should be banished, without actuall\naccusing him, sometimes banished an Aristides, for his reputation of\nJustice; And sometimes a scurrilous Jester, as Hyperbolus, to make a\nJest of it. And yet a man cannot say, the Soveraign People of Athens\nwanted right to banish them; or an Athenian the Libertie to Jest, or to\nbe Just.\n\n\n\n\nThe Liberty Which Writers Praise, Is The Liberty Of Soveraigns;\n\nNot Of Private Men\n\nThe Libertie, whereof there is so frequent, and honourable mention, in\nthe Histories, and Philosophy of the Antient Greeks, and Romans, and in\nthe writings, and discourse of those that from them have received all\ntheir learning in the Politiques, is not the Libertie of Particular\nmen; but the Libertie of the Common-wealth: which is the same with\nthat, which every man then should have, if there were no Civil Laws,\nnor Common-wealth at all. And the effects of it also be the same. For as\namongst masterlesse men, there is perpetuall war, of every man against\nhis neighbour; no inheritance, to transmit to the Son, nor to expect\nfrom the Father; no propriety of Goods, or Lands; no security; but a\nfull and absolute Libertie in every Particular man: So in States, and\nCommon-wealths not dependent on one another, every Common-wealth, (not\nevery man) has an absolute Libertie, to doe what it shall judge (that is\nto say, what that Man, or Assemblie that representeth it, shall judge)\nmost conducing to their benefit. But withall, they live in the condition\nof a perpetuall war, and upon the confines of battel, with their\nfrontiers armed, and canons planted against their neighbours\nround about. The Athenians, and Romanes, were free; that is, free\nCommon-wealths: not that any particular men had the Libertie to resist\ntheir own Representative; but that their Representative had the Libertie\nto resist, or invade other people. There is written on the Turrets of\nthe city of Luca in great characters at this day, the word LIBERTAS; yet\nno man can thence inferre, that a particular man has more Libertie,\nor Immunitie from the service of the Commonwealth there, than in\nConstantinople. Whether a Common-wealth be Monarchicall, or Popular, the\nFreedome is still the same.\n\nBut it is an easy thing, for men to be deceived, by the specious name\nof Libertie; and for want of Judgement to distinguish, mistake that for\ntheir Private Inheritance, and Birth right, which is the right of the\nPublique only. And when the same errour is confirmed by the authority of\nmen in reputation for their writings in this subject, it is no wonder if\nit produce sedition, and change of Government. In these westerne\nparts of the world, we are made to receive our opinions concerning the\nInstitution, and Rights of Common-wealths, from Aristotle, Cicero, and\nother men, Greeks and Romanes, that living under Popular States, derived\nthose Rights, not from the Principles of Nature, but transcribed them\ninto their books, out of the Practice of their own Common-wealths, which\nwere Popular; as the Grammarians describe the Rules of Language, out of\nthe Practise of the time; or the Rules of Poetry, out of the Poems of\nHomer and Virgil. And because the Athenians were taught, (to keep them\nfrom desire of changing their Government,) that they were Freemen, and\nall that lived under Monarchy were slaves; therefore Aristotle puts it\ndown in his Politiques,(lib.6.cap.2) \"In democracy, Liberty is to be\nsupposed: for 'tis commonly held, that no man is Free in any other\nGovernment.\" And as Aristotle; so Cicero, and other Writers have\ngrounded their Civill doctrine, on the opinions of the Romans, who were\ntaught to hate Monarchy, at first, by them that having deposed their\nSoveraign, shared amongst them the Soveraignty of Rome; and afterwards\nby their Successors. And by reading of these Greek, and Latine Authors,\nmen from their childhood have gotten a habit (under a false shew of\nLiberty,) of favouring tumults, and of licentious controlling the\nactions of their Soveraigns; and again of controlling those controllers,\nwith the effusion of so much blood; as I think I may truly say, there\nwas never any thing so deerly bought, as these Western parts have bought\nthe learning of the Greek and Latine tongues.\n\n\n\n\nLiberty Of The Subject How To Be Measured\n\nTo come now to the particulars of the true Liberty of a Subject; that is\nto say, what are the things, which though commanded by the Soveraign, he\nmay neverthelesse, without Injustice, refuse to do; we are to consider,\nwhat Rights we passe away, when we make a Common-wealth; or (which is\nall one,) what Liberty we deny our selves, by owning all the Actions\n(without exception) of the Man, or Assembly we make our Soveraign. For\nin the act of our Submission, consisteth both our Obligation, and\nour Liberty; which must therefore be inferred by arguments taken from\nthence; there being no Obligation on any man, which ariseth not from\nsome Act of his own; for all men equally, are by Nature Free. And\nbecause such arguments, must either be drawn from the expresse words, \"I\nAuthorise all his Actions,\" or from the Intention of him that submitteth\nhimselfe to his Power, (which Intention is to be understood by the End\nfor which he so submitteth;) The Obligation, and Liberty of the Subject,\nis to be derived, either from those Words, (or others equivalent;) or\nelse from the End of the Institution of Soveraignty; namely, the Peace\nof the Subjects within themselves, and their Defence against a common\nEnemy.\n\n\n\n\nSubjects Have Liberty To Defend Their Own Bodies,\n\nEven Against Them That Lawfully Invade Them\n\nFirst therefore, seeing Soveraignty by Institution, is by Covenant of\nevery one to every one; and Soveraignty by Acquisition, by Covenants of\nthe Vanquished to the Victor, or Child to the Parent; It is manifest,\nthat every Subject has Liberty in all those things, the right whereof\ncannot by Covenant be transferred. I have shewn before in the 14.\nChapter, that Covenants, not to defend a mans own body, are voyd.\nTherefore,\n\n\n\n\nAre Not Bound To Hurt Themselves;\n\nIf the Soveraign command a man (though justly condemned,) to kill,\nwound, or mayme himselfe; or not to resist those that assault him; or\nto abstain from the use of food, ayre, medicine, or any other thing,\nwithout which he cannot live; yet hath that man the Liberty to disobey.\n\nIf a man be interrogated by the Soveraign, or his Authority, concerning\na crime done by himselfe, he is not bound (without assurance of Pardon)\nto confesse it; because no man (as I have shewn in the same Chapter) can\nbe obliged by Covenant to accuse himselfe.\n\nAgain, the Consent of a Subject to Soveraign Power, is contained in\nthese words, \"I Authorise, or take upon me, all his actions;\" in which\nthere is no restriction at all, of his own former naturall Liberty:\nFor by allowing him to Kill Me, I am not bound to Kill my selfe when\nhe commands me. \"'Tis one thing to say 'Kill me, or my fellow, if you\nplease;' another thing to say, 'I will kill my selfe, or my fellow.'\" It\nfolloweth therefore, that\n\nNo man is bound by the words themselves, either to kill himselfe, or\nany other man; And consequently, that the Obligation a man may sometimes\nhave, upon the Command of the Soveraign to execute any dangerous, or\ndishonourable Office, dependeth not on the Words of our Submission; but\non the Intention; which is to be understood by the End thereof. When\ntherefore our refusall to obey, frustrates the End for which the\nSoveraignty was ordained; then there is no Liberty to refuse: otherwise\nthere is.\n\n\n\n\nNor To Warfare, Unless They Voluntarily Undertake It\n\nUpon this ground, a man that is commanded as a Souldier to fight against\nthe enemy, though his Soveraign have Right enough to punish his refusall\nwith death, may neverthelesse in many cases refuse, without Injustice;\nas when he substituteth a sufficient Souldier in his place: for in this\ncase he deserteth not the service of the Common-wealth. And there is\nallowance to be made for naturall timorousnesse, not onely to women, (of\nwhom no such dangerous duty is expected,) but also to men of feminine\ncourage. When Armies fight, there is on one side, or both, a running\naway; yet when they do it not out of trechery, but fear, they are not\nesteemed to do it unjustly, but dishonourably. For the same reason, to\navoyd battell, is not Injustice, but Cowardise. But he that inrowleth\nhimselfe a Souldier, or taketh imprest mony, taketh away the excuse of\na timorous nature; and is obliged, not onely to go to the battell,\nbut also not to run from it, without his Captaines leave. And when the\nDefence of the Common-wealth, requireth at once the help of all that\nare able to bear Arms, every one is obliged; because otherwise the\nInstitution of the Common-wealth, which they have not the purpose, or\ncourage to preserve, was in vain.\n\nTo resist the Sword of the Common-wealth, in defence of another man,\nguilty, or innocent, no man hath Liberty; because such Liberty, takes\naway from the Soveraign, the means of Protecting us; and is therefore\ndestructive of the very essence of Government. But in case a great many\nmen together, have already resisted the Soveraign Power Unjustly, or\ncommitted some Capitall crime, for which every one of them expecteth\ndeath, whether have they not the Liberty then to joyn together, and\nassist, and defend one another? Certainly they have: For they but defend\ntheir lives, which the guilty man may as well do, as the Innocent. There\nwas indeed injustice in the first breach of their duty; Their bearing of\nArms subsequent to it, though it be to maintain what they have done, is\nno new unjust act. And if it be onely to defend their persons, it is not\nunjust at all. But the offer of Pardon taketh from them, to whom it\nis offered, the plea of self-defence, and maketh their perseverance in\nassisting, or defending the rest, unlawfull.\n\n\n\n\nThe Greatest Liberty Of Subjects, Dependeth On The Silence Of The Law\n\n\nAs for other Lyberties, they depend on the silence of the Law. In cases\nwhere the Soveraign has prescribed no rule, there the Subject hath\nthe liberty to do, or forbeare, according to his own discretion. And\ntherefore such Liberty is in some places more, and in some lesse; and in\nsome times more, in other times lesse, according as they that have the\nSoveraignty shall think most convenient. As for Example, there was\na time, when in England a man might enter in to his own Land,\n(and dispossesse such as wrongfully possessed it) by force. But in\nafter-times, that Liberty of Forcible entry, was taken away by a Statute\nmade (by the King) in Parliament. And is some places of the world, men\nhave the Liberty of many wives: in other places, such Liberty is not\nallowed.\n\nIf a Subject have a controversie with his Soveraigne, of Debt, or\nof right of possession of lands or goods, or concerning any service\nrequired at his hands, or concerning any penalty corporall, or\npecuniary, grounded on a precedent Law; He hath the same Liberty to sue\nfor his right, as if it were against a Subject; and before such Judges,\nas are appointed by the Soveraign. For seeing the Soveraign demandeth\nby force of a former Law, and not by vertue of his Power; he declareth\nthereby, that he requireth no more, than shall appear to be due by that\nLaw. The sute therefore is not contrary to the will of the Soveraign;\nand consequently the Subject hath the Liberty to demand the hearing of\nhis Cause; and sentence, according to that Law. But if he demand, or\ntake any thing by pretence of his Power; there lyeth, in that case, no\naction of Law: for all that is done by him in Vertue of his Power, is\ndone by the Authority of every subject, and consequently, he that brings\nan action against the Soveraign, brings it against himselfe.\n\nIf a Monarch, or Soveraign Assembly, grant a Liberty to all, or any of\nhis Subjects; which Grant standing, he is disabled to provide for their\nsafety, the Grant is voyd; unlesse he directly renounce, or transferre\nthe Soveraignty to another. For in that he might openly, (if it had been\nhis will,) and in plain termes, have renounced, or transferred it, and\ndid not; it is to be understood it was not his will; but that the Grant\nproceeded from ignorance of the repugnancy between such a Liberty and\nthe Soveraign Power; and therefore the Soveraignty is still retayned;\nand consequently all those Powers, which are necessary to the exercising\nthereof; such as are the Power of Warre, and Peace, of Judicature, of\nappointing Officers, and Councellours, of levying Mony, and the rest\nnamed in the 18th Chapter.\n\n\n\n\nIn What Cases Subjects Absolved Of Their Obedience To Their Soveraign\n\nThe Obligation of Subjects to the Soveraign is understood to last as\nlong, and no longer, than the power lasteth, by which he is able to\nprotect them. For the right men have by Nature to protect themselves,\nwhen none else can protect them, can by no Covenant be relinquished. The\nSoveraignty is the Soule of the Common-wealth; which once departed from\nthe Body, the members doe no more receive their motion from it. The end\nof Obedience is Protection; which, wheresoever a man seeth it, either in\nhis own, or in anothers sword, Nature applyeth his obedience to it, and\nhis endeavour to maintaine it. And though Soveraignty, in the intention\nof them that make it, be immortall; yet is it in its own nature, not\nonly subject to violent death, by forreign war; but also through\nthe ignorance, and passions of men, it hath in it, from the very\ninstitution, many seeds of a naturall mortality, by Intestine Discord.\n\n\n\n\nIn Case Of Captivity\n\nIf a Subject be taken prisoner in war; or his person, or his means of\nlife be within the Guards of the enemy, and hath his life and corporall\nLibertie given him, on condition to be Subject to the Victor, he hath\nLibertie to accept the condition; and having accepted it, is the subject\nof him that took him; because he had no other way to preserve himselfe.\nThe case is the same, if he be deteined on the same termes, in a\nforreign country. But if a man be held in prison, or bonds, or is not\ntrusted with the libertie of his bodie; he cannot be understood to be\nbound by Covenant to subjection; and therefore may, if he can, make his\nescape by any means whatsoever.\n\n\n\n\nIn Case The Soveraign Cast Off The Government From Himself And Heyrs\n\nIf a Monarch shall relinquish the Soveraignty, both for himself, and\nhis heires; His Subjects returne to the absolute Libertie of Nature;\nbecause, though Nature may declare who are his Sons, and who are the\nnerest of his Kin; yet it dependeth on his own will, (as hath been said\nin the precedent chapter,) who shall be his Heyr. If therefore he will\nhave no Heyre, there is no Soveraignty, nor Subjection. The case is the\nsame, if he dye without known Kindred, and without declaration of\nhis Heyre. For then there can no Heire be known, and consequently no\nSubjection be due.\n\n\n\n\nIn Case Of Banishment\n\nIf the Soveraign Banish his Subject; during the Banishment, he is not\nSubject. But he that is sent on a message, or hath leave to travell, is\nstill Subject; but it is, by Contract between Soveraigns, not by vertue\nof the covenant of Subjection. For whosoever entreth into anothers\ndominion, is Subject to all the Lawes thereof; unless he have a\nprivilege by the amity of the Soveraigns, or by speciall licence.\n\n\n\n\nIn Case The Soveraign Render Himself Subject To Another\n\nIf a Monarch subdued by war, render himself Subject to the Victor; his\nSubjects are delivered from their former obligation, and become obliged\nto the Victor. But if he be held prisoner, or have not the liberty\nof his own Body; he is not understood to have given away the Right of\nSoveraigntie; and therefore his Subjects are obliged to yield obedience\nto the Magistrates formerly placed, governing not in their own name,\nbut in his. For, his Right remaining, the question is only of the\nAdministration; that is to say, of the Magistrates and Officers; which,\nif he have not means to name, he is supposed to approve those, which he\nhimself had formerly appointed.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII. OF SYSTEMES SUBJECT, POLITICALL, AND PRIVATE\n\n\n\n\nThe Divers Sorts Of Systemes Of People\n\nHaving spoken of the Generation, Forme, and Power of a Common-wealth, I\nam in order to speak next of the parts thereof. And first of Systemes,\nwhich resemble the similar parts, or Muscles of a Body naturall. By\nSYSTEMES; I understand any numbers of men joyned in one Interest, or one\nBusinesse. Of which, some are Regular, and some Irregular. Regular are\nthose, where one Man, or Assembly of men, is constituted Representative\nof the whole number. All other are Irregular.\n\nOf Regular, some are Absolute, and Independent, subject to none but\ntheir own Representative: such are only Common-wealths; Of which I have\nspoken already in the 5. last preceding chapters. Others are Dependent;\nthat is to say, Subordinate to some Soveraign Power, to which every one,\nas also their Representative is Subject.\n\nOf Systemes subordinate, some are Politicall, and some Private.\nPoliticall (otherwise Called Bodies Politique, and Persons In Law,)\nare those, which are made by authority from the Soveraign Power of the\nCommon-wealth. Private, are those, which are constituted by Subjects\namongst themselves, or by authoritie from a stranger. For no authority\nderived from forraign power, within the Dominion of another, is Publique\nthere, but Private.\n\nAnd of Private Systemes, some are Lawfull; some Unlawfull: Lawfull, are\nthose which are allowed by the Common-wealth: all other are Unlawfull.\nIrregular Systemes, are those which having no Representative,\nconsist only in concourse of People; which if not forbidden by the\nCommon-wealth, nor made on evill designe, (such as are conflux of People\nto markets, or shews, or any other harmelesse end,) are Lawfull. But\nwhen the Intention is evill, or (if the number be considerable) unknown,\nthey are Unlawfull.\n\n\n\n\nIn All Bodies Politique The Power Of The Representative Is Limited\n\nIn Bodies Politique, the power of the Representative is alwaies Limited:\nAnd that which prescribeth the limits thereof, is the Power Soveraign.\nFor Power Unlimited, is absolute Soveraignty. And the Soveraign, in\nevery Commonwealth, is the absolute Representative of all the Subjects;\nand therefore no other, can be Representative of any part of them,\nbut so far forth, as he shall give leave; And to give leave to a Body\nPolitique of Subjects, to have an absolute Representative to all\nintents and purposes, were to abandon the Government of so much of the\nCommonwealth, and to divide the Dominion, contrary to their Peace and\nDefence, which the Soveraign cannot be understood to doe, by any Grant,\nthat does not plainly, and directly discharge them of their subjection.\nFor consequences of words, are not the signes of his will, when other\nconsequences are signes of the contrary; but rather signes of errour,\nand misreckoning; to which all mankind is too prone.\n\nThe bounds of that Power, which is given to the Representative of a\nBodie Politique, are to be taken notice of, from two things. One is\ntheir Writt, or Letters from the Soveraign: the other is the Law of the\nCommon-wealth.\n\n\n\n\nBy Letters Patents\n\nFor though in the Institution or Acquisition of a Common-wealth,\nwhich is independent, there needs no Writing, because the Power of the\nRepresentative has there no other bounds, but such as are set out by\nthe unwritten Law of Nature; yet in subordinate bodies, there are such\ndiversities of Limitation necessary, concerning their businesses, times,\nand places, as can neither be remembred without Letters, nor taken\nnotice of, unlesse such Letters be Patent, that they may be read to\nthem, and withall sealed, or testified, with the Seales, or other\npermanent signes of the Authority Soveraign.\n\n\n\n\nAnd The Lawes\n\nAnd because such Limitation is not alwaies easie, or perhaps possible\nto be described in writing; the ordinary Lawes, common to all Subjects,\nmust determine, that the Representative may lawfully do, in all Cases,\nwhere the Letters themselves are silent. And therefore\n\n\n\n\nWhen The Representative Is One Man, His Unwarranted Acts His Own Onely\n\nIn a Body Politique, if the Representative be one man, whatsoever he\ndoes in the Person of the Body, which is not warranted in his Letters,\nnor by the Lawes, is his own act, and not the act of the Body, nor of\nany other Member thereof besides himselfe: Because further than his\nLetters, or the Lawes limit, he representeth no mans person, but his\nown. But what he does according to these, is the act of every one: For\nof the Act of the Soveraign every one is Author, because he is their\nRepresentative unlimited; and the act of him that recedes not from the\nLetters of the Soveraign, is the act of the Soveraign, and therefore\nevery member of the Body is Author of it.\n\n\n\n\nWhen It Is An Assembly, It Is The Act Of Them That Assented Onely\n\nBut if the Representative be an Assembly, whatsoever that Assembly shall\nDecree, not warranted by their Letters, or the Lawes, is the act of the\nAssembly, or Body Politique, and the act of every one by whose Vote the\nDecree was made; but not the act of any man that being present Voted to\nthe contrary; nor of any man absent, unlesse he Voted it by procuration.\nIt is the act of the Assembly, because Voted by the major part; and if\nit be a crime, the Assembly may be punished, as farre-forth as it is\ncapable, as by dissolution, or forfeiture of their Letters (which is to\nsuch artificiall, and fictitious Bodies, capitall,) or (if the\nAssembly have a Common stock, wherein none of the Innocent Members have\npropriety,) by pecuniary Mulct. For from corporall penalties Nature hath\nexempted all Bodies Politique. But they that gave not their Vote, are\ntherefore Innocent, because the Assembly cannot Represent any man in\nthings unwarranted by their Letters, and consequently are not involved\nin their Votes.\n\nWhen The Representative Is One Man, If He Borrow Mony, Or Owe It, By\nContract; He Is Lyable Onely, The Members Not If the person of the Body\nPolitique being in one man, borrow mony of a stranger, that is, of one\nthat is not of the same Body, (for no Letters need limit borrowing,\nseeing it is left to mens own inclinations to limit lending) the debt is\nthe Representatives. For if he should have Authority from his Letters,\nto make the members pay what he borroweth, he should have by consequence\nthe Soveraignty of them; and therefore the grant were either voyd,\nas proceeding from Errour, commonly incident to humane Nature, and an\nunsufficient signe of the will of the Granter; or if it be avowed\nby him, then is the Representer Soveraign, and falleth not under the\npresent question, which is onely of Bodies subordinate. No member\ntherefore is obliged to pay the debt so borrowed, but the Representative\nhimselfe: because he that lendeth it, being a stranger to the Letters,\nand to the qualification of the Body, understandeth those onely for\nhis debtors, that are engaged; and seeing the Representer can ingage\nhimselfe, and none else, has him onely for Debtor; who must therefore\npay him, out of the common stock (if there be any), or (if there be\nnone) out of his own estate.\n\nIf he come into debt by Contract, or Mulct, the case is the same.\n\n\n\n\nWhen It Is An Assembly, They Onely Are Liable That Have Assented\n\nBut when the Representative is an Assembly, and the debt to a stranger;\nall they, and onely they are responsible for the debt, that gave their\nvotes to the borrowing of it, or to the Contract that made it due, or to\nthe fact for which the Mulct was imposed; because every one of those in\nvoting did engage himselfe for the payment: For he that is author of\nthe borrowing, is obliged to the payment, even of the whole debt, though\nwhen payd by any one, he be discharged.\n\n\n\n\nIf The Debt Be To One Of The Assembly, The Body Onely Is Obliged\n\nBut if the debt be to one of the Assembly, the Assembly onely is obliged\nto the payment, out of their common stock (if they have any:) For having\nliberty of Vote, if he Vote the Mony, shall be borrowed, he Votes it\nshall be payd; If he Vote it shall not be borrowed, or be absent, yet\nbecause in lending, he voteth the borrowing, he contradicteth his former\nVote, and is obliged by the later, and becomes both borrower and lender,\nand consequently cannot demand payment from any particular man, but\nfrom the common Treasure onely; which fayling he hath no remedy, nor\ncomplaint, but against himselfe, that being privy to the acts of\nthe Assembly, and their means to pay, and not being enforced, did\nneverthelesse through his own folly lend his mony.\n\n\n\n\nProtestation Against The Decrees Of Bodies Politique\n\nSometimes Lawful; But Against Soveraign Power Never It is manifest by\nthis, that in Bodies Politique subordinate, and subject to a Soveraign\nPower, it is sometimes not onely lawfull, but expedient, for a\nparticular man to make open protestation against the decrees of the\nRepresentative Assembly, and cause their dissent to be Registred, or to\ntake witnesse of it; because otherwise they may be obliged to pay debts\ncontracted, and be responsible for crimes committed by other men: But in\na Soveraign Assembly, that liberty is taken away, both because he that\nprotesteth there, denies their Soveraignty; and also because whatsoever\nis commanded by the Soveraign Power, is as to the Subject (though not\nso alwayes in the sight of God) justified by the Command; for of such\ncommand every Subject is the Author.\n\n\n\n\nBodies Politique For Government Of A Province, Colony, Or Town\n\nThe variety of Bodies Politique, is almost infinite; for they are\nnot onely distinguished by the severall affaires, for which they are\nconstituted, wherein there is an unspeakable diversitie; but also by the\ntimes, places, and numbers, subject to many limitations. And as to their\naffaires, some are ordained for Government; As first, the Government\nof a Province may be committed to an Assembly of men, wherein all\nresolutions shall depend on the Votes of the major part; and then this\nAssembly is a Body Politique, and their power limited by Commission.\nThis word Province signifies a charge, or care of businesse, which he\nwhose businesse it is, committeth to another man, to be administred for,\nand under him; and therefore when in one Common-wealth there be divers\nCountries, that have their Lawes distinct one from another, or are farre\ndistant in place, the Administration of the Government being committed\nto divers persons, those Countries where the Soveraign is not resident,\nbut governs by Commission, are called Provinces. But of the government\nof a Province, by an Assembly residing in the Province it selfe, there\nbe few examples. The Romans who had the Soveraignty of many Provinces;\nyet governed them alwaies by Presidents, and Praetors; and not by\nAssemblies, as they governed the City of Rome, and Territories adjacent.\nIn like manner, when there were Colonies sent from England, to Plant\nVirginia, and Sommer-Ilands; though the government of them here, were\ncommitted to Assemblies in London, yet did those Assemblies never\ncommit the Government under them to any Assembly there; but did to each\nPlantation send one Governour; For though every man, where he can be\npresent by Nature, desires to participate of government; yet where\nthey cannot be present, they are by Nature also enclined, to commit the\nGovernment of their common Interest rather to a Monarchicall, then a\nPopular form of Government: which is also evident in those men that have\ngreat private estates; who when they are unwilling to take the paines of\nadministring the businesse that belongs to them, choose rather to trust\none Servant, than a Assembly either of their friends or servants.\nBut howsoever it be in fact, yet we may suppose the Government of a\nProvince, or Colony committed to an Assembly: and when it is, that which\nin this place I have to say, is this; that whatsoever debt is by that\nAssembly contracted; or whatsoever unlawfull Act is decreed, is the Act\nonely of those that assented, and not of any that dissented, or were\nabsent, for the reasons before alledged. Also that an Assembly residing\nout of the bounds of that Colony whereof they have the government,\ncannot execute any power over the persons, or goods of any of the\nColonie, to seize on them for debt, or other duty, in any place\nwithout the Colony it selfe, as having no Jurisdiction, nor Authoritie\nelsewhere, but are left to the remedie, which the Law of the place\nalloweth them. And though the Assembly have right, to impose a Mulct\nupon any of their members, that shall break the Lawes they make; yet\nout of the Colonie it selfe, they have no right to execute the same.\nAnd that which is said here, of the Rights of an Assembly, for the\ngovernment of a Province, or a Colony, is appliable also to an Assembly\nfor the Government of a Town, or University, or a College, or a Church,\nor for any other Government over the persons of men.\n\nAnd generally, in all Bodies Politique, if any particular member\nconceive himself Injured by the Body it self, the Cognisance of his\ncause belongeth to the Soveraign, and those the Soveraign hath ordained\nfor Judges in such causes, or shall ordaine for that particular cause;\nand not to the Body it self. For the whole Body is in this case his\nfellow subject, which in a Soveraign Assembly, is otherwise: for there,\nif the Soveraign be not Judge, though in his own cause, there can be no\nJudge at all.\n\n\n\n\nBodies Politique For Ordering Of Trade\n\nIn a Bodie Politique, for the well ordering of forraigne Traffique, the\nmost commodious Representative is an Assembly of all the members; that\nis to say, such a one, as every one that adventureth his mony, may be\npresent at all the Deliberations, and Resolutions of the Body, if they\nwill themselves. For proof whereof, we are to consider the end, for\nwhich men that are Merchants, and may buy and sell, export, and import\ntheir Merchandise, according to their own discretions, doe neverthelesse\nbind themselves up in one Corporation. It is true, there be few\nMerchants, that with the Merchandise they buy at home, can fraight a\nShip, to export it; or with that they buy abroad, to bring it home; and\nhave therefore need to joyn together in one Society; where every man\nmay either participate of the gaine, according to the proportion of his\nadventure; or take his own; and sell what he transports, or imports, at\nsuch prices as he thinks fit. But this is no Body Politique, there being\nno Common Representative to oblige them to any other Law, than that\nwhich is common to all other subjects. The End of their Incorporating,\nis to make their gaine the greater; which is done two wayes; by sole\nbuying, and sole selling, both at home, and abroad. So that to grant\nto a Company of Merchants to be a Corporation, or Body Politique, is to\ngrant them a double Monopoly, whereof one is to be sole buyers; another\nto be sole sellers. For when there is a Company incorporate for any\nparticular forraign Country, they only export the Commodities vendible\nin that Country; which is sole buying at home, and sole selling abroad.\nFor at home there is but one buyer, and abroad but one that selleth:\nboth which is gainfull to the Merchant, because thereby they buy at home\nat lower, and sell abroad at higher rates: And abroad there is but one\nbuyer of forraign Merchandise, and but one that sels them at home; both\nwhich againe are gainfull to the adventurers.\n\nOf this double Monopoly one part is disadvantageous to the people at\nhome, the other to forraigners. For at home by their sole exportation\nthey set what price they please on the husbandry and handy-works of\nthe people; and by the sole importation, what price they please on all\nforraign commodities the people have need of; both which are ill for the\npeople. On the contrary, by the sole selling of the native commodities\nabroad, and sole buying the forraign commodities upon the place,\nthey raise the price of those, and abate the price of these, to\nthe disadvantage of the forraigner: For where but one selleth, the\nMerchandise is the dearer; and where but one buyeth the cheaper: Such\nCorporations therefore are no other then Monopolies; though they would\nbe very profitable for a Common-wealth, if being bound up into one body\nin forraigne Markets they were at liberty at home, every man to buy, and\nsell at what price he could.\n\nThe end then of these Bodies of Merchants, being not a Common benefit\nto the whole Body, (which have in this case no common stock, but what\nis deducted out of the particular adventures, for building, buying,\nvictualling and manning of Ships,) but the particular gaine of\nevery adventurer, it is reason that every one be acquainted with the\nemployment of his own; that is, that every one be of the Assembly, that\nshall have the power to order the same; and be acquainted with their\naccounts. And therefore the Representative of such a Body must be\nan Assembly, where every member of the Body may be present at the\nconsultations, if he will.\n\nIf a Body Politique of Merchants, contract a debt to a stranger by the\nact of their Representative Assembly, every Member is lyable by himself\nfor the whole. For a stranger can take no notice of their private Lawes,\nbut considereth them as so many particular men, obliged every one to the\nwhole payment, till payment made by one dischargeth all the rest: But if\nthe debt be to one of the Company, the creditor is debter for the whole\nto himself, and cannot therefore demand his debt, but only from the\ncommon stock, if there be any.\n\nIf the Common-wealth impose a Tax upon the Body, it is understood to be\nlayd upon every member proportionably to his particular adventure in the\nCompany. For there is in this case no other common stock, but what is\nmade of their particular adventures.\n\nIf a Mulct be layd upon the Body for some unlawfull act, they only are\nlyable by whose votes the act was decreed, or by whose assistance it was\nexecuted; for in none of the rest is there any other crime but being\nof the Body; which if a crime, (because the Body was ordeyned by the\nauthority of the Common-wealth,) is not his.\n\nIf one of the Members be indebted to the Body, he may be sued by the\nBody; but his goods cannot be taken, nor his person imprisoned by the\nauthority of the Body; but only by Authority of the Common-wealth:\nfor if they can doe it by their own Authority, they can by their own\nAuthority give judgement that the debt is due, which is as much as to be\nJudge in their own Cause.\n\n\n\n\nA Bodie Politique For Counsel To Be Give To The Soveraign\n\nThese Bodies made for the government of Men, or of Traffique, be either\nperpetuall, or for a time prescribed by writing. But there be Bodies\nalso whose times are limited, and that only by the nature of their\nbusinesse. For example, if a Soveraign Monarch, or a Soveraign Assembly,\nshall think fit to give command to the towns, and other severall parts\nof their territory, to send to him their Deputies, to enforme him of the\ncondition, and necessities of the Subjects, or to advise with him for\nthe making of good Lawes, or for any other cause, as with one Person\nrepresenting the whole Country, such Deputies, having a place and time\nof meeting assigned them, are there, and at that time, a Body Politique,\nrepresenting every Subject of that Dominion; but it is onely for such\nmatters as shall be propounded unto them by that Man, or Assembly, that\nby the Soveraign Authority sent for them; and when it shall be declared\nthat nothing more shall be propounded, nor debated by them, the Body is\ndissolved. For if they were the absolute Representative of the people,\nthen were it the Soveraign Assembly; and so there would be two Soveraign\nAssemblies, or two Soveraigns, over the same people; which cannot\nconsist with their Peace. And therefore where there is once a\nSoveraignty, there can be no absolute Representation of the people, but\nby it. And for the limits of how farre such a Body shall represent the\nwhole People, they are set forth in the Writing by which they were sent\nfor. For the People cannot choose their Deputies to other intent, than\nis in the Writing directed to them from their Soveraign expressed.\n\n\n\n\nA Regular Private Body, Lawfull, As A Family\n\nPrivate Bodies Regular, and Lawfull, are those that are constituted\nwithout Letters, or other written Authority, saving the Lawes common\nto all other Subjects. And because they be united in one Person\nRepresentative, they are held for Regular; such as are all Families, in\nwhich the Father, or Master ordereth the whole Family. For he obligeth\nhis Children, and Servants, as farre as the Law permitteth, though not\nfurther, because none of them are bound to obedience in those actions,\nwhich the Law hath forbidden to be done. In all other actions, during\nthe time they are under domestique government, they are subject to their\nFathers, and Masters, as to their immediate Soveraigns. For the Father,\nand Master being before the Institution of Common-wealth, absolute\nSoveraigns in their own Families, they lose afterward no more of their\nAuthority, than the Law of the Common-wealth taketh from them.\n\n\n\n\nPrivate Bodies Regular, But Unlawfull\n\nPrivate Bodies Regular, but Unlawfull, are those that unite themselves\ninto one person Representative, without any publique Authority at all;\nsuch as are the Corporations of Beggars, Theeves and Gipsies, the better\nto order their trade of begging, and stealing; and the Corporations of\nmen, that by Authority from any forraign Person, unite themselves in\nanothers Dominion, for easier propagation of Doctrines, and for making a\nparty, against the Power of the Common-wealth.\n\n\n\n\nSystemes Irregular, Such As Are Private Leagues\n\nIrregular Systemes, in their nature, but Leagues, or sometimes meer\nconcourse of people, without union to any particular designe, not by\nobligation of one to another, but proceeding onely from a similitude of\nwills and inclinations, become Lawfull, or Unlawfull, according to the\nlawfulnesse, or unlawfulnesse of every particular mans design therein:\nAnd his designe is to be understood by the occasion.\n\nThe Leagues of Subjects, (because Leagues are commonly made for mutuall\ndefence,) are in a Common-wealth (which is no more than a League of\nall the Subjects together) for the most part unnecessary, and savour of\nunlawfull designe; and are for that cause Unlawfull, and go commonly by\nthe name of factions, or Conspiracies. For a League being a connexion of\nmen by Covenants, if there be no power given to any one Man or Assembly,\n(as in the condition of meer Nature) to compell them to performance,\nis so long onely valid, as there ariseth no just cause of distrust: and\ntherefore Leagues between Common-wealths, over whom there is no humane\nPower established, to keep them all in awe, are not onely lawfull, but\nalso profitable for the time they last. But Leagues of the Subjects of\none and the same Common-wealth, where every one may obtain his right\nby means of the Soveraign Power, are unnecessary to the maintaining of\nPeace and Justice, and (in case the designe of them be evill, or Unknown\nto the Common-wealth) unlawfull. For all uniting of strength by private\nmen, is, if for evill intent, unjust; if for intent unknown, dangerous\nto the Publique, and unjustly concealed.\n\n\n\n\nSecret Cabals\n\nIf the Soveraign Power be in a great Assembly, and a number of men,\npart of the Assembly, without authority, consult a part, to contrive\nthe guidance of the rest; This is a Faction, or Conspiracy unlawfull,\nas being a fraudulent seducing of the Assembly for their particular\ninterest. But if he, whose private interest is to be debated, and\njudged in the Assembly, make as many friends as he can; in him it is\nno Injustice; because in this case he is no part of the Assembly. And\nthough he hire such friends with mony, (unlesse there be an expresse Law\nagainst it,) yet it is not Injustice. For sometimes, (as mens manners\nare,) Justice cannot be had without mony; and every man may think his\nown cause just, till it be heard, and judged.\n\n\n\n\nFeuds Of Private Families\n\nIn all Common-wealths, if a private man entertain more servants, than\nthe government of his estate, and lawfull employment he has for them\nrequires, it is Faction, and unlawfull. For having the protection of the\nCommon-wealth, he needeth not the defence of private force. And whereas\nin Nations not throughly civilized, severall numerous Families have\nlived in continuall hostility, and invaded one another with private\nforce; yet it is evident enough, that they have done unjustly; or else\nthat they had no Common-wealth.\n\n\n\n\nFactions For Government\n\nAnd as Factions for Kindred, so also Factions for Government of\nReligion, as of Papists, Protestants, &c. or of State, as Patricians,\nand Plebeians of old time in Rome, and of Aristocraticalls and\nDemocraticalls of old time in Greece, are unjust, as being contrary to\nthe peace and safety of the people, and a taking of the Sword out of the\nhand of the Soveraign.\n\nConcourse of people, is an Irregular Systeme, the lawfulnesse, or\nunlawfulnesse, whereof dependeth on the occasion, and on the number of\nthem that are assembled. If the occasion be lawfull, and manifest, the\nConcourse is lawfull; as the usuall meeting of men at Church, or at a\npublique Shew, in usuall numbers: for if the numbers be extraordinarily\ngreat, the occasion is not evident; and consequently he that cannot\nrender a particular and good account of his being amongst them, is to\nbe judged conscious of an unlawfull, and tumultuous designe. It may be\nlawfull for a thousand men, to joyn in a Petition to be delivered to a\nJudge, or Magistrate; yet if a thousand men come to present it, it is\na tumultuous Assembly; because there needs but one or two for that\npurpose. But in such cases as these, it is not a set number that makes\nthe Assembly Unlawfull, but such a number, as the present Officers are\nnot able to suppresse, and bring to Justice.\n\nWhen an unusuall number of men, assemble against a man whom they accuse;\nthe Assembly is an Unlawfull tumult; because they may deliver their\naccusation to the Magistrate by a few, or by one man. Such was the case\nof St. Paul at Ephesus; where Demetrius, and a great number of other\nmen, brought two of Pauls companions before the Magistrate, saying with\none Voyce, \"Great is Diana of the Ephesians;\" which was their way of\ndemanding Justice against them for teaching the people such doctrine,\nas was against their Religion, and Trade. The occasion here, considering\nthe Lawes of that People, was just; yet was their Assembly Judged\nUnlawfull, and the Magistrate reprehended them for it, in these\nwords,(Acts 19. 40) \"If Demetrius and the other work-men can accuse any\nman, of any thing, there be Pleas, and Deputies, let them accuse one\nanother. And if you have any other thing to demand, your case may\nbe judged in an Assembly Lawfully called. For we are in danger to be\naccused for this dayes sedition, because, there is no cause by which any\nman can render any reason of this Concourse of People.\" Where he calleth\nan Assembly, whereof men can give no just account, a Sedition, and such\nas they could not answer for. And this is all I shall say concerning\nSystemes, and Assemblyes of People, which may be compared (as I said,)\nto the Similar parts of mans Body; such as be Lawfull, to the Muscles;\nsuch as are Unlawfull, to Wens, Biles, and Apostemes, engendred by the\nunnaturall conflux of evill humours.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII. OF THE PUBLIQUE MINISTERS OF SOVERAIGN POWER\n\n\nIn the last Chapter I have spoken of the Similar parts of a\nCommon-wealth; In this I shall speak of the parts Organicall, which are\nPublique Ministers.\n\n\n\n\nPublique Minister Who\n\nA PUBLIQUE MINISTER, is he, that by the Soveraign, (whether a Monarch,\nor an Assembly,) is employed in any affaires, with Authority to\nrepresent in that employment, the Person of the Common-wealth. And\nwhereas every man, or assembly that hath Soveraignty, representeth\ntwo Persons, or (as the more common phrase is) has two Capacities, one\nNaturall, and another Politique, (as a Monarch, hath the person not\nonely of the Common-wealth, but also of a man; and a Soveraign Assembly\nhath the Person not onely of the Common-wealth, but also of the\nAssembly); they that be servants to them in their naturall Capacity,\nare not Publique Ministers; but those onely that serve them in the\nAdministration of the Publique businesse. And therefore neither Ushers,\nnor Sergeants, nor other Officers that waite on the Assembly, for\nno other purpose, but for the commodity of the men assembled, in an\nAristocracy, or Democracy; nor Stewards, Chamberlains, Cofferers, or any\nother Officers of the houshold of a Monarch, are Publique Ministers in a\nMonarchy.\n\n\n\n\nMinisters For The Generall Administration\n\nOf Publique Ministers, some have charge committed to them of a general\nAdministration, either of the whole Dominion, or of a part thereof.\nOf the whole, as to a Protector, or Regent, may bee committed by\nthe Predecessor of an Infant King, during his minority, the whole\nAdministration of his Kingdome. In which case, every Subject is so far\nobliged to obedience, as the Ordinances he shall make, and the commands\nhe shall give be in the Kings name, and not inconsistent with his\nSoveraigne Power. Of a Part, or Province; as when either a Monarch, or\na Soveraign Assembly, shall give the generall charge thereof to a\nGovernour, Lieutenant, Praefect, or Vice-Roy: And in this case also,\nevery one of that Province, is obliged to all he shall doe in the name\nof the Soveraign, and that not incompatible with the Soveraigns Right.\nFor such Protectors, Vice-Roys, and Governours, have no other right, but\nwhat depends on the Soveraigns Will; and no Commission that can be given\nthem, can be interpreted for a Declaration of the will to transferre the\nSoveraignty, without expresse and perspicuous words to that purpose. And\nthis kind of Publique Ministers resembleth the Nerves, and Tendons that\nmove the severall limbs of a body naturall.\n\n\n\n\nFor Speciall Administration, As For Oeconomy\n\nOthers have speciall Administration; that is to say, charges of some\nspeciall businesse, either at home, or abroad: As at home, First, for\nthe Oeconomy of a Common-wealth, They that have Authority concerning the\nTreasure, as Tributes, Impositions, Rents, Fines, or whatsoever publique\nrevenue, to collect, receive, issue, or take the Accounts thereof,\nare Publique Ministers: Ministers, because they serve the Person\nRepresentative, and can doe nothing against his Command, nor without his\nAuthority: Publique, because they serve him in his Politicall Capacity.\n\nSecondly, they that have Authority concerning the Militia; to have the\ncustody of Armes, Forts, Ports; to Levy, Pay, or Conduct Souldiers; or\nto provide for any necessary thing for the use of war, either by Land or\nSea, are publique Ministers. But a Souldier without Command, though he\nfight for the Common-wealth, does not therefore represent the Person of\nit; because there is none to represent it to. For every one that hath\ncommand, represents it to them only whom he commandeth.\n\n\n\n\nFor Instruction Of The People\n\nThey also that have authority to teach, or to enable others to teach\nthe people their duty to the Soveraign Power, and instruct them in the\nknowledge of what is just, and unjust, thereby to render them more apt\nto live in godlinesse, and in peace among themselves, and resist the\npublique enemy, are Publique Ministers: Ministers, in that they doe it\nnot by their own Authority, but by anothers; and Publique, because they\ndoe it (or should doe it) by no Authority, but that of the Soveraign.\nThe Monarch, or the Soveraign Assembly only hath immediate Authority\nfrom God, to teach and instruct the people; and no man but the\nSoveraign, receiveth his power Dei Gratia simply; that is to say, from\nthe favour of none but God: All other, receive theirs from the favour\nand providence of God, and their Soveraigns; as in a Monarchy Dei Gratia\n& Regis; or Dei Providentia & Voluntate Regis.\n\n\n\n\nFor Judicature\n\nThey also to whom Jurisdiction is given, are Publique Ministers. For in\ntheir Seats of Justice they represent the person of the Soveraign; and\ntheir Sentence, is his Sentence; For (as hath been before declared) all\nJudicature is essentially annexed to the Soveraignty; and therefore all\nother Judges are but Ministers of him, or them that have the Soveraign\nPower. And as Controversies are of two sorts, namely of Fact, and of\nLaw; so are judgements, some of Fact, some of Law: And consequently in\nthe same controversie, there may be two Judges, one of Fact, another of\nLaw.\n\nAnd in both these controversies, there may arise a controversie between\nthe party Judged, and the Judge; which because they be both Subjects to\nthe Soveraign, ought in Equity to be Judged by men agreed on by consent\nof both; for no man can be Judge in his own cause. But the Soveraign\nis already agreed on for Judge by them both, and is therefore either to\nheare the Cause, and determine it himself, or appoint for Judge such as\nthey shall both agree on. And this agreement is then understood to be\nmade between them divers wayes; as first, if the Defendant be allowed\nto except against such of his Judges, whose interest maketh him suspect\nthem, (for as to the Complaynant he hath already chosen his own Judge,)\nthose which he excepteth not against, are Judges he himself agrees on.\nSecondly, if he appeale to any other Judge, he can appeale no further;\nfor his appeale is his choice. Thirdly, if he appeale to the Soveraign\nhimself, and he by himself, or by Delegates which the parties shall\nagree on, give Sentence; that Sentence is finall: for the Defendant is\nJudged by his own Judges, that is to say, by himself.\n\nThese properties of just and rationall Judicature considered, I cannot\nforbeare to observe the excellent constitution of the Courts of Justice,\nestablished both for Common, and also for Publique Pleas in England. By\nCommon Pleas, I meane those, where both the Complaynant and Defendant\nare Subjects: and by Publique, (which are also called Pleas of the\nCrown) those, where the Complaynant is the Soveraign. For whereas there\nwere two orders of men, whereof one was Lords, the other Commons; The\nLords had this Priviledge, to have for Judges in all Capitall crimes,\nnone but Lords; and of them, as many as would be present; which being\never acknowledged as a Priviledge of favour, their Judges were none but\nsuch as they had themselves desired. And in all controversies, every\nSubject (as also in civill controversies the Lords) had for Judges, men\nof the Country where the matter in controversie lay; against which he\nmight make his exceptions, till at last Twelve men without exception\nbeing agreed on, they were Judged by those twelve. So that having\nhis own Judges, there could be nothing alledged by the party, why the\nsentence should not be finall, These publique persons, with Authority\nfrom the Soveraign Power, either to Instruct, or Judge the people,\nare such members of the Common-wealth, as may fitly be compared to the\norgans of Voice in a Body naturall.\n\n\n\n\nFor Execution\n\nPublique Ministers are also all those, that have Authority from the\nSoveraign, to procure the Execution of Judgements given; to publish the\nSoveraigns Commands; to suppresse Tumults; to apprehend, and imprison\nMalefactors; and other acts tending to the conservation of the\nPeace. For every act they doe by such Authority, is the act of the\nCommon-wealth; and their service, answerable to that of the Hands, in a\nBodie naturall.\n\nPublique Ministers abroad, are those that represent the Person of their\nown Soveraign, to forraign States. Such are Ambassadors, Messengers,\nAgents, and Heralds, sent by publique Authoritie, and on publique\nBusinesse.\n\nBut such as are sent by Authoritie only of some private partie of a\ntroubled State, though they be received, are neither Publique, nor\nPrivate Ministers of the Common-wealth; because none of their actions\nhave the Common-wealth for Author. Likewise, an Ambassador sent from a\nPrince, to congratulate, condole, or to assist at a solemnity, though\nAuthority be Publique; yet because the businesse is Private, and\nbelonging to him in his naturall capacity; is a Private person. Also if\na man be sent into another Country, secretly to explore their counsels,\nand strength; though both the Authority, and the Businesse be Publique;\nyet because there is none to take notice of any Person in him, but\nhis own; he is but a Private Minister; but yet a Minister of the\nCommon-wealth; and may be compared to an Eye in the Body naturall. And\nthose that are appointed to receive the Petitions or other informations\nof the People, and are as it were the publique Eare, are Publique\nMinisters, and represent their Soveraign in that office.\n\n\n\n\nCounsellers Without Other Employment Then To Advise\n\nAre Not Publique Ministers\n\nNeither a Counsellor, nor a Councell of State, if we consider it with\nno Authority of Judicature or Command, but only of giving Advice to\nthe Soveraign when it is required, or of offering it when it is not\nrequired, is a Publique Person. For the Advice is addressed to the\nSoveraign only, whose person cannot in his own presence, be represented\nto him, by another. But a Body of Counsellors, are never without some\nother Authority, either of Judicature, or of immediate Administration:\nAs in a Monarchy, they represent the Monarch, in delivering his Commands\nto the Publique Ministers: In a Democracy, the Councell, or Senate\npropounds the Result of their deliberations to the people, as a\nCouncell; but when they appoint Judges, or heare Causes, or give\nAudience to Ambassadors, it is in the quality of a Minister of the\nPeople: And in an Aristocracy the Councell of State is the Soveraign\nAssembly it self; and gives counsell to none but themselves.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV. OF THE NUTRITION, AND PROCREATION OF A COMMON-WEALTH\n\n\n\nThe Nourishment Of A Common-wealth Consisteth In The Commodities\n\nOf Sea And Land\n\nThe NUTRITION of a Common-wealth consisteth, in the Plenty, and\nDistribution of Materials conducing to Life: In Concoction, or\nPreparation; and (when concocted) in the Conveyance of it, by convenient\nconduits, to the Publique use.\n\nAs for the Plenty of Matter, it is a thing limited by Nature, to those\ncommodities, which from (the two breasts of our common Mother) Land,\nand Sea, God usually either freely giveth, or for labour selleth to\nman-kind.\n\nFor the Matter of this Nutriment, consisting in Animals, Vegetals, and\nMinerals, God hath freely layd them before us, in or neer to the face of\nthe Earth; so as there needeth no more but the labour, and industry\nof receiving them. Insomuch as Plenty dependeth (next to Gods favour)\nmeerly on the labour and industry of men.\n\nThis Matter, commonly called Commodities, is partly Native, and partly\nForraign: Native, that which is to be had within the Territory of\nthe Common-wealth; Forraign, that which is imported from without. And\nbecause there is no Territory under the Dominion of one Common-wealth,\n(except it be of very vast extent,) that produceth all things needfull\nfor the maintenance, and motion of the whole Body; and few that produce\nnot something more than necessary; the superfluous commodities to be had\nwithin, become no more superfluous, but supply these wants at home, by\nimportation of that which may be had abroad, either by Exchange, or\nby just Warre, or by Labour: for a mans Labour also, is a commodity\nexchangeable for benefit, as well as any other thing: And there have\nbeen Common-wealths that having no more Territory, than hath served\nthem for habitation, have neverthelesse, not onely maintained, but also\nencreased their Power, partly by the labour of trading from one place to\nanother, and partly by selling the Manifactures, whereof the Materials\nwere brought in from other places.\n\n\n\n\nAnd The Right Of Distribution Of Them\n\nThe Distribution of the Materials of this Nourishment, is the\nconstitution of Mine, and Thine, and His, that is to say, in one word\nPropriety; and belongeth in all kinds of Common-wealth to the Soveraign\nPower. For where there is no Common-wealth, there is, (as hath been\nalready shewn) a perpetuall warre of every man against his neighbour;\nAnd therefore every thing is his that getteth it, and keepeth it by\nforce; which is neither Propriety nor Community; but Uncertainty. Which\nis so evident, that even Cicero, (a passionate defender of Liberty,) in\na publique pleading, attributeth all Propriety to the Law Civil, \"Let\nthe Civill Law,\" saith he, \"be once abandoned, or but negligently\nguarded, (not to say oppressed,) and there is nothing, that any man can\nbe sure to receive from his Ancestor, or leave to his Children.\" And\nagain; \"Take away the Civill Law, and no man knows what is his own, and\nwhat another mans.\" Seeing therefore the Introduction of Propriety is\nan effect of Common-wealth; which can do nothing but by the Person that\nRepresents it, it is the act onely of the Soveraign; and consisteth in\nthe Lawes, which none can make that have not the Soveraign Power. And\nthis they well knew of old, who called that Nomos, (that is to say,\nDistribution,) which we call Law; and defined Justice, by distributing\nto every man his own.\n\n\n\n\nAll Private Estates Of Land Proceed Originally\n\nFrom The Arbitrary Distribution Of The Soveraign\n\nIn this Distribution, the First Law, is for Division of the Land it\nselfe: wherein the Soveraign assigneth to every man a portion, according\nas he, and not according as any Subject, or any number of them, shall\njudge agreeable to Equity, and the Common Good. The Children of Israel,\nwere a Common-wealth in the Wildernesse; but wanted the commodities\nof the Earth, till they were masters of the Land of Promise; which\nafterward was divided amongst them, not by their own discretion, but\nby the discretion of Eleazar the Priest, and Joshua their Generall: who\nwhen there were twelve Tribes, making them thirteen by subdivision of\nthe Tribe of Joseph; made neverthelesse but twelve portions of the Land;\nand ordained for the Tribe of Levi no land; but assigned them the Tenth\npart of the whole fruits; which division was therefore Arbitrary. And\nthough a People comming into possession of a land by warre, do not\nalwaies exterminate the antient Inhabitants, (as did the Jewes,) but\nleave to many, or most, or all of them their Estates; yet it is manifest\nthey hold them afterwards, as of the Victors distribution; as the people\nof England held all theirs of William the Conquerour.\n\n\n\n\nPropriety Of A Subject Excludes Not The Dominion Of The Soveraign,\n\nBut Onely Of Another Subject\n\nFrom whence we may collect, that the Propriety which a subject hath in\nhis lands, consisteth in a right to exclude all other subjects from the\nuse of them; and not to exclude their Soveraign, be it an Assembly, or\na Monarch. For seeing the Soveraign, that is to say, the Common-wealth\n(whose Person he representeth,) is understood to do nothing but in order\nto the common Peace and Security, this Distribution of lands, is to be\nunderstood as done in order to the same: And consequently, whatsoever\nDistribution he shall make in prejudice thereof, is contrary to the\nwill of every subject, that committed his Peace, and safety to his\ndiscretion, and conscience; and therefore by the will of every one of\nthem, is to be reputed voyd. It is true, that a Soveraign Monarch, or\nthe greater part of a Soveraign Assembly, may ordain the doing of many\nthings in pursuit of their Passions, contrary to their own consciences,\nwhich is a breach of trust, and of the Law of Nature; but this is not\nenough to authorise any subject, either to make warre upon, or so much\nas to accuse of Injustice, or any way to speak evill of their Soveraign;\nbecause they have authorised all his actions, and in bestowing the\nSoveraign Power, made them their own. But in what cases the Commands\nof Soveraigns are contrary to Equity, and the Law of Nature, is to be\nconsidered hereafter in another place.\n\n\n\n\nThe Publique Is Not To Be Dieted\n\nIn the Distribution of land, the Common-wealth it selfe, may be\nconceived to have a portion, and possesse, and improve the same by\ntheir Representative; and that such portion may be made sufficient, to\nsusteine the whole expence to the common Peace, and defence necessarily\nrequired: Which were very true, if there could be any Representative\nconceived free from humane passions, and infirmities. But the nature\nof men being as it is, the setting forth of Publique Land, or of any\ncertaine Revenue for the Common-wealth, is in vaine; and tendeth to the\ndissolution of Government, and to the condition of meere Nature, and\nWar, assoon as ever the Soveraign Power falleth into the hands of a\nMonarch, or of an Assembly, that are either too negligent of mony, or\ntoo hazardous in engaging the publique stock, into a long, or costly\nwar. Common-wealths can endure no Diet: For seeing their expence is\nnot limited by their own appetite, but by externall Accidents, and the\nappetites of their neighbours, the Publique Riches cannot be limited by\nother limits, than those which the emergent occasions shall require. And\nwhereas in England, there were by the Conquerour, divers Lands\nreserved to his own use, (besides Forrests, and Chases, either for his\nrecreation, or for preservation of Woods,) and divers services reserved\non the Land he gave his Subjects; yet it seems they were not reserved\nfor his Maintenance in his Publique, but in his Naturall capacity: For\nhe, and his Successors did for all that, lay Arbitrary Taxes on all\nSubjects land, when they judged it necessary. Or if those publique\nLands, and Services, were ordained as a sufficient maintenance of the\nCommon-wealth, it was contrary to the scope of the Institution; being\n(as it appeared by those ensuing Taxes) insufficient, and (as it\nappeares by the late Revenue of the Crown) Subject to Alienation,\nand Diminution. It is therefore in vaine, to assign a portion to the\nCommon-wealth; which may sell, or give it away; and does sell, and give\nit away when tis done by their Representative.\n\n\n\n\nThe Places And Matter Of Traffique Depend, As Their Distribution,\n\nOn The Soveraign\n\nAs the Distribution of Lands at home; so also to assigne in what places,\nand for what commodities, the Subject shall traffique abroad, belongeth\nto the Soveraign. For if it did belong to private persons to use their\nown discretion therein, some of them would bee drawn for gaine, both\nto furnish the enemy with means to hurt the Common-wealth, and hurt it\nthemselves, by importing such things, as pleasing mens appetites, be\nneverthelesse noxious, or at least unprofitable to them. And therefore\nit belongeth to the Common-wealth, (that is, to the Soveraign only,)\nto approve, or disapprove both of the places, and matter of forraign\nTraffique.\n\n\n\n\nThe Laws Of Transferring Property Belong Also To The Soveraign\n\nFurther, seeing it is not enough to the Sustentation of a Common-wealth,\nthat every man have a propriety in a portion of Land, or in some few\ncommodities, or a naturall property in some usefull art, and there is no\nart in the world, but is necessary either for the being, or well being\nalmost of every particular man; it is necessary, that men distribute\nthat which they can spare, and transferre their propriety therein,\nmutually one to another, by exchange, and mutuall contract. And\ntherefore it belongeth to the Common-wealth, (that is to say, to the\nSoveraign,) to appoint in what manner, all kinds of contract between\nSubjects, (as buying, selling, exchanging, borrowing, lending, letting,\nand taking to hire,) are to bee made; and by what words, and signes they\nshall be understood for valid. And for the Matter, and Distribution of\nthe Nourishment, to the severall Members of the Common-wealth, thus much\n(considering the modell of the whole worke) is sufficient.\n\n\n\n\nMony The Bloud Of A Common-wealth\n\nBy Concoction, I understand the reducing of all commodities, which are\nnot presently consumed, but reserved for Nourishment in time to come, to\nsome thing of equal value, and withall so portably, as not to hinder\nthe motion of men from place to place; to the end a man may have in\nwhat place soever, such Nourishment as the place affordeth. And this is\nnothing else but Gold, and Silver, and Mony. For Gold and Silver, being\n(as it happens) almost in all Countries of the world highly valued, is a\ncommodious measure for the value of all things else between Nations; and\nMony (of what matter soever coyned by the Soveraign of a Common-wealth,)\nis a sufficient measure of the value of all things else, between the\nSubjects of that Common-wealth. By the means of which measures, all\ncommodities, Moveable, and Immoveable, are made to accompany a man, to\nall places of his resort, within and without the place of his\nordinary residence; and the same passeth from Man to Man, within the\nCommon-wealth; and goes round about, Nourishing (as it passeth)\nevery part thereof; In so much as this Concoction, is as it were the\nSanguification of the Common-wealth: For naturall Bloud is in like\nmanner made of the fruits of the Earth; and circulating, nourisheth by\nthe way, every Member of the Body of Man.\n\nAnd because Silver and Gold, have their value from the matter it self;\nthey have first this priviledge, that the value of them cannot be\naltered by the power of one, nor of a few Common-wealths; as being a\ncommon measure of the commodities of all places. But base Mony, may\neasily be enhanced, or abased. Secondly, they have the priviledge to\nmake Common-wealths, move, and stretch out their armes, when need is,\ninto forraign Countries; and supply, not only private Subjects that\ntravell, but also whole Armies with provision. But that Coyne, which is\nnot considerable for the Matter, but for the Stamp of the place, being\nunable to endure change of ayr, hath its effect at home only; where\nalso it is subject to the change of Laws, and thereby to have the value\ndiminished, to the prejudice many times of those that have it.\n\n\n\n\nThe Conduits And Way Of Mony To The Publique Use\n\nThe Conduits, and Wayes by which it is conveyed to the Publique use, are\nof two sorts; One, that Conveyeth it to the Publique Coffers; The other,\nthat Issueth the same out againe for publique payments. Of the first\nsort, are Collectors, Receivers, and Treasurers; of the second are the\nTreasurers againe, and the Officers appointed for payment of severall\npublique or private Ministers. And in this also, the Artificiall Man\nmaintains his resemblance with the Naturall; whose Veins receiving the\nBloud from the severall Parts of the Body, carry it to the Heart; where\nbeing made Vitall, the Heart by the Arteries sends it out again, to\nenliven, and enable for motion all the Members of the same.\n\n\n\n\nThe Children Of A Common-wealth Colonies\n\nThe Procreation, or Children of a Common-wealth, are those we call\nPlantations, or Colonies; which are numbers of men sent out from the\nCommon-wealth, under a Conductor, or Governour, to inhabit a Forraign\nCountry, either formerly voyd of Inhabitants, or made voyd then, by\nwarre. And when a Colony is setled, they are either a Common-wealth of\nthemselves, discharged of their subjection to their Soveraign that sent\nthem, (as hath been done by many Common-wealths of antient time,) in\nwhich case the Common-wealth from which they went was called their\nMetropolis, or Mother, and requires no more of them, then Fathers\nrequire of the Children, whom they emancipate, and make free from their\ndomestique government, which is Honour, and Friendship; or else they\nremain united to their Metropolis, as were the Colonies of the people of\nRome; and then they are no Common-wealths themselves, but Provinces, and\nparts of the Common-wealth that sent them. So that the Right of Colonies\n(saving Honour, and League with their Metropolis,) dependeth wholly on\ntheir Licence, or Letters, by which their Soveraign authorised them to\nPlant.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV. OF COUNSELL\n\n\n\n\nCounsell What\n\nHow fallacious it is to judge of the nature of things, by the ordinary\nand inconstant use of words, appeareth in nothing more, than in the\nconfusion of Counsels, and Commands, arising from the Imperative manner\nof speaking in them both, and in may other occasions besides. For the\nwords \"Doe this,\" are the words not onely of him that Commandeth; but\nalso of him that giveth Counsell; and of him that Exhorteth; and yet\nthere are but few, that see not, that these are very different things;\nor that cannot distinguish between them, when they perceive who it\nis that speaketh, and to whom the Speech is directed, and upon what\noccasion. But finding those phrases in mens writings, and being not\nable, or not willing to enter into a consideration of the circumstances,\nthey mistake sometimes the Precepts of Counsellours, for the Precepts\nof them that command; and sometimes the contrary; according as it best\nagreeth with the conclusions they would inferre, or the actions\nthey approve. To avoyd which mistakes, and render to those termes\nof Commanding, Counselling, and Exhorting, their proper and distinct\nsignifications, I define them thus.\n\n\n\n\nDifferences Between Command And Counsell\n\nCOMMAND is, where a man saith, \"Doe this,\" or \"Doe this not,\" without\nexpecting other reason than the Will of him that sayes it. From this it\nfolloweth manifestly, that he that Commandeth, pretendeth thereby his\nown Benefit: For the reason of his Command is his own Will onely, and\nthe proper object of every mans Will, is some Good to himselfe.\n\nCOUNSELL, is where a man saith, \"Doe\" or \"Doe not this,\" and deduceth\nhis own reasons from the benefit that arriveth by it to him to whom he\nsaith it. And from this it is evident, that he that giveth Counsell,\npretendeth onely (whatsoever he intendeth) the good of him, to whom he\ngiveth it.\n\nTherefore between Counsell and Command, one great difference is, that\nCommand is directed to a mans own benefit; and Counsell to the benefit\nof another man. And from this ariseth another difference, that a man\nmay be obliged to do what he is Commanded; as when he hath covenanted\nto obey: But he cannot be obliged to do as he is Counselled, because the\nhurt of not following it, is his own; or if he should covenant to follow\nit, then is the Counsell turned into the nature of a Command. A third\ndifference between them is, that no man can pretend a right to be of\nanother mans Counsell; because he is not to pretend benefit by it to\nhimselfe; but to demand right to Counsell another, argues a will to know\nhis designes, or to gain some other Good to himselfe; which (as I said\nbefore) is of every mans will the proper object.\n\nThis also is incident to the nature of Counsell; that whatsoever it be,\nhe that asketh it, cannot in equity accuse, or punish it: For to ask\nCounsell of another, is to permit him to give such Counsell as he shall\nthink best; And consequently, he that giveth counsell to his Soveraign,\n(whether a Monarch, or an Assembly) when he asketh it, cannot in equity\nbe punished for it, whether the same be conformable to the opinion of\nthe most, or not, so it be to the Proposition in debate. For if the\nsense of the Assembly can be taken notice of, before the Debate be\nended, they should neither ask, nor take any further Counsell; For the\nSense of the Assembly, is the Resolution of the Debate, and End of all\nDeliberation. And generally he that demandeth Counsell, is Author of it;\nand therefore cannot punish it; and what the Soveraign cannot, no man\nelse can. But if one Subject giveth Counsell to another, to do any\nthing contrary to the Lawes, whether that Counsell proceed from\nevill intention, or from ignorance onely, it is punishable by the\nCommon-wealth; because ignorance of the Law, is no good excuse, where\nevery man is bound to take notice of the Lawes to which he is subject.\n\n\n\n\nExhortation And Dehortation What\n\nEXHORTATION, and DEHORTATION, is Counsell, accompanied with signes in\nhim that giveth it, of vehement desire to have it followed; or to say it\nmore briefly, Counsell Vehemently Pressed. For he that Exhorteth, doth\nnot deduce the consequences of what he adviseth to be done, and tye\nhimselfe therein to the rigour of true reasoning; but encourages him he\nCounselleth, to Action: As he that Dehorteth, deterreth him from it. And\ntherefore they have in their speeches, a regard to the common Passions,\nand opinions of men, in deducing their reasons; and make use of\nSimilitudes, Metaphors, Examples, and other tooles of Oratory, to\nperswade their Hearers of the Utility, Honour, or Justice of following\ntheir advise.\n\nFrom whence may be inferred, First, that Exhortation and Dehortation,\nis directed to the Good of him that giveth the Counsell, not of him that\nasketh it, which is contrary to the duty of a Counsellour; who (by the\ndefinition of Counsell) ought to regard, not his own benefits, but his\nwhom he adviseth. And that he directeth his Counsell to his own\nbenefit, is manifest enough, by the long and vehement urging, or by\nthe artificial giving thereof; which being not required of him, and\nconsequently proceeding from his own occasions, is directed principally\nto his own benefit, and but accidentarily to the good of him that is\nCounselled, or not at all.\n\nSecondly, that the use of Exhortation and Dehortation lyeth onely, where\na man is to speak to a Multitude; because when the Speech is addressed\nto one, he may interrupt him, and examine his reasons more rigorously,\nthan can be done in a Multitude; which are too many to enter into\nDispute, and Dialogue with him that speaketh indifferently to them\nall at once. Thirdly, that they that Exhort and Dehort, where they are\nrequired to give Counsell, are corrupt Counsellours, and as it were\nbribed by their own interest. For though the Counsell they give be never\nso good; yet he that gives it, is no more a good Counsellour, than he\nthat giveth a Just Sentence for a reward, is a just Judge. But where a\nman may lawfully Command, as a Father in his Family, or a Leader in an\nArmy, his Exhortations and Dehortations, are not onely lawfull, but\nalso necessary, and laudable: But then they are no more Counsells, but\nCommands; which when they are for Execution of soure labour; sometimes\nnecessity, and alwayes humanity requireth to be sweetned in the\ndelivery, by encouragement, and in the tune and phrase of Counsell,\nrather then in harsher language of Command.\n\nExamples of the difference between Command and Counsell, we may take\nfrom the formes of Speech that expresse them in Holy Scripture. \"Have no\nother Gods but me; Make to thy selfe no graven Image; Take not Gods name\nin vain; Sanctifie the Sabbath; Honour thy Parents; Kill not; Steale\nnot,\" &c. are Commands; because the reason for which we are to obey\nthem, is drawn from the will of God our King, whom we are obliged to\nobey. But these words, \"Sell all thou hast; give it to the poore; and\nfollow me,\" are Counsell; because the reason for which we are to do\nso, is drawn from our own benefit; which is this, that we shall have\n\"Treasure in Heaven.\" These words, \"Go into the village over against\nyou, and you shall find an Asse tyed, and her Colt; loose her, and bring\nher to me,\" are a Command: for the reason of their fact is drawn from\nthe will of their Master: but these words, \"Repent, and be Baptized in\nthe Name of Jesus,\" are Counsell; because the reason why we should so\ndo, tendeth not to any benefit of God Almighty, who shall still be King\nin what manner soever we rebell; but of our selves, who have no other\nmeans of avoyding the punishment hanging over us for our sins.\n\n\n\n\nDifferences Of Fit And Unfit Counsellours\n\nAs the difference of Counsell from Command, hath been now deduced from\nthe nature of Counsell, consisting in a deducing of the benefit, or\nhurt that may arise to him that is to be Counselled, by the necessary\nor probable consequences of the action he propoundeth; so may also the\ndifferences between apt, and inept counsellours be derived from the\nsame. For Experience, being but Memory of the consequences of like\nactions formerly observed, and Counsell but the Speech whereby that\nexperience is made known to another; the Vertues, and Defects of\nCounsell, are the same with the Vertues, and Defects Intellectuall:\nAnd to the Person of a Common-wealth, his Counsellours serve him in the\nplace of Memory, and Mentall Discourse. But with this resemblance of the\nCommon-wealth, to a naturall man, there is one dissimilitude joyned,\nof great importance; which is, that a naturall man receiveth his\nexperience, from the naturall objects of sense, which work upon him\nwithout passion, or interest of their own; whereas they that give\nCounsell to the Representative person of a Common-wealth, may have,\nand have often their particular ends, and passions, that render their\nCounsells alwayes suspected, and many times unfaithfull. And therefore\nwe may set down for the first condition of a good Counsellour, That His\nEnds, And Interest, Be Not Inconsistent With The Ends And Interest Of\nHim He Counselleth.\n\nSecondly, Because the office of a Counsellour, when an action comes\ninto deliberation, is to make manifest the consequences of it, in such\nmanner, as he that is Counselled may be truly and evidently informed; he\nought to propound his advise, in such forme of speech, as may make\nthe truth most evidently appear; that is to say, with as firme\nratiocination, as significant and proper language, and as briefly, as\nthe evidence will permit. And therefore Rash, And Unevident Inferences;\n(such as are fetched onely from Examples, or authority of Books, and are\nnot arguments of what is good, or evill, but witnesses of fact, or\nof opinion,) Obscure, Confused, And Ambiguous Expressions, Also All\nMetaphoricall Speeches, Tending To The Stirring Up Of Passion, (because\nsuch reasoning, and such expressions, are usefull onely to deceive, or\nto lead him we Counsell towards other ends than his own) Are Repugnant\nTo The Office Of A Counsellour.\n\nThirdly, Because the Ability of Counselling proceedeth from Experience,\nand long study; and no man is presumed to have experience in all those\nthings that to the Administration of a great Common-wealth are necessary\nto be known, No Man Is Presumed To Be A Good Counsellour, But In Such\nBusinesse, As He Hath Not Onely Been Much Versed In, But Hath Also\nMuch Meditated On, And Considered. For seeing the businesse of a\nCommon-wealth is this, to preserve the people at home, and defend them\nagainst forraign Invasion, we shall find, it requires great knowledge\nof the disposition of Man-kind, of the Rights of Government, and of the\nnature of Equity, Law, Justice, and Honour, not to be attained without\nstudy; And of the Strength, Commodities, Places, both of their own\nCountry, and their Neighbours; as also of the inclinations, and designes\nof all Nations that may any way annoy them. And this is not attained to,\nwithout much experience. Of which things, not onely the whole summe, but\nevery one of the particulars requires the age, and observation of a man\nin years, and of more than ordinary study. The wit required for Counsel,\nas I have said before is Judgement. And the differences of men in that\npoint come from different education, of some to one kind of study, or\nbusinesse, and of others to another. When for the doing of any thing,\nthere be Infallible rules, (as in Engines, and Edifices, the rules of\nGeometry,) all the experience of the world cannot equall his Counsell,\nthat has learnt, or found out the Rule. And when there is no such Rule,\nhe that hath most experience in that particular kind of businesse, has\ntherein the best Judgement, and is the best Counsellour.\n\nFourthly, to be able to give Counsell to a Common-wealth, in a businesse\nthat hath reference to another Common-wealth, It Is Necessary To Be\nAcquainted With The Intelligences, And Letters That Come From Thence,\nAnd With All The Records Of Treaties, And Other Transactions Of State\nBetween Them; which none can doe, but such as the Representative\nshall think fit. By which we may see, that they who are not called to\nCounsell, can have no good Counsell in such cases to obtrude.\n\nFifthly, Supposing the number of Counsellors equall, a man is better\nCounselled by hearing them apart, then in an Assembly; and that for many\ncauses. First, in hearing them apart, you have the advice of every man;\nbut in an Assembly may of them deliver their advise with I, or No, or\nwith their hands, or feet, not moved by their own sense, but by the\neloquence of another, or for feare of displeasing some that have spoken,\nor the whole Assembly, by contradiction; or for feare of appearing\nduller in apprehension, than those that have applauded the contrary\nopinion. Secondly, in an Assembly of many, there cannot choose but be\nsome whose interests are contrary to that of the Publique; and these\ntheir Interests make passionate, and Passion eloquent, and Eloquence\ndrawes others into the same advice. For the Passions of men, which\nasunder are moderate, as the heat of one brand; in Assembly are like\nmany brands, that enflame one another, (especially when they blow one\nanother with Orations) to the setting of the Common-wealth on fire,\nunder pretence of Counselling it. Thirdly, in hearing every man apart,\none may examine (when there is need) the truth, or probability of\nhis reasons, and of the grounds of the advise he gives, by frequent\ninterruptions, and objections; which cannot be done in an Assembly,\nwhere (in every difficult question) a man is rather astonied, and dazled\nwith the variety of discourse upon it, than informed of the course he\nought to take. Besides, there cannot be an Assembly of many, called\ntogether for advice, wherein there be not some, that have the ambition\nto be thought eloquent, and also learned in the Politiques; and give not\ntheir advice with care of the businesse propounded, but of the applause\nof their motly orations, made of the divers colored threds, or shreds of\nAuthors; which is an Impertinence at least, that takes away the time\nof serious Consultation, and in the secret way of Counselling apart, is\neasily avoided. Fourthly, in Deliberations that ought to be kept secret,\n(whereof there be many occasions in Publique Businesse,) the Counsells\nof many, and especially in Assemblies, are dangerous; And therefore\ngreat Assemblies are necessitated to commit such affaires to lesser\nnumbers, and of such persons as are most versed, and in whose fidelity\nthey have most confidence.\n\nTo conclude, who is there that so far approves the taking of Counsell\nfrom a great Assembly of Counsellours, that wisheth for, or would accept\nof their pains, when there is a question of marrying his Children,\ndisposing of his Lands, governing his Household, or managing his\nprivate Estate, especially if there be amongst them such as wish not\nhis prosperity? A man that doth his businesse by the help of many and\nprudent Counsellours, with every one consulting apart in his proper\nelement, does it best, as he that useth able Seconds at Tennis play,\nplaced in their proper stations. He does next best, that useth his own\nJudgement only; as he that has no Second at all. But he that is carried\nup and down to his businesse in a framed Counsell, which cannot move\nbut by the plurality of consenting opinions, the execution whereof is\ncommonly (out of envy, or interest) retarded by the part dissenting,\ndoes it worst of all, and like one that is carried to the ball, though\nby good Players, yet in a Wheele-barrough, or other frame, heavy of it\nself, and retarded also by the inconcurrent judgements, and endeavours\nof them that drive it; and so much the more, as they be more that set\ntheir hands to it; and most of all, when there is one, or more amongst\nthem, that desire to have him lose. And though it be true, that many eys\nsee more then one; yet it is not to be understood of many Counsellours;\nbut then only, when the finall Resolution is in one man. Otherwise,\nbecause many eyes see the same thing in divers lines, and are apt to\nlook asquint towards their private benefit; they that desire not to\nmisse their marke, though they look about with two eyes, yet they never\nayme but with one; And therefore no great Popular Common-wealth was\never kept up; but either by a forraign Enemy that united them; or by\nthe reputation of some one eminent Man amongst them; or by the secret\nCounsell of a few; or by the mutuall feare of equall factions; and\nnot by the open Consultations of the Assembly. And as for very little\nCommon-wealths, be they Popular, or Monarchicall, there is no humane\nwisdome can uphold them, longer then the Jealousy lasteth of their\npotent Neighbours.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI. OF CIVILL LAWES\n\n\n\n\nCivill Law what\n\nBy CIVILL LAWES, I understand the Lawes, that men are therefore bound to\nobserve, because they are Members, not of this, or that Common-wealth\nin particular, but of a Common-wealth. For the knowledge of particular\nLawes belongeth to them, that professe the study of the Lawes of their\nseverall Countries; but the knowledge of Civill Law in generall, to any\nman. The antient Law of Rome was called their Civil Law, from the word\nCivitas, which signifies a Common-wealth; And those Countries, which\nhaving been under the Roman Empire, and governed by that Law, retaine\nstill such part thereof as they think fit, call that part the Civill\nLaw, to distinguish it from the rest of their own Civill Lawes. But that\nis not it I intend to speak of here; my designe being not to shew what\nis Law here, and there; but what is Law; as Plato, Aristotle, Cicero,\nand divers others have done, without taking upon them the profession of\nthe study of the Law.\n\nAnd first it manifest, that Law in generall, is not Counsell, but\nCommand; nor a Command of any man to any man; but only of him, whose\nCommand is addressed to one formerly obliged to obey him. And as for\nCivill Law, it addeth only the name of the person Commanding, which is\nPersona Civitatis, the Person of the Common-wealth.\n\nWhich considered, I define Civill Law in this Manner. \"CIVILL LAW, Is to\nevery Subject, those Rules, which the Common-wealth hath Commanded him,\nby Word, Writing, or other sufficient Sign of the Will, to make use\nof, for the Distinction of Right, and Wrong; that is to say, of what is\ncontrary, and what is not contrary to the Rule.\"\n\nIn which definition, there is nothing that is not at first sight\nevident. For every man seeth, that some Lawes are addressed to all the\nSubjects in generall; some to particular Provinces; some to particular\nVocations; and some to particular Men; and are therefore Lawes, to every\nof those to whom the Command is directed; and to none else. As also,\nthat Lawes are the Rules of Just, and Unjust; nothing being reputed\nUnjust, that is not contrary to some Law. Likewise, that none can\nmake Lawes but the Common-wealth; because our Subjection is to the\nCommon-wealth only: and that Commands, are to be signified by sufficient\nSigns; because a man knows not otherwise how to obey them. And\ntherefore, whatsoever can from this definition by necessary consequence\nbe deduced, ought to be acknowledged for truth. Now I deduce from it\nthis that followeth.\n\n\n\n\nThe Soveraign Is Legislator\n\n1. The Legislator in all Common-wealths, is only the Soveraign, be he\none Man, as in a Monarchy, or one Assembly of men, as in a Democracy,\nor Aristocracy. For the Legislator, is he that maketh the Law. And the\nCommon-wealth only, praescribes, and commandeth the observation of those\nrules, which we call Law: Therefore the Common-wealth is the Legislator.\nBut the Common-wealth is no Person, nor has capacity to doe any thing,\nbut by the Representative, (that is, the Soveraign;) and therefore the\nSoveraign is the sole Legislator. For the same reason, none can abrogate\na Law made, but the Soveraign; because a Law is not abrogated, but by\nanother Law, that forbiddeth it to be put in execution.\n\n\n\n\nAnd Not Subject To Civill Law\n\n2. The Soveraign of a Common-wealth, be it an Assembly, or one Man, is\nnot subject to the Civill Lawes. For having power to make, and repeale\nLawes, he may when he pleaseth, free himselfe from that subjection,\nby repealing those Lawes that trouble him, and making of new; and\nconsequently he was free before. For he is free, that can be free when\nhe will: Nor is it possible for any person to be bound to himselfe;\nbecause he that can bind, can release; and therefore he that is bound to\nhimselfe onely, is not bound.\n\n\n\n\nUse, A Law Not By Vertue Of Time, But Of The Soveraigns Consent\n\n3. When long Use obtaineth the authority of a Law, it is not the\nLength of Time that maketh the Authority, but the Will of the Soveraign\nsignified by his silence, (for Silence is sometimes an argument of\nConsent;) and it is no longer Law, then the Soveraign shall be silent\ntherein. And therefore if the Soveraign shall have a question of Right\ngrounded, not upon his present Will, but upon the Lawes formerly\nmade; the Length of Time shal bring no prejudice to his Right; but the\nquestion shal be judged by Equity. For many unjust Actions, and unjust\nSentences, go uncontrolled a longer time, than any man can remember.\nAnd our Lawyers account no Customes Law, but such as are reasonable, and\nthat evill Customes are to be abolished; But the Judgement of what is\nreasonable, and of what is to be abolished, belongeth to him that maketh\nthe Law, which is the Soveraign Assembly, or Monarch.\n\n\n\n\nThe Law Of Nature, And The Civill Law Contain Each Other\n\n4. The Law of Nature, and the Civill Law, contain each other, and are\nof equall extent. For the Lawes of Nature, which consist in Equity,\nJustice, Gratitude, and other morall Vertues on these depending, in the\ncondition of meer Nature (as I have said before in the end of the 15th\nChapter,) are not properly Lawes, but qualities that dispose men to\npeace, and to obedience. When a Common-wealth is once settled, then are\nthey actually Lawes, and not before; as being then the commands of the\nCommon-wealth; and therefore also Civill Lawes: for it is the Soveraign\nPower that obliges men to obey them. For in the differences of private\nmen, to declare, what is Equity, what is Justice, and what is morall\nVertue, and to make them binding, there is need of the Ordinances of\nSoveraign Power, and Punishments to be ordained for such as shall break\nthem; which Ordinances are therefore part of the Civill Law. The Law of\nNature therefore is a part of the Civill Law in all Common-wealths of\nthe world. Reciprocally also, the Civill Law is a part of the Dictates\nof Nature. For Justice, that is to say, Performance of Covenant, and\ngiving to every man his own, is a Dictate of the Law of Nature. But\nevery subject in a Common-wealth, hath covenanted to obey the Civill\nLaw, (either one with another, as when they assemble to make a common\nRepresentative, or with the Representative it selfe one by one, when\nsubdued by the Sword they promise obedience, that they may receive\nlife;) And therefore Obedience to the Civill Law is part also of the\nLaw of Nature. Civill, and Naturall Law are not different kinds, but\ndifferent parts of Law; whereof one part being written, is called\nCivill, the other unwritten, Naturall. But the Right of Nature, that\nis, the naturall Liberty of man, may by the Civill Law be abridged,\nand restrained: nay, the end of making Lawes, is no other, but such\nRestraint; without the which there cannot possibly be any Peace. And Law\nwas brought into the world for nothing else, but to limit the naturall\nliberty of particular men, in such manner, as they might not hurt, but\nassist one another, and joyn together against a common Enemy.\n\n\n\n\nProvinciall Lawes Are Not Made By Custome, But By The Soveraign Power\n\n5. If the Soveraign of one Common-wealth, subdue a people that have\nlived under other written Lawes, and afterwards govern them by the\nsame Lawes, by which they were governed before; yet those Lawes are the\nCivill Lawes of the Victor, and not of the Vanquished Common-wealth, For\nthe Legislator is he, not by whose authority the Lawes were first made,\nbut by whose authority they now continue to be Lawes. And therefore\nwhere there be divers Provinces, within the Dominion of a Common-wealth,\nand in those Provinces diversity of Lawes, which commonly are called the\nCustomes of each severall Province, we are not to understand that such\nCustomes have their Force, onely from Length of Time; but that they were\nantiently Lawes written, or otherwise made known, for the Constitutions,\nand Statutes of their Soveraigns; and are now Lawes, not by vertue of\nthe Praescription of time, but by the Constitutions of their present\nSoveraigns. But if an unwritten Law, in all the Provinces of a Dominion,\nshall be generally observed, and no iniquity appear in the use thereof;\nthat law can be no other but a Law of Nature, equally obliging all\nman-kind.\n\n\n\n\nSome Foolish Opinions Of Lawyers Concerning The Making Of Lawes\n\n6. Seeing then all Lawes, written, and unwritten, have their Authority,\nand force, from the Will of the Common-wealth; that is to say, from the\nWill of the Representative; which in a Monarchy is the Monarch, and\nin other Common-wealths the Soveraign Assembly; a man may wonder from\nwhence proceed such opinions, as are found in the Books of Lawyers of\neminence in severall Common-wealths, directly, or by consequence making\nthe Legislative Power depend on private men, or subordinate Judges.\nAs for example, \"That the Common Law, hath no Controuler but the\nParlament;\" which is true onely where a Parlament has the Soveraign\nPower, and cannot be assembled, nor dissolved, but by their own\ndiscretion. For if there be a right in any else to dissolve them, there\nis a right also to controule them, and consequently to controule their\ncontroulings. And if there be no such right, then the Controuler of\nLawes is not Parlamentum, but Rex In Parlamento. And where a Parlament\nis Soveraign, if it should assemble never so many, or so wise men, from\nthe Countries subject to them, for whatsoever cause; yet there is no man\nwill believe, that such an Assembly hath thereby acquired to themselves\na Legislative Power. Item, that the two arms of a Common-wealth,\nare Force, and Justice; The First Whereof Is In The King; The Other\nDeposited In The Hands Of The Parlament. As if a Common-wealth could\nconsist, where the Force were in any hand, which Justice had not the\nAuthority to command and govern.\n\n7. That Law can never be against Reason, our Lawyers are agreed; and\nthat not the Letter,(that is, every construction of it,) but that which\nis according to the Intention of the Legislator, is the Law. And it is\ntrue: but the doubt is, of whose Reason it is, that shall be received\nfor Law. It is not meant of any private Reason; for then there would be\nas much contradiction in the Lawes, as there is in the Schooles; nor yet\n(as Sr. Ed, Coke makes it (Sir Edward Coke, upon Littleton Lib.2. Ch.6\nfol 97.b),) an Artificiall Perfection of Reason, Gotten By Long Study,\nObservation, And Experience, (as his was.) For it is possible long study\nmay encrease, and confirm erroneous Sentences: and where men build on\nfalse grounds, the more they build, the greater is the ruine; and of\nthose that study, and observe with equall time, and diligence, the\nreasons and resolutions are, and must remain discordant: and therefore\nit is not that Juris Prudentia, or wisedome of subordinate Judges;\nbut the Reason of this our Artificiall Man the Common-wealth, and\nhis Command, that maketh Law: And the Common-wealth being in\ntheir Representative but one Person, there cannot easily arise any\ncontradiction in the Lawes; and when there doth, the same Reason is\nable, by interpretation, or alteration, to take it away. In all Courts\nof Justice, the Soveraign (which is the Person of the Common-wealth,)\nis he that Judgeth: The subordinate Judge, ought to have regard to the\nreason, which moved his Soveraign to make such Law, that his Sentence\nmay be according thereunto; which then is his Soveraigns Sentence;\notherwise it is his own, and an unjust one.\n\n\n\n\nLaw Made, If Not Also Made Known, Is No Law\n\n8. From this, that the Law is a Command, and a Command consisteth in\ndeclaration, or manifestation of the will of him that commandeth, by\nvoyce, writing, or some other sufficient argument of the same, we may\nunderstand, that the Command of the Common-wealth, is Law onely to\nthose, that have means to take notice of it. Over naturall fooles,\nchildren, or mad-men there is no Law, no more than over brute beasts;\nnor are they capable of the title of just, or unjust; because they had\nnever power to make any covenant, or to understand the consequences\nthereof; and consequently never took upon them to authorise the\nactions of any Soveraign, as they must do that make to themselves a\nCommon-wealth. And as those from whom Nature, or Accident hath taken\naway the notice of all Lawes in generall; so also every man, from whom\nany accident, not proceeding from his own default, hath taken away the\nmeans to take notice of any particular Law, is excused, if he observe it\nnot; And to speak properly, that Law is no Law to him. It is therefore\nnecessary, to consider in this place, what arguments, and signes be\nsufficient for the knowledge of what is the Law; that is to say, what is\nthe will of the Soveraign, as well in Monarchies, as in other formes of\ngovernment.\n\n\n\n\nUnwritten Lawes Are All Of Them Lawes Of Nature\n\nAnd first, if it be a Law that obliges all the Subjects without\nexception, and is not written, nor otherwise published in such places as\nthey may take notice thereof, it is a Law of Nature. For whatsoever men\nare to take knowledge of for Law, not upon other mens words, but every\none from his own reason, must be such as is agreeable to the reason of\nall men; which no Law can be, but the Law of Nature. The Lawes of Nature\ntherefore need not any publishing, nor Proclamation; as being contained\nin this one Sentence, approved by all the world, \"Do not that to\nanother, which thou thinkest unreasonable to be done by another to thy\nselfe.\"\n\nSecondly, if it be a Law that obliges only some condition of men, or one\nparticular man and be not written, nor published by word, then also it\nis a Law of Nature; and known by the same arguments, and signs,\nthat distinguish those in such a condition, from other Subjects. For\nwhatsoever Law is not written, or some way published by him that makes\nit Law, can be known no way, but by the reason of him that is to obey\nit; and is therefore also a Law not only Civill, but Naturall. For\nexample, if the Soveraign employ a Publique Minister, without written\nInstructions what to doe; he is obliged to take for Instructions the\nDictates of Reason; As if he make a Judge, The Judge is to take notice,\nthat his Sentence ought to be according to the reason of his Soveraign,\nwhich being alwaies understood to be Equity, he is bound to it by the\nLaw of Nature: Or if an Ambassador, he is (in al things not conteined\nin his written Instructions) to take for Instruction that which Reason\ndictates to be most conducing to his Soveraigns interest; and so of\nall other Ministers of the Soveraignty, publique and private. All which\nInstructions of naturall Reason may be comprehended under one name of\nFidelity; which is a branch of naturall Justice.\n\nThe Law of Nature excepted, it belongeth to the essence of all other\nLawes, to be made known, to every man that shall be obliged to obey\nthem, either by word, or writing, or some other act, known to proceed\nfrom the Soveraign Authority. For the will of another, cannot be\nunderstood, but by his own word, or act, or by conjecture taken from his\nscope and purpose; which in the person of the Common-wealth, is to be\nsupposed alwaies consonant to Equity and Reason. And in antient time,\nbefore letters were in common use, the Lawes were many times put into\nverse; that the rude people taking pleasure in singing, or reciting\nthem, might the more easily reteine them in memory. And for the same\nreason Solomon adviseth a man, to bind the ten Commandements (Prov. 7.\n3) upon his ten fingers. And for the Law which Moses gave to the people\nof Israel at the renewing of the Covenant, (Deut. 11. 19) he biddeth\nthem to teach it their Children, by discoursing of it both at home, and\nupon the way; at going to bed, and at rising from bed; and to write\nit upon the posts, and dores of their houses; and (Deut. 31. 12) to\nassemble the people, man, woman, and child, to heare it read.\n\n\n\n\nNothing Is Law Where The Legislator Cannot Be Known\n\nNor is it enough the Law be written, and published; but also that there\nbe manifest signs, that it proceedeth from the will of the Soveraign.\nFor private men, when they have, or think they have force enough to\nsecure their unjust designes, and convoy them safely to their ambitious\nends, may publish for Lawes what they please, without, or against\nthe Legislative Authority. There is therefore requisite, not only a\nDeclaration of the Law, but also sufficient signes of the Author, and\nAuthority. The Author, or Legislator is supposed in every Common-wealth\nto be evident, because he is the Soveraign, who having been Constituted\nby the consent of every one, is supposed by every one to be sufficiently\nknown. And though the ignorance, and security of men be such, for the\nmost part, as that when the memory of the first Constitution of their\nCommon-wealth is worn out, they doe not consider, by whose power they\nuse to be defended against their enemies, and to have their industry\nprotected, and to be righted when injury is done them; yet because no\nman that considers, can make question of it, no excuse can be derived\nfrom the ignorance of where the Soveraignty is placed. And it is a\nDictate of Naturall Reason, and consequently an evident Law of Nature,\nthat no man ought to weaken that power, the protection whereof he hath\nhimself demanded, or wittingly received against others. Therefore of\nwho is Soveraign, no man, but by his own fault, (whatsoever evill men\nsuggest,) can make any doubt. The difficulty consisteth in the evidence\nof the Authority derived from him; The removing whereof, dependeth on\nthe knowledge of the publique Registers, publique Counsels, publique\nMinisters, and publique Seales; by which all Lawes are sufficiently\nverified.\n\n\n\n\nDifference Between Verifying And Authorising\n\nVerifyed, I say, not Authorised: for the Verification, is but the\nTestimony and Record; not the Authority of the law; which consisteth in\nthe Command of the Soveraign only.\n\n\n\n\nThe Law Verifyed By The Subordinate Judge\n\nIf therefore a man have a question of Injury, depending on the Law of\nNature; that is to say, on common Equity; the Sentence of the Judge,\nthat by Commission hath Authority to take cognisance of such causes, is\na sufficient Verification of the Law of Nature in that individuall case.\nFor though the advice of one that professeth the study of the Law, be\nusefull for the avoyding of contention; yet it is but advice; tis the\nJudge must tell men what is Law, upon the hearing of the Controversy.\n\n\n\n\nBy The Publique Registers\n\nBut when the question is of injury, or crime, upon a written Law; every\nman by recourse to the Registers, by himself, or others, may (if he\nwill) be sufficiently enformed, before he doe such injury, or commit the\ncrime, whither it be an injury, or not: Nay he ought to doe so: for when\na man doubts whether the act he goeth about, be just, or injust; and may\ninforme himself, if he will; the doing is unlawfull. In like manner, he\nthat supposeth himself injured, in a case determined by the written Law,\nwhich he may by himself, or others see and consider; if he complaine\nbefore he consults with the Law, he does unjustly, and bewrayeth a\ndisposition rather to vex other men, than to demand his own right.\n\n\n\n\nBy Letters Patent, And Publique Seale\n\nIf the question be of Obedience to a publique Officer; To have seen his\nCommission, with the Publique Seale, and heard it read; or to have\nhad the means to be informed of it, if a man would, is a sufficient\nVerification of his Authority. For every man is obliged to doe his best\nendeavour, to informe himself of all written Lawes, that may concerne\nhis own future actions.\n\n\n\n\nThe Interpretation Of The Law Dependeth On The Soveraign Power\n\nThe Legislator known; and the Lawes, either by writing, or by the\nlight of Nature, sufficiently published; there wanteth yet another\nvery materiall circumstance to make them obligatory. For it is not the\nLetter, but the Intendment, or Meaning; that is to say, the authentique\nInterpretation of the Law (which is the sense of the Legislator,) in\nwhich the nature of the Law consisteth; And therefore the Interpretation\nof all Lawes dependeth on the Authority Soveraign; and the Interpreters\ncan be none but those, which the Soveraign, (to whom only the\nSubject oweth obedience) shall appoint. For else, by the craft of an\nInterpreter, the Law my be made to beare a sense, contrary to that of\nthe Soveraign; by which means the Interpreter becomes the Legislator.\n\n\n\n\nAll Lawes Need Interpretation\n\nAll Laws, written, and unwritten, have need of Interpretation.\nThe unwritten Law of Nature, though it be easy to such, as without\npartiality, and passion, make use of their naturall reason, and\ntherefore leaves the violators thereof without excuse; yet considering\nthere be very few, perhaps none, that in some cases are not blinded by\nself love, or some other passion, it is now become of all Laws the most\nobscure; and has consequently the greatest need of able Interpreters.\nThe written Laws, if they be short, are easily mis-interpreted, from the\ndivers significations of a word, or two; if long, they be more obscure\nby the diverse significations of many words: in so much as no written\nLaw, delivered in few, or many words, can be well understood, without a\nperfect understanding of the finall causes, for which the Law was\nmade; the knowledge of which finall causes is in the Legislator. To him\ntherefore there can not be any knot in the Law, insoluble; either by\nfinding out the ends, to undoe it by; or else by making what ends he\nwill, (as Alexander did with his sword in the Gordian knot,) by the\nLegislative power; which no other Interpreter can doe.\n\n\n\n\nThe Authenticall Interpretation Of Law Is Not That Of Writers\n\nThe Interpretation of the Lawes of Nature, in a Common-wealth, dependeth\nnot on the books of Morall Philosophy. The Authority of writers, without\nthe Authority of the Common-wealth, maketh not their opinions Law,\nbe they never so true. That which I have written in this Treatise,\nconcerning the Morall Vertues, and of their necessity, for the\nprocuring, and maintaining peace, though it bee evident Truth, is not\ntherefore presently Law; but because in all Common-wealths in the world,\nit is part of the Civill Law: For though it be naturally reasonable; yet\nit is by the Soveraigne Power that it is Law: Otherwise, it were a great\nerrour, to call the Lawes of Nature unwritten Law; whereof wee see\nso many volumes published, and in them so many contradictions of one\nanother, and of themselves.\n\n\n\n\nThe Interpreter Of The Law Is The Judge Giving Sentence Viva Voce\n\nIn Every Particular Case\n\nThe Interpretation of the Law of Nature, is the Sentence of the Judge\nconstituted by the Soveraign Authority, to heare and determine such\ncontroversies, as depend thereon; and consisteth in the application of\nthe Law to the present case. For in the act of Judicature, the Judge\ndoth no more but consider, whither the demand of the party, be consonant\nto naturall reason, and Equity; and the Sentence he giveth, is therefore\nthe Interpretation of the Law of Nature; which Interpretation is\nAuthentique; not because it is his private Sentence; but because\nhe giveth it by Authority of the Soveraign, whereby it becomes the\nSoveraigns Sentence; which is Law for that time, to the parties\npleading.\n\n\n\n\nThe Sentence Of A Judge, Does Not Bind Him, Or Another Judge\n\nTo Give Like Sentence In Like Cases Ever After\n\nBut because there is no Judge Subordinate, nor Soveraign, but may erre\nin a Judgement of Equity; if afterward in another like case he find it\nmore consonant to Equity to give a contrary Sentence, he is obliged to\ndoe it. No mans error becomes his own Law; nor obliges him to persist\nin it. Neither (for the same reason) becomes it a Law to other Judges,\nthough sworn to follow it. For though a wrong Sentence given by\nauthority of the Soveraign, if he know and allow it, in such Lawes as\nare mutable, be a constitution of a new Law, in cases, in which every\nlittle circumstance is the same; yet in Lawes immutable, such as are the\nLawes of Nature, they are no Lawes to the same, or other Judges, in the\nlike cases for ever after. Princes succeed one another; and one Judge\npasseth, another commeth; nay, Heaven and Earth shall passe; but not one\ntitle of the Law of Nature shall passe; for it is the Eternall Law of\nGod. Therefore all the Sentences of precedent Judges that have ever\nbeen, cannot all together make a Law contrary to naturall Equity: Nor\nany Examples of former Judges, can warrant an unreasonable Sentence, or\ndischarge the present Judge of the trouble of studying what is Equity\n(in the case he is to Judge,) from the principles of his own naturall\nreason. For example sake, 'Tis against the Law of Nature, To Punish The\nInnocent; and Innocent is he that acquitteth himselfe Judicially, and is\nacknowledged for Innocent by the Judge. Put the case now, that a man is\naccused of a capitall crime, and seeing the powers and malice of some\nenemy, and the frequent corruption and partiality of Judges, runneth\naway for feare of the event, and afterwards is taken, and brought to a\nlegall triall, and maketh it sufficiently appear, he was not guilty of\nthe crime, and being thereof acquitted, is neverthelesse condemned to\nlose his goods; this is a manifest condemnation of the Innocent. I say\ntherefore, that there is no place in the world, where this can be an\ninterpretation of a Law of Nature, or be made a Law by the Sentences of\nprecedent Judges, that had done the same. For he that judged it first,\njudged unjustly; and no Injustice can be a pattern of Judgement to\nsucceeding Judges. A written Law may forbid innocent men to fly, and\nthey may be punished for flying: But that flying for feare of injury,\nshould be taken for presumption of guilt, after a man is already\nabsolved of the crime Judicially, is contrary to the nature of a\nPresumption, which hath no place after Judgement given. Yet this is set\ndown by a great Lawyer for the common Law of England. \"If a man,\" saith\nhe, \"that is Innocent, be accused of Felony, and for feare flyeth for\nthe same; albeit he judicially acquitteth himselfe of the Felony; yet\nif it be found that he fled for the Felony, he shall notwithstanding his\nInnocency, Forfeit all his goods, chattels, debts, and duties. For as\nto the Forfeiture of them, the Law will admit no proofe against the\nPresumption in Law, grounded upon his flight.\" Here you see, An Innocent\nMan, Judicially Acquitted, Notwithstanding His Innocency, (when no\nwritten Law forbad him to fly) after his acquitall, Upon A Presumption\nIn Law, condemned to lose all the goods he hath. If the Law ground upon\nhis flight a Presumption of the fact, (which was Capitall,) the Sentence\nought to have been Capitall: if the presumption were not of the Fact,\nfor what then ought he to lose his goods? This therefore is no Law of\nEngland; nor is the condemnation grounded upon a Presumption of Law, but\nupon the Presumption of the Judges. It is also against Law, to say\nthat no Proofe shall be admitted against a Presumption of Law. For\nall Judges, Soveraign and subordinate, if they refuse to heare Proofe,\nrefuse to do Justice: for though the Sentence be Just, yet the Judges\nthat condemn without hearing the Proofes offered, are Unjust Judges; and\ntheir Presumption is but Prejudice; which no man ought to bring with him\nto the Seat of Justice, whatsoever precedent judgements, or examples he\nshall pretend to follow. There be other things of this nature, wherein\nmens Judgements have been perverted, by trusting to Precedents: but this\nis enough to shew, that though the Sentence of the Judge, be a Law to\nthe party pleading, yet it is no Law to any Judge, that shall succeed\nhim in that Office.\n\nIn like manner, when question is of the Meaning of written Lawes, he is\nnot the Interpreter of them, that writeth a Commentary upon them. For\nCommentaries are commonly more subject to cavill, than the Text; and\ntherefore need other Commentaries; and so there will be no end of such\nInterpretation. And therefore unlesse there be an Interpreter authorised\nby the Soveraign, from which the subordinate Judges are not to recede,\nthe Interpreter can be no other than the ordinary Judges, in the some\nmanner, as they are in cases of the unwritten Law; and their Sentences\nare to be taken by them that plead, for Lawes in that particular case;\nbut not to bind other Judges, in like cases to give like judgements.\nFor a Judge may erre in the Interpretation even of written Lawes; but no\nerrour of a subordinate Judge, can change the Law, which is the generall\nSentence of the Soveraigne.\n\n\n\n\nThe Difference Between The Letter And Sentence Of The Law\n\nIn written Lawes, men use to make a difference between the Letter, and\nthe Sentence of the Law: And when by the Letter, is meant whatsoever\ncan be gathered from the bare words, 'tis well distinguished. For the\nsignifications of almost all words, are either in themselves, or in the\nmetaphoricall use of them, ambiguous; and may be drawn in argument, to\nmake many senses; but there is onely one sense of the Law. But if by the\nLetter, be meant the Literall sense, then the Letter, and the Sentence\nor intention of the Law, is all one. For the literall sense is that,\nwhich the Legislator is alwayes supposed to be Equity: For it were a\ngreat contumely for a Judge to think otherwise of the Soveraigne.\nHe ought therefore, if the Word of the Law doe not fully authorise a\nreasonable Sentence, to supply it with the Law of Nature; or if the\ncase be difficult, to respit Judgement till he have received more ample\nauthority. For Example, a written Law ordaineth, that he which is thrust\nout of his house by force, shall be restored by force: It happens that\na man by negligence leaves his house empty, and returning is kept out by\nforce, in which case there is no speciall Law ordained. It is evident,\nthat this case is contained in the same Law: for else there is no remedy\nfor him at all; which is to be supposed against the Intention of the\nLegislator. Again, the word of the Law, commandeth to Judge according\nto the Evidence: A man is accused falsly of a fact, which the Judge saw\nhimself done by another; and not by him that is accused. In this case\nneither shall the Letter of the Law be followed to the condemnation of\nthe Innocent, nor shall the Judge give Sentence against the evidence\nof the Witnesses; because the Letter of the Law is to the contrary:\nbut procure of the Soveraign that another be made Judge, and himselfe\nWitnesse. So that the incommodity that follows the bare words of a\nwritten Law, may lead him to the Intention of the Law, whereby to\ninterpret the same the better; though no Incommodity can warrant a\nSentence against the Law. For every Judge of Right, and Wrong, is not\nJudge of what is Commodious, or Incommodious to the Common-wealth.\n\n\n\n\nThe Abilities Required In A Judge\n\nThe abilities required in a good Interpreter of the Law, that is to say,\nin a good Judge, are not the same with those of an Advocate; namely the\nstudy of the Lawes. For a Judge, as he ought to take notice of the Fact,\nfrom none but the Witnesses; so also he ought to take notice of the\nLaw, from nothing but the Statutes, and Constitutions of the Soveraign,\nalledged in the pleading, or declared to him by some that have authority\nfrom the Soveraign Power to declare them; and need not take care\nbefore-hand, what hee shall Judge; for it shall bee given him what hee\nshall say concerning the Fact, by Witnesses; and what hee shall say in\npoint of Law, from those that shall in their pleadings shew it, and by\nauthority interpret it upon the place. The Lords of Parlament in England\nwere Judges, and most difficult causes have been heard and determined\nby them; yet few of them were much versed in the study of the Lawes,\nand fewer had made profession of them: and though they consulted with\nLawyers, that were appointed to be present there for that purpose; yet\nthey alone had the authority of giving Sentence. In like manner, in\nthe ordinary trialls of Right, Twelve men of the common People, are the\nJudges, and give Sentence, not onely of the Fact, but of the Right; and\npronounce simply for the Complaynant, or for the Defendant; that is to\nsay, are Judges not onely of the Fact, but also of the Right: and in a\nquestion of crime, not onely determine whether done, or not done; but\nalso whether it be Murder, Homicide, Felony, Assault, and the like,\nwhich are determinations of Law: but because they are not supposed to\nknow the Law of themselves, there is one that hath Authority to enforme\nthem of it, in the particular case they are to Judge of. But yet if they\njudge not according to that he tells them, they are not subject thereby\nto any penalty; unlesse it be made appear, they did it against their\nconsciences, or had been corrupted by reward. The things that make\na good Judge, or good Interpreter of the Lawes, are, first A Right\nUnderstanding of that principall Law of Nature called Equity; which\ndepending not on the reading of other mens Writings, but on the\ngoodnesse of a mans own naturall Reason, and Meditation, is presumed\nto be in those most, that have had most leisure, and had the most\ninclination to meditate thereon. Secondly, Contempt Of Unnecessary\nRiches, and Preferments. Thirdly, To Be Able In Judgement To Devest\nHimselfe Of All Feare, Anger, Hatred, Love, And Compassion. Fourthly,\nand lastly, Patience To Heare; Diligent Attention In Hearing; And Memory\nTo Retain, Digest And Apply What He Hath Heard.\n\n\n\n\nDivisions Of Law\n\nThe difference and division of the Lawes, has been made in divers\nmanners, according to the different methods, of those men that have\nwritten of them. For it is a thing that dependeth not on Nature, but on\nthe scope of the Writer; and is subservient to every mans proper method.\nIn the Institutions of Justinian, we find seven sorts of Civill Lawes.\n\n1. The Edicts, Constitutions, and Epistles Of The Prince, that is, of\nthe Emperour; because the whole power of the people was in him. Like\nthese, are the Proclamations of the Kings of England.\n\n2. The Decrees Of The Whole People Of Rome (comprehending the Senate,)\nwhen they were put to the Question by the Senate. These were Lawes, at\nfirst, by the vertue of the Soveraign Power residing in the people; and\nsuch of them as by the Emperours were not abrogated, remained Lawes by\nthe Authority Imperiall. For all Lawes that bind, are understood to be\nLawes by his authority that has power to repeale them. Somewhat like to\nthese Lawes, are the Acts of Parliament in England.\n\n3. The Decrees Of The Common People (excluding the Senate,) when they\nwere put to the question by the Tribune of the people. For such of them\nas were not abrogated by the Emperours, remained Lawes by the Authority\nImperiall. Like to these, were the Orders of the House of Commons in\nEngland.\n\n4. Senatus Consulta, the Orders Of The Senate; because when the people\nof Rome grew so numerous, as it was inconvenient to assemble them; it\nwas thought fit by the Emperour, that men should Consult the Senate in\nstead of the people: And these have some resemblance with the Acts of\nCounsell.\n\n5. The Edicts Of Praetors, and (in some Cases) of the Aediles: such as\nare the Chiefe Justices in the Courts of England.\n\n6. Responsa Prudentum; which were the Sentences, and Opinions of those\nLawyers, to whom the Emperour gave Authority to interpret the Law, and\nto give answer to such as in matter of Law demanded their advice;\nwhich Answers, the Judges in giving Judgement were obliged by the\nConstitutions of the Emperour to observe; And should be like the Reports\nof Cases Judged, if other Judges be by the Law of England bound to\nobserve them. For the Judges of the Common Law of England, are not\nproperly Judges, but Juris Consulti; of whom the Judges, who are either\nthe Lords, or Twelve men of the Country, are in point of Law to ask\nadvice.\n\n7. Also, Unwritten Customes, (which in their own nature are an imitation\nof Law,) by the tacite consent of the Emperour, in case they be not\ncontrary to the Law of Nature, are very Lawes.\n\nAnother division of Lawes, is into Naturall and Positive. Naturall are\nthose which have been Lawes from all Eternity; and are called not onely\nNaturall, but also Morall Lawes; consisting in the Morall Vertues, as\nJustice, Equity, and all habits of the mind that conduce to Peace, and\nCharity; of which I have already spoken in the fourteenth and fifteenth\nChapters.\n\nPositive, are those which have not been for Eternity; but have been\nmade Lawes by the Will of those that have had the Soveraign Power over\nothers; and are either written, or made known to men, by some other\nargument of the Will of their Legislator.\n\n\n\n\nAnother Division Of Law\n\nAgain, of Positive Lawes some are Humane, some Divine; And of Humane\npositive lawes, some are Distributive, some Penal. Distributive are\nthose that determine the Rights of the Subjects, declaring to every man\nwhat it is, by which he acquireth and holdeth a propriety in lands,\nor goods, and a right or liberty of action; and these speak to all\nthe Subjects. Penal are those, which declare, what Penalty shall be\ninflicted on those that violate the Law; and speak to the Ministers\nand Officers ordained for execution. For though every one ought to be\ninformed of the Punishments ordained beforehand for their transgression;\nneverthelesse the Command is not addressed to the Delinquent, (who\ncannot be supposed will faithfully punish himselfe,) but to publique\nMinisters appointed to see the Penalty executed. And these Penal Lawes\nare for the most part written together with the Lawes Distributive; and\nare sometimes called Judgements. For all Lawes are generall judgements,\nor Sentences of the Legislator; as also every particular Judgement, is a\nLaw to him, whose case is Judged.\n\n\n\n\nDivine Positive Law How Made Known To Be Law\n\nDivine Positive Lawes (for Naturall Lawes being Eternall, and\nUniversall, are all Divine,) are those, which being the Commandements of\nGod, (not from all Eternity, nor universally addressed to all men, but\nonely to a certain people, or to certain persons,) are declared for\nsuch, by those whom God hath authorised to declare them. But this\nAuthority of man to declare what be these Positive Lawes of God, how can\nit be known? God may command a man by a supernaturall way, to deliver\nLawes to other men. But because it is of the essence of Law, that he who\nis to be obliged, be assured of the Authority of him that declareth\nit, which we cannot naturally take notice to be from God, How Can A Man\nWithout Supernaturall Revelation Be Assured Of The Revelation Received\nBy The Declarer? and How Can He Be Bound To Obey Them? For the first\nquestion, how a man can be assured of the Revelation of another, without\na Revelation particularly to himselfe, it is evidently impossible:\nfor though a man may be induced to believe such Revelation, from the\nMiracles they see him doe, or from seeing the Extraordinary sanctity of\nhis life, or from seeing the Extraordinary wisedome, or Extraordinary\nfelicity of his Actions, all which are marks of Gods extraordinary\nfavour; yet they are not assured evidence of speciall Revelation.\nMiracles are Marvellous workes: but that which is marvellous to one,\nmay not be so to another. Sanctity may be feigned; and the visible\nfelicities of this world, are most often the work of God by Naturall,\nand ordinary causes. And therefore no man can infallibly know by\nnaturall reason, that another has had a supernaturall revelation of Gods\nwill; but only a beliefe; every one (as the signs thereof shall appear\ngreater, or lesser) a firmer, or a weaker belief.\n\nBut for the second, how he can be bound to obey them; it is not so hard.\nFor if the Law declared, be not against the Law of Nature (which is\nundoubtedly Gods Law) and he undertake to obey it, he is bound by his\nown act; bound I say to obey it, but not bound to believe it: for mens\nbeliefe, and interiour cogitations, are not subject to the commands,\nbut only to the operation of God, ordinary, or extraordinary. Faith of\nSupernaturall Law, is not a fulfilling, but only an assenting to the\nsame; and not a duty that we exhibite to God, but a gift which God\nfreely giveth to whom he pleaseth; as also Unbelief is not a breach\nof any of his Lawes; but a rejection of them all, except the Lawes\nNaturall. But this that I say, will be made yet cleerer, by the\nExamples, and Testimonies concerning this point in holy Scripture. The\nCovenant God made with Abraham (in a Supernaturall Manner) was thus,\n(Gen. 17. 10) \"This is the Covenant which thou shalt observe between\nMe and Thee and thy Seed after thee.\" Abrahams Seed had not this\nrevelation, nor were yet in being; yet they are a party to the Covenant,\nand bound to obey what Abraham should declare to them for Gods Law;\nwhich they could not be, but in vertue of the obedience they owed to\ntheir Parents; who (if they be Subject to no other earthly power, as\nhere in the case of Abraham) have Soveraign power over their children,\nand servants. Againe, where God saith to Abraham, \"In thee shall all\nNations of the earth be blessed: For I know thou wilt command thy\nchildren, and thy house after thee to keep the way of the Lord, and to\nobserve Righteousnesse and Judgement,\" it is manifest, the obedience of\nhis Family, who had no Revelation, depended on their former obligation\nto obey their Soveraign. At Mount Sinai Moses only went up to God; the\npeople were forbidden to approach on paine of death; yet were they bound\nto obey all that Moses declared to them for Gods Law. Upon what ground,\nbut on this submission of their own, \"Speak thou to us, and we will\nheare thee; but let not God speak to us, lest we dye?\" By which two\nplaces it sufficiently appeareth, that in a Common-wealth, a subject\nthat has no certain and assured Revelation particularly to himself\nconcerning the Will of God, is to obey for such, the Command of\nthe Common-wealth: for if men were at liberty, to take for Gods\nCommandements, their own dreams, and fancies, or the dreams and\nfancies of private men; scarce two men would agree upon what is Gods\nCommandement; and yet in respect of them, every man would despise the\nCommandements of the Common-wealth. I conclude therefore, that in all\nthings not contrary to the Morall Law, (that is to say, to the Law of\nNature,) all Subjects are bound to obey that for divine Law, which is\ndeclared to be so, by the Lawes of the Common-wealth. Which also is\nevident to any mans reason; for whatsoever is not against the Law of\nNature, may be made Law in the name of them that have the Soveraign\npower; and there is no reason men should be the lesse obliged by it,\nwhen tis propounded in the name of God. Besides, there is no place in\nthe world where men are permitted to pretend other Commandements of God,\nthan are declared for such by the Common-wealth. Christian States punish\nthose that revolt from Christian Religion, and all other States, those\nthat set up any Religion by them forbidden. For in whatsoever is not\nregulated by the Common-wealth, tis Equity (which is the Law of Nature,\nand therefore an eternall Law of God) that every man equally enjoy his\nliberty.\n\n\n\n\nAnother Division Of Lawes\n\nThere is also another distinction of Laws, into Fundamentall, and Not\nFundamentall: but I could never see in any Author, what a Fundamentall\nLaw signifieth. Neverthelesse one may very reasonably distinguish Laws\nin that manner.\n\n\n\n\nA Fundamentall Law What\n\nFor a Fundamentall Law in every Common-wealth is that, which being taken\naway, the Common-wealth faileth, and is utterly dissolved; as a building\nwhose Foundation is destroyed. And therefore a Fundamentall Law is that,\nby which Subjects are bound to uphold whatsoever power is given to the\nSoveraign, whether a Monarch, or a Soveraign Assembly, without which the\nCommon-wealth cannot stand, such as is the power of War and Peace, of\nJudicature, of Election of Officers, and of doing whatsoever he shall\nthink necessary for the Publique good. Not Fundamentall is that\nthe abrogating whereof, draweth not with it the dissolution of the\nCommon-Wealth; such as are the Lawes Concerning Controversies between\nsubject and subject. Thus much of the Division of Lawes.\n\n\n\n\nDifference Between Law And Right\n\nI find the words Lex Civilis, and Jus Civile, that is to say, Law and\nRight Civil, promiscuously used for the same thing, even in the most\nlearned Authors; which neverthelesse ought not to be so. For Right is\nLiberty, namely that Liberty which the Civil Law leaves us: But Civill\nLaw is an Obligation; and takes from us the Liberty which the Law of\nNature gave us. Nature gave a Right to every man to secure himselfe\nby his own strength, and to invade a suspected neighbour, by way of\nprevention; but the Civill Law takes away that Liberty, in all cases\nwhere the protection of the Lawe may be safely stayd for. Insomuch as\nLex and Jus, are as different as Obligation and Liberty.\n\n\n\n\nAnd Between A Law And A Charter\n\nLikewise Lawes and Charters are taken promiscuously for the same\nthing. Yet Charters are Donations of the Soveraign; and not Lawes, but\nexemptions from Law. The phrase of a Law is Jubeo, Injungo, I Command,\nand Enjoyn: the phrase of a Charter is Dedi, Concessi, I Have Given, I\nHave Granted: but what is given or granted, to a man, is not forced\nupon him, by a Law. A Law may be made to bind All the Subjects of a\nCommon-wealth: a Liberty, or Charter is only to One man, or some One\npart of the people. For to say all the people of a Common-wealth, have\nLiberty in any case whatsoever; is to say, that in such case, there hath\nbeen no Law made; or else having been made, is now abrogated.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII. OF CRIMES, EXCUSES, AND EXTENUATIONS\n\n\n\nSinne What\n\nA Sinne, is not onely a Transgression of a Law, but also any Contempt of\nthe Legislator. For such Contempt, is a breach of all his Lawes at once.\nAnd therefore may consist, not onely in the Commission of a Fact, or in\nthe Speaking of Words by the Lawes forbidden, or in the Omission of\nwhat the Law commandeth, but also in the Intention, or purpose to\ntransgresse. For the purpose to breake the Law, is some degree of\nContempt of him, to whom it belongeth to see it executed. To be\ndelighted in the Imagination onely, of being possessed of another mans\ngoods, servants, or wife, without any intention to take them from him\nby force, or fraud, is no breach of the Law, that sayth, \"Thou shalt not\ncovet:\" nor is the pleasure a man my have in imagining, or dreaming of\nthe death of him, from whose life he expecteth nothing but dammage, and\ndispleasure, a Sinne; but the resolving to put some Act in execution,\nthat tendeth thereto. For to be pleased in the fiction of that, which\nwould please a man if it were reall, is a Passion so adhaerent to the\nNature both of a man, and every other living creature, as to make it a\nSinne, were to make Sinne of being a man. The consideration of this,\nhas made me think them too severe, both to themselves, and others, that\nmaintain, that the First motions of the mind, (though checked with the\nfear of God) be Sinnes. But I confesse it is safer to erre on that hand,\nthan on the other.\n\n\n\n\nA Crime What\n\nA Crime, is a sinne, consisting in the Committing (by Deed, or Word)\nof that which the Law forbiddeth, or the Omission of what it hath\ncommanded. So that every Crime is a sinne; but not every sinne a Crime.\nTo intend to steale, or kill, is a sinne, though it never appeare in\nWord, or Fact: for God that seeth the thoughts of man, can lay it to\nhis charge: but till it appear by some thing done, or said, by which\nthe intention may be Crime; which distinction the Greeks observed in\nthe word amartema, and egklema, or aitia; wherof the former, (which is\ntranslated Sinne,) signifieth any swarving from the Law whatsoever; but\nthe two later, (which are translated Crime,) signifie that sinne onely,\nwhereof one man may accuse another. But of Intentions, which never\nappear by any outward act, there is no place for humane accusation. In\nlike manner the Latines by Peccatum, which is Sinne, signifie all manner\nof deviation from the Law; but by crimen, (which word they derive from\nCerno, which signifies to perceive,) they mean onely such sinnes, as my\nbe made appear before a Judge; and therfore are not meer Intentions.\n\n\n\n\nWhere No Civill Law Is, There Is No Crime\n\nFrom this relation of Sinne to the Law, and of Crime to the Civill\nLaw, may be inferred, First, that where Law ceaseth, Sinne ceaseth.\nBut because the Law of Nature is eternall, Violation of Covenants,\nIngratitude, Arrogance, and all Facts contrary to any Morall vertue, can\nnever cease to be Sinne. Secondly, that the Civill Law ceasing, Crimes\ncease: for there being no other Law remaining, but that of Nature, there\nis no place for Accusation; every man being his own Judge, and accused\nonely by his own Conscience, and cleared by the Uprightnesse of his own\nIntention. When therefore his Intention is Right, his fact is no Sinne:\nif otherwise, his fact is Sinne; but not Crime. Thirdly, That when the\nSoveraign Power ceaseth, Crime also ceaseth: for where there is no such\nPower, there is no protection to be had from the Law; and therefore\nevery one may protect himself by his own power: for no man in the\nInstitution of Soveraign Power can be supposed to give away the Right\nof preserving his own body; for the safety whereof all Soveraignty was\nordained. But this is to be understood onely of those, that have not\nthemselves contributed to the taking away of the Power that protected\nthem: for that was a Crime from the beginning.\n\n\n\n\nIgnorance Of The Law Of Nature Excuseth No Man\n\nThe source of every Crime, is some defect of the Understanding; or some\nerrour in Reasoning, or some sudden force of the Passions. Defect in\nthe Understanding, is Ignorance; in Reasoning, Erroneous Opinion. Again,\nignorance is of three sort; of the Law, and of the Soveraign, and of the\nPenalty. Ignorance of the Law of Nature Excuseth no man; because every\nman that hath attained to the use of Reason, is supposed to know, he\nought not to do to another, what he would not have done to himselfe.\nTherefore into what place soever a man shall come, if he do any thing\ncontrary to that Law, it is a Crime. If a man come from the Indies\nhither, and perswade men here to receive a new Religion, or teach them\nany thing that tendeth to disobedience of the Lawes of this Country,\nthough he be never so well perswaded of the truth of what he teacheth,\nhe commits a Crime, and may be justly punished for the same, not onely\nbecause his doctrine is false, but also because he does that which he\nwould not approve in another, namely, that comming from hence, he should\nendeavour to alter the Religion there. But ignorance of the Civill Law,\nshall Excuse a man in a strange Country, till it be declared to him;\nbecause, till then no Civill Law is binding.\n\n\n\n\nIgnorance Of The Civill Law Excuseth Sometimes\n\nIn the like manner, if the Civill Law of a mans own Country, be not\nso sufficiently declared, as he may know it if he will; nor the Action\nagainst the Law of Nature; the Ignorance is a good Excuse: In other\ncases ignorance of the Civill Law, Excuseth not.\n\n\n\n\nIgnorance Of The Soveraign Excuseth Not\n\nIgnorance of the Soveraign Power, in the place of a mans ordinary\nresidence, Excuseth him not; because he ought to take notice of the\nPower, by which he hath been protected there.\n\n\n\n\nIgnorance Of The Penalty Excuseth Not\n\nIgnorance of the Penalty, where the Law is declared, Excuseth no man:\nFor in breaking the Law, which without a fear of penalty to follow, were\nnot a Law, but vain words, he undergoeth the penalty, though he know not\nwhat it is; because, whosoever voluntarily doth any action, accepteth\nall the known consequences of it; but Punishment is a known consequence\nof the violation of the Lawes, in every Common-wealth; which punishment,\nif it be determined already by the Law, he is subject to that; if not,\nthen is he subject to Arbitrary punishment. For it is reason, that he\nwhich does Injury, without other limitation than that of his own Will,\nshould suffer punishment without other limitation, than that of his Will\nwhose Law is thereby violated.\n\n\n\n\nPunishments Declared Before The Fact, Excuse From Greater Punishments\n\nAfter It\n\nBut when a penalty, is either annexed to the Crime in the Law it selfe,\nor hath been usually inflicted in the like cases; there the Delinquent\nis Excused from a greater penalty. For the punishment foreknown, if not\ngreat enough to deterre men from the action, is an invitement to it:\nbecause when men compare the benefit of their Injustice, with the harm\nof their punishment, by necessity of Nature they choose that which\nappeareth best for themselves; and therefore when they are punished more\nthan the Law had formerly determined, or more than others were punished\nfor the same Crime; it the Law that tempted, and deceiveth them.\n\n\n\n\nNothing Can Be Made A Crime By A Law Made After The Fact\n\nNo Law, made after a Fact done, can make it a Crime: because if the\nFact be against the Law of Nature, the Law was before the Fact; and a\nPositive Law cannot be taken notice of, before it be made; and therefore\ncannot be Obligatory. But when the Law that forbiddeth a Fact, is made\nbefore the Fact be done; yet he that doth the Fact, is lyable to the\nPenalty ordained after, in case no lesser Penalty were made known\nbefore, neither by Writing, nor by Example, for the reason immediatly\nbefore alledged.\n\n\n\n\nFalse Principles Of Right And Wrong Causes Of Crime\n\nFrom defect in Reasoning, (that is to say, from Errour,) men are prone\nto violate the Lawes, three wayes. First, by Presumption of false\nPrinciples; as when men from having observed how in all places, and\nin all ages, unjust Actions have been authorised, by the force, and\nvictories of those who have committed them; and that potent men,\nbreaking through the Cob-web Lawes of their Country, the weaker sort,\nand those that have failed in their Enterprises, have been esteemed the\nonely Criminals; have thereupon taken for Principles, and grounds of\ntheir Reasoning, \"That Justice is but a vain word: That whatsoever a man\ncan get by his own Industry, and hazard, is his own: That the Practice\nof all Nations cannot be unjust: That examples of former times are good\nArguments of doing the like again;\" and many more of that kind: Which\nbeing granted, no Act in it selfe can be a Crime, but must be made so\n(not by the Law, but) by the successe of them that commit it; and the\nsame Fact be vertuous, or vicious, as Fortune pleaseth; so that what\nMarius makes a Crime, Sylla shall make meritorious, and Caesar (the same\nLawes standing) turn again into a Crime, to the perpetuall disturbance\nof the Peace of the Common-wealth.\n\n\n\n\nFalse Teachers Mis-interpreting The Law Of Nature Secondly, by false\nTeachers, that either mis-interpret the Law of Nature, making it thereby\nrepugnant to the Law Civill; or by teaching for Lawes, such Doctrines of\ntheir own, or Traditions of former times, as are inconsistent with the\nduty of a Subject.\n\n\n\n\nAnd False Inferences From True Principles, By Teachers\n\nThirdly, by Erroneous Inferences from True Principles; which happens\ncommonly to men that are hasty, and praecipitate in concluding, and\nresolving what to do; such as are they, that have both a great opinion\nof their own understanding, and believe that things of this nature\nrequire not time and study, but onely common experience, and a good\nnaturall wit; whereof no man thinks himselfe unprovided: whereas the\nknowledge, of Right and Wrong, which is no lesse difficult, there is no\nman will pretend to, without great and long study. And of those defects\nin Reasoning, there is none that can Excuse (though some of them may\nExtenuate) a Crime, in any man, that pretendeth to the administration of\nhis own private businesse; much lesse in them that undertake a publique\ncharge; because they pretend to the Reason, upon the want whereof they\nwould ground their Excuse.\n\n\n\n\nBy Their Passions;\n\nOf the Passions that most frequently are the causes of Crime, one,\nis Vain-glory, or a foolish over-rating of their own worth; as if\ndifference of worth, were an effect of their wit, or riches, or bloud,\nor some other naturall quality, not depending on the Will of those that\nhave the Soveraign Authority. From whence proceedeth a Presumption that\nthe punishments ordained by the Lawes, and extended generally to all\nSubjects, ought not to be inflicted on them, with the same rigour they\nare inflicted on poore, obscure, and simple men, comprehended under the\nname of the Vulgar.\n\n\n\n\nPresumption Of Riches\n\nTherefore it happeneth commonly, that such as value themselves by the\ngreatnesse of their wealth, adventure on Crimes, upon hope of escaping\npunishment, by corrupting publique Justice, or obtaining Pardon by Mony,\nor other rewards.\n\n\n\n\nAnd Friends\n\nAnd that such as have multitude of Potent Kindred; and popular men, that\nhave gained reputation amongst the Multitude, take courage to violate\nthe Lawes, from a hope of oppressing the Power, to whom it belongeth to\nput them in execution.\n\n\n\n\nWisedome\n\nAnd that such as have a great, and false opinion of their own Wisedome,\ntake upon them to reprehend the actions, and call in question the\nAuthority of them that govern, and so to unsettle the Lawes with their\npublique discourse, as that nothing shall be a Crime, but what their own\ndesignes require should be so. It happeneth also to the same men, to be\nprone to all such Crimes, as consist in Craft, and in deceiving of their\nNeighbours; because they think their designes are too subtile to be\nperceived. These I say are effects of a false presumption of their own\nWisdome. For of them that are the first movers in the disturbance of\nCommon-wealth, (which can never happen without a Civill Warre,) very few\nare left alive long enough, to see their new Designes established: so\nthat the benefit of their Crimes, redoundeth to Posterity, and such as\nwould least have wished it: which argues they were not as wise, as\nthey thought they were. And those that deceive upon hope of not being\nobserved, do commonly deceive themselves, (the darknesse in which they\nbelieve they lye hidden, being nothing else but their own blindnesse;)\nand are no wiser than Children, that think all hid, by hiding their own\neyes.\n\nAnd generally all vain-glorious men, (unlesse they be withall timorous,)\nare subject to Anger; as being more prone than others to interpret for\ncontempt, the ordinary liberty of conversation: And there are few Crimes\nthat may not be produced by Anger.\n\n\n\n\nHatred, Lust, Ambition, Covetousnesse, Causes Of Crime\n\nAs for the Passions, of Hate, Lust, Ambition, and Covetousnesse, what\nCrimes they are apt to produce, is so obvious to every mans experience\nand understanding, as there needeth nothing to be said of them, saving\nthat they are infirmities, so annexed to the nature, both of man, and\nall other living creatures, as that their effects cannot be hindred,\nbut by extraordinary use of Reason, or a constant severity in punishing\nthem. For in those things men hate, they find a continuall, and\nunavoydable molestation; whereby either a mans patience must be\neverlasting, or he must be eased by removing the power of that which\nmolesteth him; The former is difficult; the later is many times\nimpossible, without some violation of the Law. Ambition, and\nCovetousnesse are Passions also that are perpetually incumbent, and\npressing; whereas Reason is not perpetually present, to resist them:\nand therefore whensoever the hope of impunity appears, their effects\nproceed. And for Lust, what it wants in the lasting, it hath in the\nvehemence, which sufficeth to weigh down the apprehension of all easie,\nor uncertain punishments.\n\n\n\n\nFear Sometimes Cause Of Crime, As When The Danger Is Neither Present,\n\nNor Corporeall\n\nOf all Passions, that which enclineth men least to break the Lawes, is\nFear. Nay, (excepting some generous natures,) it is the onely thing,\n(when there is apparence of profit, or pleasure by breaking the Lawes,)\nthat makes men keep them. And yet in many cases a Crime may be committed\nthrough Feare.\n\nFor not every Fear justifies the Action it produceth, but the fear onely\nof corporeall hurt, which we call Bodily Fear, and from which a man\ncannot see how to be delivered, but by the action. A man is assaulted,\nfears present death, from which he sees not how to escape, but by\nwounding him that assaulteth him; If he wound him to death, this is no\nCrime; because no man is supposed at the making of a Common-wealth, to\nhave abandoned the defence of his life, or limbes, where the Law cannot\narrive time enough to his assistance. But to kill a man, because from\nhis actions, or his threatnings, I may argue he will kill me when he\ncan, (seeing I have time, and means to demand protection, from the\nSoveraign Power,) is a Crime. Again, a man receives words of disgrace,\nor some little injuries (for which they that made the Lawes, had\nassigned no punishment, nor thought it worthy of a man that hath the use\nof Reason, to take notice of,) and is afraid, unlesse he revenge it,\nhe shall fall into contempt, and consequently be obnoxious to the like\ninjuries from others; and to avoyd this, breaks the Law, and protects\nhimselfe for the future, by the terrour of his private revenge. This is\na Crime; For the hurt is not Corporeall, but Phantasticall, and (though\nin this corner of the world, made sensible by a custome not many years\nsince begun, amongst young and vain men,) so light, as a gallant man,\nand one that is assured of his own courage, cannot take notice of. Also\na man may stand in fear of Spirits, either through his own superstition,\nor through too much credit given to other men, that tell him of strange\nDreams and visions; and thereby be made believe they will hurt him, for\ndoing, or omitting divers things, which neverthelesse, to do, or omit,\nis contrary to the Lawes; And that which is so done, or omitted, is not\nto be Excused by this fear; but is a Crime. For (as I have shewn before\nin the second Chapter) Dreams be naturally but the fancies remaining in\nsleep, after the impressions our Senses had formerly received waking;\nand when men are by any accident unassured they have slept, seem to be\nreall Visions; and therefore he that presumes to break the Law upon his\nown, or anothers Dream, or pretended Vision, or upon other Fancy of\nthe power of Invisible Spirits, than is permitted by the Common-wealth,\nleaveth the Law of Nature, which is a certain offence, and followeth the\nimagery of his own, or another private mans brain, which he can never\nknow whether it signifieth any thing, or nothing, nor whether he that\ntells his Dream, say true, or lye; which if every private man should\nhave leave to do, (as they must by the Law of Nature, if any one have\nit) there could no Law be made to hold, and so all Common-wealth would\nbe dissolved.\n\n\n\n\nCrimes Not Equall\n\nFrom these different sources of Crimes, it appeares already, that all\nCrimes are not (as the Stoicks of old time maintained) of the same\nallay. There is place, not only for EXCUSE, by which that which seemed\na Crime, is proved to be none at all; but also for EXTENUATION, by which\nthe Crime, that seemed great, is made lesse. For though all Crimes doe\nequally deserve the name of Injustice, as all deviation from a strait\nline is equally crookednesse, which the Stoicks rightly observed; yet\nit does not follow that all Crimes are equally unjust, no more than that\nall crooked lines are equally crooked; which the Stoicks not observing,\nheld it as great a Crime, to kill a Hen, against the Law, as to kill\nones Father.\n\n\n\n\nTotall Excuses\n\nThat which totally Excuseth a Fact, and takes away from it the nature of\na Crime, can be none but that, which at the same time, taketh away the\nobligation of the Law. For the fact committed once against the Law,\nif he that committed it be obliged to the Law, can be no other than a\nCrime.\n\nThe want of means to know the Law, totally Excuseth: For the Law whereof\na man has no means to enforme himself, is not obligatory. But the want\nof diligence to enquire, shall not be considered as a want of means; Nor\nshall any man, that pretendeth to reason enough for the Government of\nhis own affairs, be supposed to want means to know the Lawes of Nature;\nbecause they are known by the reason he pretends to: only Children, and\nMadmen are Excused from offences against the Law Naturall.\n\nWhere a man is captive, or in the power of the enemy, (and he is then in\nthe power of the enemy, when his person, or his means of living, is\nso,) if it be without his own fault, the Obligation of the Law ceaseth;\nbecause he must obey the enemy, or dye; and consequently such obedience\nis no Crime: for no man is obliged (when the protection of the Law\nfaileth,) not to protect himself, by the best means he can.\n\nIf a man by the terrour of present death, be compelled to doe a fact\nagainst the Law, he is totally Excused; because no Law can oblige a\nman to abandon his own preservation. And supposing such a Law were\nobligatory; yet a man would reason thus, \"If I doe it not, I die\npresently; if I doe it, I die afterwards; therefore by doing it, there\nis time of life gained;\" Nature therefore compells him to the fact.\n\nWhen a man is destitute of food, or other thing necessary for his life,\nand cannot preserve himselfe any other way, but by some fact against\nthe Law; as if in a great famine he take the food by force, or stealth,\nwhich he cannot obtaine for mony nor charity; or in defence of his life,\nsnatch away another mans Sword, he is totally Excused, for the reason\nnext before alledged.\n\n\n\n\nExcuses Against The Author\n\nAgain, Facts done against the Law, by the authority of another, are\nby that authority Excused against the Author; because no man ought to\naccuse his own fact in another, that is but his instrument: but it\nis not Excused against a third person thereby injured; because in the\nviolation of the law, bothe the Author, and Actor are Criminalls.\nFrom hence it followeth that when that Man, or Assembly, that hath the\nSoveraign Power, commandeth a man to do that which is contrary to a\nformer Law, the doing of it is totally Excused: For he ought not to\ncondemn it himselfe, because he is the Author; and what cannot justly\nbe condemned by the Soveraign, cannot justly be punished by any other.\nBesides, when the Soveraign commandeth any thing to be done against\nhis own former Law, the Command, as to that particular fact, is an\nabrogation of the Law.\n\nIf that Man, or Assembly, that hath the Soveraign Power, disclaime\nany Right essentiall to the Soveraignty, whereby there accrueth to the\nSubject, any liberty inconsistent with the Soveraign Power, that is to\nsay, with the very being of a Common-wealth, if the Subject shall refuse\nto obey the Command in any thing, contrary to the liberty granted, this\nis neverthelesse a Sinne, and contrary to the duty of the Subject: for\nhe ought to take notice of what is inconsistent with the Soveraignty,\nbecause it was erected by his own consent, and for his own defence;\nand that such liberty as is inconsistent with it, was granted through\nignorance of the evill consequence thereof. But if he not onely disobey,\nbut also resist a publique Minister in the execution of it, then it is\na Crime; because he might have been righted, (without any breach of the\nPeace,) upon complaint.\n\nThe Degrees of Crime are taken on divers Scales, and measured, First, by\nthe malignity of the Source, or Cause: Secondly, by the contagion of the\nExample: Thirdly, by the mischiefe of the Effect; and Fourthly, by the\nconcurrence of Times, Places, and Persons.\n\n\n\n\nPresumption Of Power, Aggravateth\n\nThe same Fact done against the Law, if it proceed from Presumption of\nstrength, riches, or friends to resist those that are to execute the\nLaw, is a greater Crime, than if it proceed from hope of not being\ndiscovered, or of escape by flight: For Presumption of impunity by\nforce, is a Root, from whence springeth, at all times, and upon all\ntemptations, a contempt of all Lawes; whereas in the later case, the\napprehension of danger, that makes a man fly, renders him more obedient\nfor the future. A Crime which we know to be so, is greater than the same\nCrime proceeding from a false perswasion that it is lawfull: For he that\ncommitteth it against his own conscience, presumeth on his force, or\nother power, which encourages him to commit the same again: but he that\ndoth it by errour, after the errour shewn him, is conformable to the\nLaw.\n\n\n\n\nEvill Teachers, Extenuate\n\nHee, whose errour proceeds from the authority of a Teacher, or an\nInterpreter of the Law publiquely authorised, is not so faulty, as he\nwhose errour proceedeth from a peremptory pursute of his own principles,\nand reasoning: For what is taught by one that teacheth by publique\nAuthority, the Common-wealth teacheth, and hath a resemblance of Law,\ntill the same Authority controuleth it; and in all Crimes that contain\nnot in them a denyall of the Soveraign Power, nor are against an evident\nLaw, Excuseth totally: whereas he that groundeth his actions, on his\nprivate Judgement, ought according to the rectitude, or errour thereof,\nto stand, or fall.\n\n\n\n\nExamples Of Impunity, Extenuate\n\nThe same Fact, if it have been constantly punished in other men, as\na greater Crime, than if there have been may precedent Examples of\nimpunity. For those Examples, are so many hopes of Impunity given by\nthe Soveraign himselfe: And because he which furnishes a man with such\na hope, and presumption of mercy, as encourageth him to offend, hath his\npart in the offence; he cannot reasonably charge the offender with the\nwhole.\n\n\n\n\nPraemeditation, Aggravateth\n\nA Crime arising from a sudden Passion, is not so great, as when the same\nariseth from long meditation: For in the former case there is a place\nfor Extenuation, in the common infirmity of humane nature: but he that\ndoth it with praemeditation, has used circumspection, and cast his eye,\non the Law, on the punishment, and on the consequence thereof to humane\nsociety; all which in committing the Crime, hee hath contemned, and\npostposed to his own appetite. But there is no suddennesse of Passion\nsufficient for a totall Excuse: For all the time between the first\nknowing of the Law, and the Commission of the Fact, shall be taken for\na time of deliberation; because he ought by meditation of the Law, to\nrectifie the irregularity of his Passions.\n\nWhere the Law is publiquely, and with assiduity, before all the people\nread, and interpreted; a fact done against it, is a greater Crime,\nthan where men are left without such instruction, to enquire of it with\ndifficulty, uncertainty, and interruption of their Callings, and\nbe informed by private men: for in this case, part of the fault is\ndischarged upon common infirmity; but in the former there is apparent\nnegligence, which is not without some contempt of the Soveraign Power.\n\n\n\n\nTacite Approbation Of The Soveraign, Extenuates\n\nThose facts which the Law expresly condemneth, but the Law-maker by\nother manifest signes of his will tacitly approveth, are lesse Crimes,\nthan the same facts, condemned both by the Law, and Lawmaker. For\nseeing the will of the Law-maker is a Law, there appear in this case two\ncontradictory Lawes; which would totally Excuse, if men were bound to\ntake notice of the Soveraigns approbation, by other arguments, than are\nexpressed by his command. But because there are punishments consequent,\nnot onely to the transgression of his Law, but also to the observing\nof it, he is in part a cause of the transgression, and therefore cannot\nreasonably impute the whole Crime to the Delinquent. For example, the\nLaw condemneth Duells; the punishment is made capitall: On the contrary\npart, he that refuseth Duell, is subject to contempt and scorne, without\nremedy; and sometimes by the Soveraign himselfe thought unworthy to\nhave any charge, or preferment in Warre: If thereupon he accept Duell,\nconsidering all men lawfully endeavour to obtain the good opinion\nof them that have the Soveraign Power, he ought not in reason to be\nrigorously punished; seeing part of the fault may be discharged on the\npunisher; which I say, not as wishing liberty of private revenges,\nor any other kind of disobedience; but a care in Governours, not\nto countenance any thing obliquely, which directly they forbid. The\nexamples of Princes, to those that see them, are, and ever have been,\nmore potent to govern their actions, than the Lawes themselves. And\nthough it be our duty to do, not what they do, but what they say; yet\nwill that duty never be performed, till it please God to give men an\nextraordinary, and supernaturall grace to follow that Precept.\n\n\n\n\nComparison Of Crimes From Their Effects\n\nAgain, if we compare Crimes by the mischiefe of their Effects, First,\nthe same fact, when it redounds to the dammage of many, is greater, than\nwhen it redounds to the hurt of few. And therefore, when a fact hurteth,\nnot onely in the present, but also, (by example) in the future, it is a\ngreater Crime, than if it hurt onely in the present: for the former,\nis a fertile Crime, and multiplyes to the hurt of many; the later is\nbarren. To maintain doctrines contrary to the Religion established in\nthe Common-wealth, is a greater fault, in an authorised Preacher, than\nin a private person: So also is it, to live prophanely, incontinently,\nor do any irreligious act whatsoever. Likewise in a Professor of the\nLaw, to maintain any point, on do any act, that tendeth to the weakning\nof the Soveraign Power, as a greater Crime, than in another man: Also in\na man that hath such reputation for wisedome, as that his counsells are\nfollowed, or his actions imitated by many, his fact against the Law, is\na greater Crime, than the same fact in another: For such men not onely\ncommit Crime, but teach it for Law to all other men. And generally all\nCrimes are the greater, by the scandall they give; that is to say, by\nbecoming stumbling-blocks to the weak, that look not so much upon the\nway they go in, as upon the light that other men carry before them.\n\n\n\n\nLaesae Majestas\n\nAlso Facts of Hostility against the present state of the Common-wealth,\nare greater Crimes, than the same acts done to private men; For\nthe dammage extends it selfe to all: Such are the betraying of the\nstrengths, or revealing of the secrets of the Common-wealth to an Enemy;\nalso all attempts upon the Representative of the Common-wealth, be it a\nmonarch, or an Assembly; and all endeavours by word, or deed to diminish\nthe Authority of the same, either in the present time, or in succession:\nwhich Crimes the Latines understand by Crimina Laesae Majestatis, and\nconsist in designe, or act, contrary to a Fundamentall Law.\n\n\n\n\nBribery And False Testimony\n\nLikewise those Crimes, which render Judgements of no effect, are greater\nCrimes, than Injuries done to one, or a few persons; as to receive\nmony to give False judgement, or testimony, is a greater Crime, than\notherwise to deceive a man of the like, or a greater summe; because not\nonely he has wrong, that falls by such judgements; but all Judgements\nare rendered uselesse, and occasion ministred to force, and private\nrevenges.\n\n\n\n\nDepeculation\n\nAlso Robbery, and Depeculation of the Publique treasure, or Revenues,\nis a greater Crime, than the robbing, or defrauding of a Private man;\nbecause to robbe the publique, is to robbe many at once.\n\n\n\n\nCounterfeiting Authority\n\nAlso the Counterfeit usurpation of publique Ministery, the\nCounterfeiting of publique Seales, or publique Coine, than\ncounterfeiting of a private mans person, or his seale; because the fraud\nthereof, extendeth to the dammage of many.\n\n\n\n\nCrimes Against Private Men Compared\n\nOf facts against the Law, done to private men, the greater Crime, is\nthat, where the dammage in the common opinion of men, is most sensible.\nAnd therefore\n\nTo kill against the Law, is a greater Crime, that any other injury, life\npreserved.\n\nAnd to kill with Torment, greater, than simply to kill.\n\nAnd Mutilation of a limbe, greater, than the spoyling a man of his\ngoods.\n\nAnd the spoyling a man of his goods, by Terrour of death, or wounds,\nthan by clandestine surreption.\n\nAnd by clandestine Surreption, than by consent fraudulently obtained.\n\nAnd the violation of chastity by Force, greater, than by flattery.\n\nAnd of a woman Married, than of a woman not married.\n\nFor all these things are commonly so valued; though some men are more,\nand some lesse sensible of the same offence. But the Law regardeth not\nthe particular, but the generall inclination of mankind.\n\nAnd therefore the offence men take, from contumely, in words, or\ngesture, when they produce no other harme, than the present griefe of\nhim that is reproached, hath been neglected in the Lawes of the Greeks,\nRomans, and other both antient, and moderne Common-wealths; supposing\nthe true cause of such griefe to consist, not in the contumely, (which\ntakes no hold upon men conscious of their own Vertue,) but in the\nPusillanimity of him that is offended by it.\n\nAlso a Crime against a private man, is much aggravated by the person,\ntime, and place. For to kill ones Parent, is a greater Crime, than to\nkill another: for the Parent ought to have the honour of a Soveraign,\n(though he have surrendred his Power to the Civill Law,) because he had\nit originally by Nature. And to Robbe a poore man, is a greater Crime,\nthan to robbe a rich man; because 'tis to the poore a more sensible\ndammage.\n\nAnd a Crime committed in the Time, or Place appointed for Devotion, is\ngreater, than if committed at another time or place: for it proceeds\nfrom a greater contempt of the Law.\n\nMany other cases of Aggravation, and Extenuation might be added: but by\nthese I have set down, it is obvious to every man, to take the altitude\nof any other Crime proposed.\n\n\n\n\nPublique Crimes What\n\nLastly, because in almost all Crimes there is an Injury done, not onely\nto some Private man, but also to the Common-wealth; the same Crime, when\nthe accusation is in the name of the Common-wealth, is called Publique\nCrime; and when in the name of a Private man, a Private Crime; And the\nPleas according thereunto called Publique, Judicia Publica, Pleas of the\nCrown; or Private Pleas. As in an Accusation of Murder, if the accuser\nbe a Private man, the plea is a Private plea; if the accuser be the\nSoveraign, the plea is a Publique plea.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII. OF PUNISHMENTS, AND REWARDS\n\n\n\n\nThe Definition Of Punishment\n\n\"A PUNISHMENT, is an Evill inflicted by publique Authority, on him that\nhath done, or omitted that which is Judged by the same Authority to be\na Transgression of the Law; to the end that the will of men may thereby\nthe better be disposed to obedience.\"\n\n\n\n\nRight To Punish Whence Derived\n\nBefore I inferre any thing from this definition, there is a question to\nbe answered, of much importance; which is, by what door the Right, or\nAuthority of Punishing in any case, came in. For by that which has\nbeen said before, no man is supposed bound by Covenant, not to resist\nviolence; and consequently it cannot be intended, that he gave any right\nto another to lay violent hands upon his person. In the making of a\nCommon-wealth, every man giveth away the right of defending another; but\nnot of defending himselfe. Also he obligeth himselfe, to assist him that\nhath the Soveraignty, in the Punishing of another; but of himselfe\nnot. But to covenant to assist the Soveraign, in doing hurt to another,\nunlesse he that so covenanteth have a right to doe it himselfe, is not\nto give him a Right to Punish. It is manifest therefore that the Right\nwhich the Common-wealth (that is, he, or they that represent it) hath to\nPunish, is not grounded on any concession, or gift of the Subjects.\nBut I have also shewed formerly, that before the Institution of\nCommon-wealth, every man had a right to every thing, and to do\nwhatsoever he thought necessary to his own preservation; subduing,\nhurting, or killing any man in order thereunto. And this is the\nfoundation of that right of Punishing, which is exercised in every\nCommon-wealth. For the Subjects did not give the Soveraign that right;\nbut onely in laying down theirs, strengthned him to use his own, as he\nshould think fit, for the preservation of them all: so that it was not\ngiven, but left to him, and to him onely; and (excepting the limits set\nhim by naturall Law) as entire, as in the condition of meer Nature, and\nof warre of every one against his neighbour.\n\n\n\n\nPrivate Injuries, And Revenges No Punishments\n\nFrom the definition of Punishment, I inferre, First, that neither\nprivate revenges, nor injuries of private men, can properly be stiled\nPunishment; because they proceed not from publique Authority.\n\n\n\n\nNor Denyall Of Preferment\n\nSecondly, that to be neglected, and unpreferred by the publique\nfavour, is not a Punishment; because no new evill is thereby on any man\nInflicted; he is onely left in the estate he was in before.\n\n\n\n\nNor Pain Inflicted Without Publique Hearing\n\nThirdly, that the evill inflicted by publique Authority, without\nprecedent publique condemnation, is not to be stiled by the name of\nPunishment; but of an hostile act; because the fact for which a man\nis Punished, ought first to be Judged by publique Authority, to be a\ntransgression of the Law.\n\n\n\n\nNor Pain Inflicted By Usurped Power\n\nFourthly, that the evill inflicted by usurped power, and Judges\nwithout Authority from the Soveraign, is not Punishment; but an act of\nhostility; because the acts of power usurped, have not for Author, the\nperson condemned; and therefore are not acts of publique Authority.\n\n\n\n\nNor Pain Inflicted Without Respect To The Future Good\n\nFifthly, that all evill which is inflicted without intention, or\npossibility of disposing the Delinquent, or (by his example) other men,\nto obey the Lawes, is not Punishment; but an act of hostility; because\nwithout such an end, no hurt done is contained under that name.\n\n\n\n\nNaturall Evill Consequences, No Punishments\n\nSixthly, whereas to certain actions, there be annexed by Nature, divers\nhurtfull consequences; as when a man in assaulting another, is himselfe\nslain, or wounded; or when he falleth into sicknesse by the doing of\nsome unlawfull act; such hurt, though in respect of God, who is the\nauthor of Nature, it may be said to be inflicted, and therefore a\nPunishment divine; yet it is not contaned in the name of Punishment in\nrespect of men, because it is not inflicted by the Authority of man.\n\n\n\n\nHurt Inflicted, If Lesse Than The Benefit Of Transgressing,\n\nIs Not Punishment\n\nSeventhly, If the harm inflicted be lesse than the benefit, or\ncontentment that naturally followeth the crime committed, that harm is\nnot within the definition; and is rather the Price, or Redemption, than\nthe Punishment of a Crime: Because it is of the nature of Punishment, to\nhave for end, the disposing of men to obey the Law; which end (if it\nbe lesse that the benefit of the transgression) it attaineth not, but\nworketh a contrary effect.\n\n\n\n\nWhere The Punishment Is Annexed To The Law, A Greater Hurt Is Not\n\nPunishment, But Hostility\n\nEighthly, If a Punishment be determined and prescribed in the Law it\nselfe, and after the crime committed, there be a greater Punishment\ninflicted, the excesse is not Punishment, but an act of hostility. For\nseeing the aym of Punishment is not a revenge, but terrour; and the\nterrour of a great Punishment unknown, is taken away by the declaration\nof a lesse, the unexpected addition is no part of the Punishment.\nBut where there is no Punishment at all determined by the Law, there\nwhatsoever is inflicted, hath the nature of Punishment. For he that\ngoes about the violation of a Law, wherein no penalty is determined,\nexpecteth an indeterminate, that is to say, an arbitrary Punishment.\n\n\n\n\nHurt Inflicted For A Fact Done Before The Law, No Punishment\n\nNinthly, Harme inflicted for a Fact done before there was a Law that\nforbad it, is not Punishment, but an act of Hostility: For before the\nLaw, there is no transgression of the Law: But Punishment supposeth a\nfact judged, to have been a transgression of the Law; Therefore\nHarme inflicted before the Law made, is not Punishment, but an act of\nHostility.\n\n\n\n\nThe Representative Of The Common-wealth Unpunishable\n\nTenthly, Hurt inflicted on the Representative of the Common-wealth, is\nnot Punishment, but an act of Hostility: Because it is of the nature\nof Punishment, to be inflicted by publique Authority, which is the\nAuthority only of the Representative it self.\n\n\n\n\nHurt To Revolted Subjects Is Done By Right Of War, Not\n\nBy Way Of Punishment\n\nLastly, Harme inflicted upon one that is a declared enemy, fals not\nunder the name of Punishment: Because seeing they were either never\nsubject to the Law, and therefore cannot transgresse it; or having been\nsubject to it, and professing to be no longer so, by consequence deny\nthey can transgresse it, all the Harmes that can be done them, must be\ntaken as acts of Hostility. But in declared Hostility, all infliction of\nevill is lawfull. From whence it followeth, that if a subject shall\nby fact, or word, wittingly, and deliberatly deny the authority of\nthe Representative of the Common-wealth, (whatsoever penalty hath\nbeen formerly ordained for Treason,) he may lawfully be made to suffer\nwhatsoever the Representative will: For in denying subjection, he denyes\nsuch Punishment as by the Law hath been ordained; and therefore suffers\nas an enemy of the Common-wealth; that is, according to the will of\nthe Representative. For the Punishments set down in the Law, are to\nSubjects, not to Enemies; such as are they, that having been by their\nown act Subjects, deliberately revolting, deny the Soveraign Power.\n\nThe first, and most generall distribution of Punishments, is into\nDivine, and Humane. Of the former I shall have occasion, to speak, in a\nmore convenient place hereafter.\n\nHumane, are those Punishments that be inflicted by the Commandement\nof Man; and are either Corporall, or Pecuniary, or Ignominy, or\nImprisonment, or Exile, or mixt of these.\n\n\n\n\nPunishments Corporall\n\nCorporall Punishment is that, which is inflicted on the body directly,\nand according to the intention of him that inflicteth it: such as are\nstripes, or wounds, or deprivation of such pleasures of the body, as\nwere before lawfully enjoyed.\n\n\n\n\nCapitall\n\nAnd of these, some be Capitall, some Lesse than Capitall. Capitall, is\nthe Infliction of Death; and that either simply, or with torment. Lesse\nthan Capitall, are Stripes, Wounds, Chains, and any other corporall\nPaine, not in its own nature mortall. For if upon the Infliction of\na Punishment death follow not in the Intention of the Inflicter, the\nPunishment is not be bee esteemed Capitall, though the harme prove\nmortall by an accident not to be foreseen; in which case death is not\ninflicted, but hastened.\n\nPecuniary Punishment, is that which consisteth not only in the\ndeprivation of a Summe of Mony, but also of Lands, or any other goods\nwhich are usually bought and sold for mony. And in case the Law, that\nordaineth such a punishment, be made with design to gather mony, from\nsuch as shall transgresse the same, it is not properly a Punishment,\nbut the Price of priviledge, and exemption from the Law, which doth not\nabsolutely forbid the fact, but only to those that are not able to pay\nthe mony: except where the Law is Naturall, or part of Religion; for in\nthat case it is not an exemption from the Law, but a transgression of\nit. As where a Law exacteth a Pecuniary mulct, of them that take the\nname of God in vaine, the payment of the mulct, is not the price of a\ndispensation to sweare, but the Punishment of the transgression of a Law\nundispensable. In like manner if the Law impose a Summe of Mony to be\npayd, to him that has been Injured; this is but a satisfaction for the\nhurt done him; and extinguisheth the accusation of the party injured,\nnot the crime of the offender.\n\n\n\n\nIgnominy\n\nIgnominy, is the infliction of such Evill, as is made Dishonorable;\nor the deprivation of such Good, as is made Honourable by the\nCommon-wealth. For there be some things Honorable by Nature; as the\neffects of Courage, Magnanimity, Strength, Wisdome, and other abilities\nof body and mind: Others made Honorable by the Common-wealth; as Badges,\nTitles, Offices, or any other singular marke of the Soveraigns favour.\nThe former, (though they may faile by nature, or accident,) cannot be\ntaken away by a Law; and therefore the losse of them is not Punishment.\nBut the later, may be taken away by the publique authority that made\nthem Honorable, and are properly Punishments: Such are degrading men\ncondemned, of their Badges, Titles, and Offices; or declaring them\nuncapable of the like in time to come.\n\n\n\n\nImprisonment\n\nImprisonment, is when a man is by publique Authority deprived of\nliberty; and may happen from two divers ends; whereof one is the safe\ncustody of a man accused; the other is the inflicting of paine on a man\ncondemned. The former is not Punishment; because no man is supposed\nto be Punisht, before he be Judicially heard, and declared guilty.\nAnd therefore whatsoever hurt a man is made to suffer by bonds, or\nrestraint, before his cause be heard, over and above that which is\nnecessary to assure his custody, is against the Law of Nature. But the\nLater is Punishment, because Evill, and inflicted by publique Authority,\nfor somewhat that has by the same Authority been Judged a Transgression\nof the Law. Under this word Imprisonment, I comprehend all restraint of\nmotion, caused by an externall obstacle, be it a House, which is called\nby the generall name of a Prison; or an Iland, as when men are said to\nbe confined to it; or a place where men are set to worke, as in old time\nmen have been condemned to Quarries, and in these times to Gallies; or\nbe it a Chaine, or any other such impediment.\n\n\n\n\nExile\n\nExile, (Banishment) is when a man is for a crime, condemned to depart\nout of the dominion of the Common-wealth, or out of a certaine part\nthereof; and during a prefixed time, or for ever, not to return into it:\nand seemeth not in its own nature, without other circumstances, to be\na Punishment; but rather an escape, or a publique commandement to\navoid Punishment by flight. And Cicero sayes, there was never any such\nPunishment ordained in the City of Rome; but cals it a refuge of men in\ndanger. For if a man banished, be neverthelesse permitted to enjoy\nhis Goods, and the Revenue of his Lands, the meer change of ayr is no\npunishment; nor does it tend to that benefit of the Common-wealth, for\nwhich all Punishments are ordained, (that is to say, to the forming of\nmens wils to the observation of the Law;) but many times to the dammage\nof the Common-wealth. For a Banished man, is a lawfull enemy of the\nCommon-wealth that banished him; as being no more a Member of the\nsame. But if he be withall deprived of his Lands, or Goods, then\nthe Punishment lyeth not in the Exile, but is to be reckoned amongst\nPunishments Pecuniary.\n\n\n\n\nThe Punishment Of Innocent Subjects Is Contrary To The Law Of Nature\n\nAll Punishments of Innocent subjects, be they great or little, are\nagainst the Law of Nature; For Punishment is only of Transgression of\nthe Law, and therefore there can be no Punishment of the Innocent. It\nis therefore a violation, First, of that Law of Nature, which forbiddeth\nall men, in their Revenges, to look at any thing but some future good:\nFor there can arrive no good to the Common-wealth, by Punishing the\nInnocent. Secondly, of that, which forbiddeth Ingratitude: For seeing\nall Soveraign Power, is originally given by the consent of every one of\nthe Subjects, to the end they should as long as they are obedient, be\nprotected thereby; the Punishment of the Innocent, is a rendring of\nEvill for Good. And thirdly, of the Law that commandeth Equity; that\nis to say, an equall distribution of Justice; which in Punishing the\nInnocent is not observed.\n\n\n\n\nBut The Harme Done To Innocents In War, Not So\n\nBut the Infliction of what evill soever, on an Innocent man, that is not\na Subject, if it be for the benefit of the Common-wealth, and without\nviolation of any former Covenant, is no breach of the Law of Nature.\nFor all men that are not Subjects, are either Enemies, or else they have\nceased from being so, by some precedent covenants. But against Enemies,\nwhom the Common-wealth judgeth capable to do them hurt, it is lawfull by\nthe originall Right of Nature to make warre; wherein the Sword Judgeth\nnot, nor doth the Victor make distinction of Nocent and Innocent, as to\nthe time past; nor has other respect of mercy, than as it conduceth to\nthe good of his own People. And upon this ground it is, that also\nin Subjects, who deliberatly deny the Authority of the Common-wealth\nestablished, the vengeance is lawfully extended, not onely to the\nFathers, but also to the third and fourth generation not yet in being,\nand consequently innocent of the fact, for which they are afflicted:\nbecause the nature of this offence, consisteth in the renouncing of\nsubjection; which is a relapse into the condition of warre, commonly\ncalled Rebellion; and they that so offend, suffer not as Subjects, but\nas Enemies. For Rebellion, is but warre renewed.\n\n\n\n\nReward, Is Either Salary, Or Grace\n\nREWARD, is either of Gift, or by Contract. When by Contract, it is\ncalled Salary, and Wages; which is benefit due for service performed, or\npromised. When of Gift, it is benefit proceeding from the Grace of them\nthat bestow it, to encourage, or enable men to do them service. And\ntherefore when the Soveraign of a Common-wealth appointeth a Salary\nto any publique Office, he that receiveth it, is bound in Justice\nto performe his office; otherwise, he is bound onely in honour, to\nacknowledgement, and an endeavour of requitall. For though men have no\nlawfull remedy, when they be commanded to quit their private businesse,\nto serve the publique, without Reward, or Salary; yet they are not\nbound thereto, by the Law of Nature, nor by the institution of the\nCommon-wealth, unlesse the service cannot otherwise be done; because it\nis supposed the Soveraign may make use of all their means, insomuch as\nthe most common Souldier, may demand the wages of his warrefare, as a\ndebt.\n\n\n\n\nBenefits Bestowed For Fear, Are Not Rewards\n\nThe benefits which a Soveraign bestoweth on a Subject, for fear of some\npower, and ability he hath to do hurt to the Common-wealth, are not\nproperly Rewards; for they are not Salaryes; because there is in this\ncase no contract supposed, every man being obliged already not to do the\nCommon-wealth disservice: nor are they Graces; because they be extorted\nby feare, which ought not to be incident to the Soveraign Power: but\nare rather Sacrifices, which the Soveraign (considered in his naturall\nperson, and not in the person of the Common-wealth) makes, for the\nappeasing the discontent of him he thinks more potent than himselfe; and\nencourage not to obedience, but on the contrary, to the continuance, and\nincreasing of further extortion.\n\n\n\n\nSalaries Certain And Casuall\n\nAnd whereas some Salaries are certain, and proceed from the publique\nTreasure; and others uncertain, and casuall, proceeding from the\nexecution of the Office for which the Salary is ordained; the later\nis in some cases hurtfull to the Common-wealth; as in the case of\nJudicature. For where the benefit of the Judges, and Ministers of a\nCourt of Justice, ariseth for the multitude of Causes that are brought\nto their cognisance, there must needs follow two Inconveniences: One,\nis the nourishing of sutes; for the more sutes, the greater benefit: and\nanother that depends on that, which is contention about Jurisdiction;\neach Court drawing to it selfe, as many Causes as it can. But in\noffices of Execution there are not those Inconveniences; because their\nemployment cannot be encreased by any endeavour of their own. And thus\nmuch shall suffice for the nature of Punishment, and Reward; which are,\nas it were, the Nerves and Tendons, that move the limbes and joynts of a\nCommon-wealth.\n\nHitherto I have set forth the nature of Man, (whose Pride and other\nPassions have compelled him to submit himselfe to Government;) together\nwith the great power of his Governour, whom I compared to Leviathan,\ntaking that comparison out of the two last verses of the one and\nfortieth of Job; where God having set forth the great power of\nLeviathan, called him King of the Proud. \"There is nothing,\" saith he,\n\"on earth, to be compared with him. He is made so as not be afraid. Hee\nseeth every high thing below him; and is King of all the children of\npride.\" But because he is mortall, and subject to decay, as all other\nEarthly creatures are; and because there is that in heaven, (though not\non earth) that he should stand in fear of, and whose Lawes he ought to\nobey; I shall in the next following Chapters speak of his Diseases, and\nthe causes of his Mortality; and of what Lawes of Nature he is bound to\nobey.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIX. OF THOSE THINGS THAT WEAKEN, OR TEND TO THE DISSOLUTION OF\nA COMMON-WEALTH\n\n\nDissolution Of Common-wealths Proceedeth From Imperfect Institution\n\nThough nothing can be immortall, which mortals make; yet, if men had the\nuse of reason they pretend to, their Common-wealths might be secured, at\nleast, from perishing by internall diseases. For by the nature of their\nInstitution, they are designed to live, as long as Man-kind, or as\nthe Lawes of Nature, or as Justice it selfe, which gives them life.\nTherefore when they come to be dissolved, not by externall violence, but\nintestine disorder, the fault is not in men, as they are the Matter; but\nas they are the Makers, and orderers of them. For men, as they become\nat last weary of irregular justling, and hewing one another, and desire\nwith all their hearts, to conforme themselves into one firme and lasting\nedifice; so for want, both of the art of making fit Laws, to square\ntheir actions by, and also of humility, and patience, to suffer the rude\nand combersome points of their present greatnesse to be taken off, they\ncannot without the help of a very able Architect, be compiled, into any\nother than a crasie building, such as hardly lasting out their own time,\nmust assuredly fall upon the heads of their posterity.\n\nAmongst the Infirmities therefore of a Common-wealth, I will reckon in\nthe first place, those that arise from an Imperfect Institution,\nand resemble the diseases of a naturall body, which proceed from a\nDefectuous Procreation.\n\n\n\n\nWant Of Absolute Power\n\nOf which, this is one, \"That a man to obtain a Kingdome, is sometimes\ncontent with lesse Power, than to the Peace, and defence of the\nCommon-wealth is necessarily required.\" From whence it commeth to passe,\nthat when the exercise of the Power layd by, is for the publique safety\nto be resumed, it hath the resemblance of as unjust act; which disposeth\ngreat numbers of men (when occasion is presented) to rebell; In the\nsame manner as the bodies of children, gotten by diseased parents, are\nsubject either to untimely death, or to purge the ill quality, derived\nfrom their vicious conception, by breaking out into biles and scabbs.\nAnd when Kings deny themselves some such necessary Power, it is not\nalwayes (though sometimes) out of ignorance of what is necessary to the\noffice they undertake; but many times out of a hope to recover the same\nagain at their pleasure: Wherein they reason not well; because such as\nwill hold them to their promises, shall be maintained against them by\nforraign Common-wealths; who in order to the good of their own Subjects\nlet slip few occasions to Weaken the estate of their Neighbours. So was\nThomas Beckett Archbishop of Canterbury, supported against Henry\nthe Second, by the Pope; the subjection of Ecclesiastiques to the\nCommon-wealth, having been dispensed with by William the Conqueror at\nhis reception, when he took an Oath, not to infringe the liberty of the\nChurch. And so were the Barons, whose power was by William Rufus (to\nhave their help in transferring the Succession from his Elder brother,\nto himselfe,) encreased to a degree, inconsistent with the Soveraign\nPower, maintained in their Rebellion against King John, by the French.\nNor does this happen in Monarchy onely. For whereas the stile of the\nantient Roman Common-wealth, was, The Senate, and People of Rome;\nneither Senate, nor People pretended to the whole Power; which first\ncaused the seditions, of Tiberius Gracchus, Caius Gracchus, Lucius\nSaturnius, and others; and afterwards the warres between the Senate and\nthe People, under Marius and Sylla; and again under Pompey and Caesar,\nto the Extinction of their Democraty, and the setting up of Monarchy.\n\nThe people of Athens bound themselves but from one onely Action; which\nwas, that no man on pain of death should propound the renewing of the\nwarre for the Island of Salamis; And yet thereby, if Solon had not\ncaused to be given out he was mad, and afterwards in gesture and habit\nof a mad-man, and in verse, propounded it to the People that flocked\nabout him, they had had an enemy perpetually in readinesse, even at the\ngates of their Citie; such dammage, or shifts, are all Common-wealths\nforced to, that have their Power never so little limited.\n\n\n\n\nPrivate Judgement Of Good and Evill\n\nIn the second place, I observe the Diseases of a Common-wealth, that\nproceed from the poyson of seditious doctrines; whereof one is, \"That\nevery private man is Judge of Good and Evill actions.\" This is true in\nthe condition of meer Nature, where there are no Civill Lawes; and also\nunder Civill Government, in such cases as are not determined by the\nLaw. But otherwise, it is manifest, that the measure of Good and Evill\nactions, is the Civill Law; and the Judge the Legislator, who is alwayes\nRepresentative of the Common-wealth. From this false doctrine, men are\ndisposed to debate with themselves, and dispute the commands of the\nCommon-wealth; and afterwards to obey, or disobey them, as in their\nprivate judgements they shall think fit. Whereby the Common-wealth is\ndistracted and Weakened.\n\n\n\n\nErroneous Conscience\n\nAnother doctrine repugnant to Civill Society, is, that \"Whatsoever a\nman does against his Conscience, is Sinne;\" and it dependeth on the\npresumption of making himself judge of Good and Evill. For a mans\nConscience, and his Judgement is the same thing; and as the Judgement,\nso also the Conscience may be erroneous. Therefore, though he that is\nsubject to no Civill Law, sinneth in all he does against his Conscience,\nbecause he has no other rule to follow but his own reason; yet it is\nnot so with him that lives in a Common-wealth; because the Law is the\npublique Conscience, by which he hath already undertaken to be guided.\nOtherwise in such diversity, as there is of private Consciences, which\nare but private opinions, the Common-wealth must needs be distracted,\nand no man dare to obey the Soveraign Power, farther than it shall seem\ngood in his own eyes.\n\n\n\n\nPretence Of Inspiration\n\nIt hath been also commonly taught, \"That Faith and Sanctity, are not to\nbe attained by Study and Reason, but by supernaturall Inspiration, or\nInfusion,\" which granted, I see not why any man should render a reason\nof his Faith; or why every Christian should not be also a Prophet; or\nwhy any man should take the Law of his Country, rather than his own\nInspiration, for the rule of his action. And thus wee fall again into\nthe fault of taking upon us to Judge of Good and Evill; or to make\nJudges of it, such private men as pretend to be supernaturally Inspired,\nto the Dissolution of all Civill Government. Faith comes by hearing,\nand hearing by those accidents, which guide us into the presence of them\nthat speak to us; which accidents are all contrived by God Almighty; and\nyet are not supernaturall, but onely, for the great number of them that\nconcurre to every effect, unobservable. Faith, and Sanctity, are indeed\nnot very frequent; but yet they are not Miracles, but brought to passe\nby education, discipline, correction, and other naturall wayes, by which\nGod worketh them in his elect, as such time as he thinketh fit. And\nthese three opinions, pernicious to Peace and Government, have in this\npart of the world, proceeded chiefly from the tongues, and pens of\nunlearned Divines; who joyning the words of Holy Scripture together,\notherwise than is agreeable to reason, do what they can, to make men\nthink, that Sanctity and Naturall Reason, cannot stand together.\n\n\n\n\nSubjecting The Soveraign Power To Civill Lawes\n\nA fourth opinion, repugnant to the nature of a Common-wealth, is this,\n\"That he that hath the Soveraign Power, is subject to the Civill Lawes.\"\nIt is true, that Soveraigns are all subjects to the Lawes of Nature;\nbecause such lawes be Divine, and cannot by any man, or Common-wealth\nbe abrogated. But to those Lawes which the Soveraign himselfe, that is,\nwhich the Common-wealth maketh, he is not subject. For to be subject to\nLawes, is to be subject to the Common-wealth, that is to the Soveraign\nRepresentative, that is to himselfe; which is not subjection, but\nfreedome from the Lawes. Which errour, because it setteth the Lawes\nabove the Soveraign, setteth also a Judge above him, and a Power to\npunish him; which is to make a new Soveraign; and again for the same\nreason a third, to punish the second; and so continually without end, to\nthe Confusion, and Dissolution of the Common-wealth.\n\n\n\n\nAttributing Of Absolute Propriety To The Subjects\n\nA Fifth doctrine, that tendeth to the Dissolution of a Common-wealth,\nis, \"That every private man has an absolute Propriety in his Goods;\nsuch, as excludeth the Right of the Soveraign.\" Every man has indeed a\nPropriety that excludes the Right of every other Subject: And he has it\nonely from the Soveraign Power; without the protection whereof, every\nother man should have equall Right to the same. But if the Right of the\nSoveraign also be excluded, he cannot performe the office they have put\nhim into; which is, to defend them both from forraign enemies, and\nfrom the injuries of one another; and consequently there is no longer a\nCommon-wealth.\n\nAnd if the Propriety of Subjects, exclude not the Right of the\nSoveraign Representative to their Goods; much lesse to their offices\nof Judicature, or Execution, in which they Represent the Soveraign\nhimselfe.\n\n\n\n\nDividing Of The Soveraign Power\n\nThere is a Sixth doctrine, plainly, and directly against the essence\nof a Common-wealth; and 'tis this, \"That the Soveraign Power may be\ndivided.\" For what is it to divide the Power of a Common-wealth, but\nto Dissolve it; for Powers divided mutually destroy each other. And for\nthese doctrines, men are chiefly beholding to some of those, that making\nprofession of the Lawes, endeavour to make them depend upon their own\nlearning, and not upon the Legislative Power.\n\n\n\n\nImitation Of Neighbour Nations\n\nAnd as False Doctrine, so also often-times the Example of different\nGovernment in a neighbouring Nation, disposeth men to alteration of\nthe forme already setled. So the people of the Jewes were stirred up to\nreject God, and to call upon the Prophet Samuel, for a King after\nthe manner of the Nations; So also the lesser Cities of Greece, were\ncontinually disturbed, with seditions of the Aristocraticall, and\nDemocraticall factions; one part of almost every Common-wealth, desiring\nto imitate the Lacedaemonians; the other, the Athenians. And I doubt\nnot, but many men, have been contented to see the late troubles in\nEngland, out of an imitation of the Low Countries; supposing there\nneeded no more to grow rich, than to change, as they had done, the forme\nof their Government. For the constitution of mans nature, is of it selfe\nsubject to desire novelty: When therefore they are provoked to the same,\nby the neighbourhood also of those that have been enriched by it, it is\nalmost impossible for them, not to be content with those that solicite\nthem to change; and love the first beginnings, though they be grieved\nwith the continuance of disorder; like hot blouds, that having gotten\nthe itch, tear themselves with their own nayles, till they can endure\nthe smart no longer.\n\n\n\n\nImitation Of The Greeks, And Romans\n\nAnd as to Rebellion in particular against Monarchy; one of the most\nfrequent causes of it, is the Reading of the books of Policy, and\nHistories of the antient Greeks, and Romans; from which, young men,\nand all others that are unprovided of the Antidote of solid Reason,\nreceiving a strong, and delightfull impression, of the great exploits\nof warre, atchieved by the Conductors of their Armies, receive withall\na pleasing Idea, of all they have done besides; and imagine their great\nprosperity, not to have proceeded from the aemulation of particular men,\nbut from the vertue of their popular form of government: Not considering\nthe frequent Seditions, and Civill Warres, produced by the imperfection\nof their Policy. From the reading, I say, of such books, men have\nundertaken to kill their Kings, because the Greek and Latine writers,\nin their books, and discourses of Policy, make it lawfull, and laudable,\nfor any man so to do; provided before he do it, he call him Tyrant. For\nthey say not Regicide, that is, killing of a King, but Tyrannicide, that\nis, killing of a Tyrant is lawfull. From the same books, they that live\nunder a Monarch conceive an opinion, that the Subjects in a Popular\nCommon-wealth enjoy Liberty; but that in a Monarchy they are all Slaves.\nI say, they that live under a Monarchy conceive such an opinion; not\nthey that live under a Popular Government; for they find no such matter.\nIn summe, I cannot imagine, how anything can be more prejudiciall to a\nMonarchy, than the allowing of such books to be publikely read, without\npresent applying such correctives of discreet Masters, as are fit to\ntake away their Venime; Which Venime I will not doubt to compare to\nthe biting of a mad Dogge, which is a disease the Physicians call\nHydrophobia, or Fear Of Water. For as he that is so bitten, has a\ncontinuall torment of thirst, and yet abhorreth water; and is in such\nan estate, as if the poyson endeavoured to convert him into a Dogge:\nSo when a Monarchy is once bitten to the quick, by those Democraticall\nwriters, that continually snarle at that estate; it wanteth nothing\nmore than a strong Monarch, which neverthelesse out of a certain\nTyrannophobia, or feare of being strongly governed, when they have him,\nthey abhorre.\n\nAs here have been Doctors, that hold there be three Soules in a man;\nso there be also that think there may be more Soules, (that is, more\nSoveraigns,) than one, in a Common-wealth; and set up a Supremacy\nagainst the Soveraignty; Canons against Lawes; and a Ghostly Authority\nagainst the Civill; working on mens minds, with words and distinctions,\nthat of themselves signifie nothing, but bewray (by their obscurity)\nthat there walketh (as some think invisibly) another Kingdome, as it\nwere a Kingdome of Fayries, in the dark. Now seeing it is manifest, that\nthe Civill Power, and the Power of the Common-wealth is the same\nthing; and that Supremacy, and the Power of making Canons, and granting\nFaculties, implyeth a Common-wealth; it followeth, that where one is\nSoveraign, another Supreme; where one can make Lawes, and another\nmake Canons; there must needs be two Common-wealths, of one & the same\nSubjects; which is a Kingdome divided in it selfe, and cannot stand. For\nnotwithstanding the insignificant distinction of Temporall, and Ghostly,\nthey are still two Kingdomes, and every Subject is subject to two\nMasters. For seeing the Ghostly Power challengeth the Right to declare\nwhat is Sinne it challengeth by consequence to declare what is Law,\n(Sinne being nothing but the transgression of the Law;) and again, the\nCivill Power challenging to declare what is Law, every Subject must\nobey two Masters, who bothe will have their Commands be observed as Law;\nwhich is impossible. Or, if it be but one Kingdome, either the Civill,\nwhich is the Power of the Common-wealth, must be subordinate to the\nGhostly; or the Ghostly must be subordinate to the Temporall and then\nthere is no Supremacy but the Temporall. When therefore these two Powers\noppose one another, the Common-wealth cannot but be in great danger\nof Civill warre, and Dissolution. For the Civill Authority being more\nvisible, and standing in the cleerer light of naturall reason cannot\nchoose but draw to it in all times a very considerable part of the\npeople: And the Spirituall, though it stand in the darknesse of Schoole\ndistinctions, and hard words; yet because the fear of Darknesse, and\nGhosts, is greater than other fears, cannot want a party sufficient to\nTrouble, and sometimes to Destroy a Common-wealth. And this is a Disease\nwhich not unfitly may be compared to the Epilepsie, or Falling-sicknesse\n(which the Jewes took to be one kind of possession by Spirits) in the\nBody Naturall. For as in this Disease, there is an unnaturall spirit,\nor wind in the head that obstructeth the roots of the Nerves, and moving\nthem violently, taketh away the motion which naturally they should have\nfrom the power of the Soule in the Brain, and thereby causeth violent,\nand irregular motions (which men call Convulsions) in the parts;\ninsomuch as he that is seized therewith, falleth down sometimes into the\nwater, and sometimes into the fire, as a man deprived of his senses;\nso also in the Body Politique, when the Spirituall power, moveth the\nMembers of a Common-wealth, by the terrour of punishments, and hope of\nrewards (which are the Nerves of it,) otherwise than by the Civill Power\n(which is the Soule of the Common-wealth) they ought to be moved; and by\nstrange, and hard words suffocates the people, and either Overwhelm\nthe Common-wealth with Oppression, or cast it into the Fire of a Civill\nwarre.\n\n\n\n\nMixt Government\n\nSometimes also in the meerly Civill government, there be more than\none Soule: As when the Power of levying mony, (which is the Nutritive\nfaculty,) has depended on a generall Assembly; the Power of conduct and\ncommand, (which is the Motive Faculty,) on one man; and the Power of\nmaking Lawes, (which is the Rationall faculty,) on the accidentall\nconsent, not onely of those two, but also of a third; This endangereth\nthe Common-wealth, somtimes for want of consent to good Lawes; but most\noften for want of such Nourishment, as is necessary to Life, and Motion.\nFor although few perceive, that such government, is not government,\nbut division of the Common-wealth into three Factions, and call it\nmixt Monarchy; yet the truth is, that it is not one independent\nCommon-wealth, but three independent Factions; nor one Representative\nPerson, but three. In the Kingdome of God, there may be three Persons\nindependent, without breach of unity in God that Reigneth; but where men\nReigne, that be subject to diversity of opinions, it cannot be so. And\ntherefore if the King bear the person of the People, and the generall\nAssembly bear also the person of the People, and another assembly bear\nthe person of a Part of the people, they are not one Person, nor one\nSoveraign, but three Persons, and three Soveraigns.\n\nTo what Disease in the Naturall Body of man, I may exactly compare this\nirregularity of a Common-wealth, I know not. But I have seen a man, that\nhad another man growing out of his side, with an head, armes, breast,\nand stomach, of his own: If he had had another man growing out of his\nother side, the comparison might then have been exact.\n\n\n\n\nWant Of Mony\n\nHitherto I have named such Diseases of a Common-wealth, as are of the\ngreatest, and most present danger. There be other, not so great; which\nneverthelesse are not unfit to be observed. As first, the difficulty of\nraising Mony, for the necessary uses of the Common-wealth; especially\nin the approach of warre. This difficulty ariseth from the opinion, that\nevery Subject hath of a Propriety in his lands and goods, exclusive of\nthe Soveraigns Right to the use of the same. From whence it commeth to\npasse, that the Soveraign Power, which foreseeth the necessities and\ndangers of the Common-wealth, (finding the passage of mony to the\npublique Treasure obstructed, by the tenacity of the people,) whereas\nit ought to extend it selfe, to encounter, and prevent such dangers in\ntheir beginnings, contracteth it selfe as long as it can, and when it\ncannot longer, struggles with the people by strategems of Law, to obtain\nlittle summes, which not sufficing, he is fain at last violently to\nopen the way for present supply, or Perish; and being put often to these\nextremities, at last reduceth the people to their due temper; or else\nthe Common-wealth must perish. Insomuch as we may compare this Distemper\nvery aptly to an Ague; wherein, the fleshy parts being congealed, or\nby venomous matter obstructed; the Veins which by their naturall course\nempty themselves into the Heart, are not (as they ought to be) supplyed\nfrom the Arteries, whereby there succeedeth at first a cold contraction,\nand trembling of the limbes; and afterwards a hot, and strong endeavour\nof the Heart, to force a passage for the Bloud; and before it can do\nthat, contenteth it selfe with the small refreshments of such things as\ncoole of a time, till (if Nature be strong enough) it break at last\nthe contumacy of the parts obstructed, and dissipateth the venome into\nsweat; or (if Nature be too weak) the Patient dyeth.\n\n\n\n\nMonopolies And Abuses Of Publicans\n\nAgain, there is sometimes in a Common-wealth, a Disease, which\nresembleth the Pleurisie; and that is, when the Treasure of the\nCommon-wealth, flowing out of its due course, is gathered together in\ntoo much abundance, in one, or a few private men, by Monopolies, or by\nFarmes of the Publique Revenues; in the same manner as the Blood in a\nPleurisie, getting into the Membrane of the breast, breedeth there an\nInflammation, accompanied with a Fever, and painfull stitches.\n\n\n\n\nPopular Men\n\nAlso, the Popularity of a potent Subject, (unlesse the Common-wealth\nhave very good caution of his fidelity,) is a dangerous Disease; because\nthe people (which should receive their motion from the Authority of the\nSoveraign,) by the flattery, and by the reputation of an ambitious man,\nare drawn away from their obedience to the Lawes, to follow a man, of\nwhose vertues, and designes they have no knowledge. And this is commonly\nof more danger in a Popular Government, than in a Monarchy; as it may\neasily be made believe, they are the People. By this means it was, that\nJulius Caesar, who was set up by the People against the Senate, having\nwon to himselfe the affections of his Army, made himselfe Master, both\nof Senate and People. And this proceeding of popular, and ambitious men,\nis plain Rebellion; and may be resembled to the effects of Witchcraft.\n\n\n\n\nExcessive Greatnesse Of A Town, Multitude Of Corporations\n\nAnother infirmity of a Common-wealth, is the immoderate greatnesse of a\nTown, when it is able to furnish out of its own Circuit, the number, and\nexpence of a great Army: As also the great number of Corporations; which\nare as it were many lesser Common-wealths in the bowels of a greater,\nlike wormes in the entrayles of a naturall man.\n\n\n\n\nLiberty Of Disputing Against Soveraign Power\n\nTo which may be added, the Liberty of Disputing against absolute Power,\nby pretenders to Politicall Prudence; which though bred for the most\npart in the Lees of the people; yet animated by False Doctrines, are\nperpetually medling with the Fundamentall Lawes, to the molestation\nof the Common-wealth; like the little Wormes, which Physicians call\nAscarides.\n\nWe may further adde, the insatiable appetite, or Bulimia, of enlarging\nDominion; with the incurable Wounds thereby many times received from\nthe enemy; And the Wens, of ununited conquests, which are many times a\nburthen, and with lesse danger lost, than kept; As also the Lethargy of\nEase, and Consumption of Riot and Vain Expence.\n\n\n\n\nDissolution Of The Common-wealth\n\nLastly, when in a warre (forraign, or intestine,) the enemies got a\nfinal Victory; so as (the forces of the Common-wealth keeping the field\nno longer) there is no farther protection of Subjects in their loyalty;\nthen is the Common-wealth DISSOLVED, and every man at liberty to protect\nhimselfe by such courses as his own discretion shall suggest unto him.\nFor the Soveraign, is the publique Soule, giving Life and Motion to the\nCommon-wealth; which expiring, the Members are governed by it no more,\nthan the Carcasse of a man, by his departed (though Immortal) Soule. For\nthough the Right of a Soveraign Monarch cannot be extinguished by the\nact of another; yet the Obligation of the members may. For he that\nwants protection, may seek it anywhere; and when he hath it, is obliged\n(without fraudulent pretence of having submitted himselfe out of fear,)\nto protect his Protection as long as he is able. But when the Power of\nan Assembly is once suppressed, the Right of the same perisheth utterly;\nbecause the Assembly it selfe is extinct; and consequently, there is no\npossibility for the Soveraignty to re-enter.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXX. OF THE OFFICE OF THE SOVERAIGN REPRESENTATIVE\n\n\n\n\nThe Procuration Of The Good Of The People\n\nThe OFFICE of the Soveraign, (be it a Monarch, or an Assembly,)\nconsisteth in the end, for which he was trusted with the Soveraign\nPower, namely the procuration of the Safety Of The People; to which he\nis obliged by the Law of Nature, and to render an account thereof to\nGod, the Author of that Law, and to none but him. But by Safety here, is\nnot meant a bare Preservation, but also all other Contentments of life,\nwhich every man by lawfull Industry, without danger, or hurt to the\nCommon-wealth, shall acquire to himselfe.\n\n\n\n\nBy Instruction & Lawes\n\nAnd this is intended should be done, not by care applyed to\nIndividualls, further than their protection from injuries, when they\nshall complain; but by a generall Providence, contained in publique\nInstruction, both of Doctrine, and Example; and in the making, and\nexecuting of good Lawes, to which individuall persons may apply their\nown cases.\n\n\n\n\nAgainst The Duty Of A Soveraign To Relinquish Any Essentiall Right\n\nof Soveraignty Or Not To See The People Taught The Grounds Of Them\n\nAnd because, if the essentiall Rights of Soveraignty (specified before\nin the eighteenth Chapter) be taken away, the Common-wealth is thereby\ndissolved, and every man returneth into the condition, and calamity of a\nwarre with every other man, (which is the greatest evill that can happen\nin this life;) it is the Office of the Soveraign, to maintain those\nRights entire; and consequently against his duty, First, to transferre\nto another, or to lay from himselfe any of them. For he that deserteth\nthe Means, deserteth the Ends; and he deserteth the Means, that being\nthe Soveraign, acknowledgeth himselfe subject to the Civill Lawes; and\nrenounceth the Power of Supreme Judicature; or of making Warre, or\nPeace by his own Authority; or of Judging of the Necessities of the\nCommon-wealth; or of levying Mony, and Souldiers, when, and as much as\nin his own conscience he shall judge necessary; or of making Officers,\nand Ministers both of Warre, and Peace; or of appointing Teachers, and\nexamining what Doctrines are conformable, or contrary to the Defence,\nPeace, and Good of the people. Secondly, it is against his duty, to let\nthe people be ignorant, or mis-in-formed of the grounds, and reasons\nof those his essentiall Rights; because thereby men are easie to be\nseduced, and drawn to resist him, when the Common-wealth shall require\ntheir use and exercise.\n\nAnd the grounds of these Rights, have the rather need to be diligently,\nand truly taught; because they cannot be maintained by any Civill Law,\nor terrour of legal punishment. For a Civill Law, that shall forbid\nRebellion, (and such is all resistance to the essentiall Rights of\nSoveraignty,) is not (as a Civill Law) any obligation, but by vertue\nonely of the Law of Nature, that forbiddeth the violation of Faith;\nwhich naturall obligation if men know not, they cannot know the Right of\nany Law the Soveraign maketh. And for the Punishment, they take it\nbut for an act of Hostility; which when they think they have strength\nenough, they will endeavour by acts of Hostility, to avoyd.\n\n\n\n\nObjection Of Those That Say There Are No Principles Of Reason For\n\nAbsolute Soveraignty\n\nAs I have heard some say, that Justice is but a word, without substance;\nand that whatsoever a man can by force, or art, acquire to himselfe,\n(not onely in the condition of warre, but also in a Common-wealth,) is\nhis own, which I have already shewed to be false: So there be also\nthat maintain, that there are no grounds, nor Principles of Reason, to\nsustain those essentiall Rights, which make Soveraignty absolute. For\nif there were, they would have been found out in some place, or other;\nwhereas we see, there has not hitherto been any Common-wealth, where\nthose Rights have been acknowledged, or challenged. Wherein they argue\nas ill, as if the Savage people of America, should deny there were any\ngrounds, or Principles of Reason, so to build a house, as to last as\nlong as the materials, because they never yet saw any so well built.\nTime, and Industry, produce every day new knowledge. And as the art\nof well building, is derived from Principles of Reason, observed by\nindustrious men, that had long studied the nature of materials, and\nthe divers effects of figure, and proportion, long after mankind\nbegan (though poorly) to build: So, long time after men have begun to\nconstitute Common-wealths, imperfect, and apt to relapse into disorder,\nthere may, Principles of Reason be found out, by industrious meditation,\nto make use of them, or be neglected by them, or not, concerneth my\nparticular interest, at this day, very little. But supposing that\nthese of mine are not such Principles of Reason; yet I am sure they are\nPrinciples from Authority of Scripture; as I shall make it appear, when\nI shall come to speak of the Kingdome of God, (administred by Moses,)\nover the Jewes, his peculiar people by Covenant.\n\n\n\n\nObjection From The Incapacity Of The Vulgar\n\nBut they say again, that though the Principles be right, yet Common\npeople are not of capacity enough to be made to understand them. I\nshould be glad, that the Rich, and Potent Subjects of a Kingdome, or\nthose that are accounted the most Learned, were no lesse incapable than\nthey. But all men know, that the obstructions to this kind of doctrine,\nproceed not so much from the difficulty of the matter, as from the\ninterest of them that are to learn. Potent men, digest hardly any thing\nthat setteth up a Power to bridle their affections; and Learned men,\nany thing that discovereth their errours, and thereby lesseneth their\nAuthority: whereas the Common-peoples minds, unlesse they be tainted\nwith dependance on the Potent, or scribbled over with the opinions\nof their Doctors, are like clean paper, fit to receive whatsoever by\nPublique Authority shall be imprinted in them. Shall whole Nations be\nbrought to Acquiesce in the great Mysteries of Christian Religion, which\nare above Reason; and millions of men be made believe, that the same\nBody may be in innumerable places, at one and the same time, which\nis against Reason; and shall not men be able, by their teaching, and\npreaching, protected by the Law, to make that received, which is so\nconsonant to Reason, that any unprejudicated man, needs no more to learn\nit, than to hear it? I conclude therefore, that in the instruction\nof the people in the Essentiall Rights (which are the Naturall, and\nFundamentall Lawes) of Soveraignty, there is no difficulty, (whilest a\nSoveraign has his Power entire,) but what proceeds from his own fault,\nor the fault of those whom he trusteth in the administration of the\nCommon-wealth; and consequently, it is his Duty, to cause them so to be\ninstructed; and not onely his Duty, but his Benefit also, and Security,\nagainst the danger that may arrive to himselfe in his naturall Person,\nfrom Rebellion.\n\n\n\n\nSubjects Are To Be Taught, Not To Affect Change Of Government\n\nAnd (to descend to particulars) the People are to be taught, First, that\nthey ought not to be in love with any forme of Government they see\nin their neighbour Nations, more than with their own, nor (whatsoever\npresent prosperity they behold in Nations that are otherwise governed\nthan they,) to desire change. For the prosperity of a People ruled by\nan Aristocraticall, or Democraticall assembly, commeth not from\nAristocracy, nor from Democracy, but from the Obedience, and Concord of\nthe Subjects; nor do the people flourish in a Monarchy, because one man\nhas the right to rule them, but because they obey him. Take away in\nany kind of State, the Obedience, (and consequently the Concord of the\nPeople,) and they shall not onely not flourish, but in short time be\ndissolved. And they that go about by disobedience, to doe no more than\nreforme the Common-wealth, shall find they do thereby destroy it; like\nthe foolish daughters of Peleus (in the fable;) which desiring to renew\nthe youth of their decrepit Father, did by the Counsell of Medea, cut\nhim in pieces, and boyle him, together with strange herbs, but made not\nof him a new man. This desire of change, is like the breach of the first\nof Gods Commandements: For there God says, Non Habebis Deos Alienos;\nThou shalt not have the Gods of other Nations; and in another place\nconcerning Kings, that they are Gods.\n\n\n\n\nNor Adhere (Against The Soveraign) To Popular Men\n\nSecondly, they are to be taught, that they ought not to be led with\nadmiration of the vertue of any of their fellow Subjects, how\nhigh soever he stand, nor how conspicuously soever he shine in the\nCommon-wealth; nor of any Assembly, (except the Soveraign Assembly,)\nso as to deferre to them any obedience, or honour, appropriate to the\nSoveraign onely, whom (in their particular stations) they represent; nor\nto receive any influence from them, but such as is conveighed by them\nfrom the Soveraign Authority. For that Soveraign, cannot be imagined to\nlove his People as he ought, that is not Jealous of them, but suffers\nthem by the flattery of Popular men, to be seduced from their loyalty,\nas they have often been, not onely secretly, but openly, so as to\nproclaime Marriage with them In Facie Ecclesiae by Preachers; and by\npublishing the same in the open streets: which may fitly be compared to\nthe violation of the second of the ten Commandements.\n\n\n\nNor To Dispute The Soveraign Power\n\nThirdly, in consequence to this, they ought to be informed, how great\nfault it is, to speak evill of the Soveraign Representative, (whether\nOne man, or an Assembly of men;) or to argue and dispute his Power, or\nany way to use his Name irreverently, whereby he may be brought into\nContempt with his People, and their Obedience (in which the safety\nof the Common-wealth consisteth) slackened. Which doctrine the third\nCommandement by resemblance pointeth to.\n\n\n\n\nAnd To Have Dayes Set Apart To Learn Their Duty\n\nFourthly, seeing people cannot be taught this, nor when 'tis taught,\nremember it, nor after one generation past, so much as know in whom the\nSoveraign Power is placed, without setting a part from their ordinary\nlabour, some certain times, in which they may attend those that are\nappointed to instruct them; It is necessary that some such times be\ndetermined, wherein they may assemble together, and (after prayers and\npraises given to God, the Soveraign of Soveraigns) hear those their\nDuties told them, and the Positive Lawes, such as generally concern them\nall, read and expounded, and be put in mind of the Authority that maketh\nthem Lawes. To this end had the Jewes every seventh day, a Sabbath, in\nwhich the Law was read and expounded; and in the solemnity whereof they\nwere put in mind, that their King was God; that having created the world\nin six days, he rested the seventh day; and by their resting on it from\ntheir labour, that that God was their King, which redeemed them from\ntheir servile, and painfull labour in Egypt, and gave them a time, after\nthey had rejoyced in God, to take joy also in themselves, by lawfull\nrecreation. So that the first Table of the Commandements, is spent all,\nin setting down the summe of Gods absolute Power; not onely as God,\nbut as King by pact, (in peculiar) of the Jewes; and may therefore give\nlight, to those that have the Soveraign Power conferred on them by the\nconsent of men, to see what doctrine they Ought to teach their Subjects.\n\n\n\n\nAnd To Honour Their Parents\n\nAnd because the first instruction of Children, dependeth on the care\nof their Parents; it is necessary that they should be obedient to them,\nwhilest they are under their tuition; and not onely so, but that also\nafterwards (as gratitude requireth,) they acknowledge the benefit of\ntheir education, by externall signes of honour. To which end they are\nto be taught, that originally the Father of every man was also his\nSoveraign Lord, with power over him of life and death; and that the\nFathers of families, when by instituting a Common-wealth, they resigned\nthat absolute Power, yet it was never intended, they should lose the\nhonour due unto them for their education. For to relinquish such right,\nwas not necessary to the Institution of Soveraign Power; nor would there\nbe any reason, why any man should desire to have children, or take the\ncare to nourish, and instruct them, if they were afterwards to have no\nother benefit from them, than from other men. And this accordeth with\nthe fifth Commandement.\n\n\n\n\nAnd To Avoyd Doing Of Injury:\n\nAgain, every Soveraign Ought to cause Justice to be taught, which\n(consisting in taking from no man what is his) is as much as to say, to\ncause men to be taught not to deprive their Neighbour, by violence,\nor fraud, of any thing which by the Soveraign Authority is theirs. Of\nthings held in propriety, those that are dearest to a man are his own\nlife, & limbs; and in the next degree, (in most men,) those that\nconcern conjugall affection; and after them riches and means of living.\nTherefore the People are to be taught, to abstain from violence to\none anothers person, by private revenges; from violation of conjugall\nhonour; and from forcibly rapine, and fraudulent surreption of one\nanothers goods. For which purpose also it is necessary they be shewed\nthe evill consequences of false Judgement, by corruption either of\nJudges or Witnesses, whereby the distinction of propriety is taken away,\nand Justice becomes of no effect: all which things are intimated in the\nsixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth Commandements.\n\n\n\n\nAnd To Do All This Sincerely From The Heart\n\nLastly, they are to be taught, that not onely the unjust facts, but the\ndesignes and intentions to do them, (though by accident hindred,) are\nInjustice; which consisteth in the pravity of the will, as well as in\nthe irregularity of the act. And this is the intention of the tenth\nCommandement, and the summe of the Second Table; which is reduced all to\nthis one Commandement of mutuall Charity, \"Thou shalt love thy neighbour\nas thy selfe:\" as the summe of the first Table is reduced to \"the love\nof God;\" whom they had then newly received as their King.\n\n\n\n\nThe Use Of Universities\n\nAs for the Means, and Conduits, by which the people may receive this\nInstruction, wee are to search, by what means so may Opinions,\ncontrary to the peace of Man-kind, upon weak and false Principles, have\nneverthelesse been so deeply rooted in them. I mean those, which I have\nin the precedent Chapter specified: as That men shall Judge of what is\nlawfull and unlawfull, not by the Law it selfe, but by their own\nprivate Judgements; That Subjects sinne in obeying the Commands of the\nCommon-wealth, unlesse they themselves have first judged them to be\nlawfull: That their Propriety in their riches is such, as to exclude the\nDominion, which the Common-wealth hath over the same: That it is lawfull\nfor Subjects to kill such, as they call Tyrants: That the Soveraign\nPower may be divided, and the like; which come to be instilled into\nthe People by this means. They whom necessity, or covetousnesse keepeth\nattent on their trades, and labour; and they, on the other side, whom\nsuperfluity, or sloth carrieth after their sensuall pleasures, (which\ntwo sorts of men take up the greatest part of Man-kind,) being diverted\nfrom the deep meditation, which the learning of truth, not onely in the\nmatter of Naturall Justice, but also of all other Sciences necessarily\nrequireth, receive the Notions of their duty, chiefly from Divines\nin the Pulpit, and partly from such of their Neighbours, or familiar\nacquaintance, as having the Faculty of discoursing readily, and\nplausibly, seem wiser and better learned in cases of Law, and\nConscience, than themselves. And the Divines, and such others as make\nshew of Learning, derive their knowledge from the Universities, and from\nthe Schooles of Law, or from the Books, which by men eminent in\nthose Schooles, and Universities have been published. It is therefore\nmanifest, that the Instruction of the people, dependeth wholly, on the\nright teaching of Youth in the Universities. But are not (may some men\nsay) the Universities of England learned enough already to do that? or\nis it you will undertake to teach the Universities? Hard questions. Yet\nto the first, I doubt not to answer; that till towards the later end of\nHenry the Eighth, the Power of the Pope, was alwayes upheld against the\nPower of the Common-wealth, principally by the Universities; and that\nthe doctrines maintained by so many Preachers, against the Soveraign\nPower of the King, and by so many Lawyers, and others, that had their\neducation there, is a sufficient argument, that though the Universities\nwere not authors of those false doctrines, yet they knew not how to\nplant the true. For in such a contradiction of Opinions, it is most\ncertain, that they have not been sufficiently instructed; and 'tis no\nwonder, if they yet retain a relish of that subtile liquor, wherewith\nthey were first seasoned, against the Civill Authority. But to the later\nquestion, it is not fit, nor needfull for me to say either I, or No: for\nany man that sees what I am doing, may easily perceive what I think.\n\nThe safety of the People, requireth further, from him, or them that have\nthe Soveraign Power, that Justice be equally administred to all degrees\nof People; that is, that as well the rich, and mighty, as poor and\nobscure persons, may be righted of the injuries done them; so as the\ngreat, may have no greater hope of impunity, when they doe violence,\ndishonour, or any Injury to the meaner sort, than when one of these,\ndoes the like to one of them: For in this consisteth Equity; to which,\nas being a Precept of the Law of Nature, a Soveraign is as much subject,\nas any of the meanest of his People. All breaches of the Law, are\noffences against the Common-wealth: but there be some, that are also\nagainst private Persons. Those that concern the Common-wealth onely, may\nwithout breach of Equity be pardoned; for every man may pardon what is\ndone against himselfe, according to his own discretion. But an offence\nagainst a private man, cannot in Equity be pardoned, without the consent\nof him that is injured; or reasonable satisfaction.\n\nThe Inequality of Subjects, proceedeth from the Acts of Soveraign Power;\nand therefore has no more place in the presence of the Soveraign; that\nis to say, in a Court of Justice, then the Inequality between Kings,\nand their Subjects, in the presence of the King of Kings. The honour of\ngreat Persons, is to be valued for their beneficence, and the aydes\nthey give to men of inferiour rank, or not at all. And the violences,\noppressions, and injuries they do, are not extenuated, but aggravated by\nthe greatnesse of their persons; because they have least need to commit\nthem. The consequences of this partiality towards the great, proceed in\nthis manner. Impunity maketh Insolence; Insolence Hatred; and Hatred,\nan Endeavour to pull down all oppressing and contumelious greatnesse,\nthough with the ruine of the Common-wealth.\n\n\n\n\nEquall Taxes\n\nTo Equall Justice, appertaineth also the Equall imposition of Taxes;\nthe equality whereof dependeth not on the Equality of riches, but on the\nEquality of the debt, that every man oweth to the Common-wealth for his\ndefence. It is not enough, for a man to labour for the maintenance\nof his life; but also to fight, (if need be,) for the securing of his\nlabour. They must either do as the Jewes did after their return from\ncaptivity, in re-edifying the Temple, build with one hand, and hold the\nSword in the other; or else they must hire others to fight for them. For\nthe Impositions that are layd on the People by the Soveraign Power, are\nnothing else but the Wages, due to them that hold the publique Sword,\nto defend private men in the exercise of severall Trades, and Callings.\nSeeing then the benefit that every one receiveth thereby, is the\nenjoyment of life, which is equally dear to poor, and rich; the debt\nwhich a poor man oweth them that defend his life, is the same which a\nrich man oweth for the defence of his; saving that the rich, who have\nthe service of the poor, may be debtors not onely for their own persons,\nbut for many more. Which considered, the Equality of Imposition,\nconsisteth rather in the Equality of that which is consumed, than of the\nriches of the persons that consume the same. For what reason is there,\nthat he which laboureth much, and sparing the fruits of his labour,\nconsumeth little, should be more charged, then he that living idlely,\ngetteth little, and spendeth all he gets; seeing the one hath no\nmore protection from the Common-wealth, then the other? But when the\nImpositions, are layd upon those things which men consume, every man\npayeth Equally for what he useth: Nor is the Common-wealth defrauded, by\nthe luxurious waste of private men.\n\n\n\n\nPublique Charity\n\nAnd whereas many men, by accident unevitable, become unable to maintain\nthemselves by their labour; they ought not to be left to the Charity\nof private persons; but to be provided for, (as far-forth as the\nnecessities of Nature require,) by the Lawes of the Common-wealth. For\nas it is Uncharitablenesse in any man, to neglect the impotent; so it\nis in the Soveraign of a Common-wealth, to expose them to the hazard of\nsuch uncertain Charity.\n\n\n\n\nPrevention Of Idlenesse\n\nBut for such as have strong bodies, the case is otherwise: they are to\nbe forced to work; and to avoyd the excuse of not finding employment,\nthere ought to be such Lawes, as may encourage all manner of Arts; as\nNavigation, Agriculture, Fishing, and all manner of Manifacture that\nrequires labour. The multitude of poor, and yet strong people still\nencreasing, they are to be transplanted into Countries not sufficiently\ninhabited: where neverthelesse, they are not to exterminate those they\nfind there; but constrain them to inhabit closer together, and not range\na great deal of ground, to snatch what they find; but to court each\nlittle Plot with art and labour, to give them their sustenance in due\nseason. And when all the world is overchargd with Inhabitants, then the\nlast remedy of all is Warre; which provideth for every man, by Victory,\nor Death.\n\n\n\n\nGood Lawes What\n\nTo the care of the Soveraign, belongeth the making of Good Lawes. But\nwhat is a good Law? By a Good Law, I mean not a Just Law: for no Law can\nbe Unjust. The Law is made by the Soveraign Power, and all that is done\nby such Power, is warranted, and owned by every one of the people; and\nthat which every man will have so, no man can say is unjust. It is in\nthe Lawes of a Common-wealth, as in the Lawes of Gaming: whatsoever\nthe Gamesters all agree on, is Injustice to none of them. A good Law\nis that, which is Needfull, for the Good Of The People, and withall\nPerspicuous.\n\n\n\n\nSuch As Are Necessary\n\nFor the use of Lawes, (which are but Rules Authorised) is not to bind\nthe People from all Voluntary actions; but to direct and keep them in\nsuch a motion, as not to hurt themselves by their own impetuous desires,\nrashnesse, or indiscretion, as Hedges are set, not to stop Travellers,\nbut to keep them in the way. And therefore a Law that is not Needfull,\nhaving not the true End of a Law, is not Good. A Law may be conceived to\nbe Good, when it is for the benefit of the Soveraign; though it be\nnot Necessary for the People; but it is not so. For the good of the\nSoveraign and People, cannot be separated. It is a weak Soveraign, that\nhas weak Subjects; and a weak People, whose Soveraign wanteth Power to\nrule them at his will. Unnecessary Lawes are not good Lawes; but trapps\nfor Mony: which where the right of Soveraign Power is acknowledged, are\nsuperfluous; and where it is not acknowledged, unsufficient to defend\nthe People.\n\n\n\n\nSuch As Are Perspicuous\n\nThe Perspicuity, consisteth not so much in the words of the Law it\nselfe, as in a Declaration of the Causes, and Motives, for which it was\nmade. That is it, that shewes us the meaning of the Legislator, and the\nmeaning of the Legislator known, the Law is more easily understood\nby few, than many words. For all words, are subject to ambiguity;\nand therefore multiplication of words in the body of the Law, is\nmultiplication of ambiguity: Besides it seems to imply, (by too much\ndiligence,) that whosoever can evade the words, is without the compasse\nof the Law. And this is a cause of many unnecessary Processes. For when\nI consider how short were the Lawes of antient times; and how they\ngrew by degrees still longer; me thinks I see a contention between the\nPenners, and Pleaders of the Law; the former seeking to circumscribe\nthe later; and the later to evade their circumscriptions; and that the\nPleaders have got the Victory. It belongeth therefore to the Office of\na Legislator, (such as is in all Common-wealths the Supreme\nRepresentative, be it one Man, or an Assembly,) to make the reason\nPerspicuous, why the Law was made; and the Body of the Law it selfe, as\nshort, but in as proper, and significant termes, as may be.\n\n\n\n\nPunishments\n\nIt belongeth also to the Office of the Soveraign, to make a right\napplication of Punishments, and Rewards. And seeing the end of punishing\nis not revenge, and discharge of choler; but correction, either of the\noffender, or of others by his example; the severest Punishments are to\nbe inflicted for those Crimes, that are of most Danger to the\nPublique; such as are those which proceed from malice to the Government\nestablished; those that spring from contempt of Justice; those that\nprovoke Indignation in the Multitude; and those, which unpunished, seem\nAuthorised, as when they are committed by Sonnes, Servants, or Favorites\nof men in Authority: For Indignation carrieth men, not onely against the\nActors, and Authors of Injustice; but against all Power that is likely\nto protect them; as in the case of Tarquin; when for the Insolent act of\none of his Sonnes, he was driven out of Rome, and the Monarchy it selfe\ndissolved. But Crimes of Infirmity; such as are those which proceed\nfrom great provocation, from great fear, great need, or from ignorance\nwhether the Fact be a great Crime, or not, there is place many times for\nLenity, without prejudice to the Common-wealth; and Lenity when there is\nsuch place for it, is required by the Law of Nature. The Punishment of\nthe Leaders, and teachers in a Commotion; not the poore seduced People,\nwhen they are punished, can profit the Common-wealth by their example.\nTo be severe to the People, is to punish that ignorance, which may in\ngreat part be imputed to the Soveraign, whose fault it was, they were no\nbetter instructed.\n\n\n\n\nRewards\n\nIn like manner it belongeth to the Office, and Duty of the Soveraign,\nto apply his Rewards alwayes so, as there may arise from them benefit\nto the Common-wealth: wherein consisteth their Use, and End; and is then\ndone, when they that have well served the Common-wealth, are with\nas little expence of the Common Treasure, as is possible, so well\nrecompenced, as others thereby may be encouraged, both to serve the same\nas faithfully as they can, and to study the arts by which they may be\nenabled to do it better. To buy with Mony, or Preferment, from a Popular\nambitious Subject, to be quiet, and desist from making ill impressions\nin the mindes of the People, has nothing of the nature of Reward; (which\nis ordained not for disservice, but for service past;) nor a signe of\nGratitude, but of Fear: nor does it tend to the Benefit, but to the\nDammage of the Publique. It is a contention with Ambition, like that of\nHercules with the Monster Hydra, which having many heads, for every one\nthat was vanquished, there grew up three. For in like manner, when the\nstubbornnesse of one Popular man, is overcome with Reward, there arise\nmany more (by the Example) that do the same Mischiefe, in hope of like\nBenefit: and as all sorts of Manifacture, so also Malice encreaseth by\nbeing vendible. And though sometimes a Civill warre, may be differred,\nby such wayes as that, yet the danger growes still the greater, and the\nPublique ruine more assured. It is therefore against the Duty of the\nSoveraign, to whom the Publique Safety is committed, to Reward those\nthat aspire to greatnesse by disturbing the Peace of their Country, and\nnot rather to oppose the beginnings of such men, with a little danger,\nthan after a longer time with greater.\n\n\n\n\nCounsellours\n\nAnother Businesse of the Soveraign, is to choose good Counsellours;\nI mean such, whose advice he is to take in the Government of the\nCommon-wealth. For this word Counsell, Consilium, corrupted from\nConsidium, is a large signification, and comprehendeth all Assemblies\nof men that sit together, not onely to deliberate what is to be done\nhereafter, but also to judge of Facts past, and of Law for the present.\nI take it here in the first sense onely: And in this sense, there is no\nchoyce of Counsell, neither in a Democracy, nor Aristocracy; because the\npersons Counselling are members of the person Counselled. The choyce\nof Counsellours therefore is to Monarchy; In which, the Soveraign that\nendeavoureth not to make choyce of those, that in every kind are the\nmost able, dischargeth not his Office as he ought to do. The most able\nCounsellours, are they that have least hope of benefit by giving evill\nCounsell, and most knowledge of those things that conduce to the Peace,\nand Defence of the Common-wealth. It is a hard matter to know who\nexpecteth benefit from publique troubles; but the signes that guide to a\njust suspicion, is the soothing of the people in their unreasonable,\nor irremediable grievances, by men whose estates are not sufficient to\ndischarge their accustomed expences, and may easily be observed by any\none whom it concerns to know it. But to know, who has most knowledge of\nthe Publique affaires, is yet harder; and they that know them, need them\na great deale the lesse. For to know, who knowes the Rules almost of any\nArt, is a great degree of the knowledge of the same Art; because no\nman can be assured of the truth of anothers Rules, but he that is first\ntaught to understand them. But the best signes of Knowledge of any\nArt, are, much conversing in it, and constant good effects of it. Good\nCounsell comes not by Lot, nor by Inheritance; and therefore there is no\nmore reason to expect good Advice from the rich, or noble, in matter\nof State, than in delineating the dimensions of a fortresse; unlesse we\nshall think there needs no method in the study of the Politiques, (as\nthere does in the study of Geometry,) but onely to be lookers on; which\nis not so. For the Politiques is the harder study of the two. Whereas\nin these parts of Europe, it hath been taken for a Right of certain\npersons, to have place in the highest Councell of State by Inheritance;\nit is derived from the Conquests of the antient Germans; wherein many\nabsolute Lords joyning together to conquer other Nations, would not\nenter in to the Confederacy, without such Priviledges, as might be\nmarks of difference in time following, between their Posterity, and the\nposterity of their Subjects; which Priviledges being inconsistent with\nthe Soveraign Power, by the favour of the Soveraign, they may seem to\nkeep; but contending for them as their Right, they must needs by\ndegrees let them go, and have at last no further honour, than adhaereth\nnaturally to their abilities.\n\nAnd how able soever be the Counsellours in any affaire, the benefit\nof their Counsell is greater, when they give every one his Advice, and\nreasons of it apart, than when they do it in an Assembly, by way of\nOrations; and when they have praemeditated, than when they speak on the\nsudden; both because they have more time, to survey the consequences\nof action; and are lesse subject to be carried away to contradiction,\nthrough Envy, Emulation, or other Passions arising from the difference\nof opinion.\n\nThe best Counsell, in those things that concern not other Nations, but\nonely the ease, and benefit the Subjects may enjoy, by Lawes that\nlook onely inward, is to be taken from the generall informations, and\ncomplaints of the people of each Province, who are best acquainted\nwith their own wants, and ought therefore, when they demand nothing in\nderogation of the essentiall Rights of Soveraignty, to be diligently\ntaken notice of. For without those Essentiall Rights, (as I have often\nbefore said,) the Common-wealth cannot at all subsist.\n\n\n\n\nCommanders\n\nA Commander of an Army in chiefe, if he be not Popular, shall not be\nbeloved, nor feared as he ought to be by his Army; and consequently\ncannot performe that office with good successe. He must therefore be\nIndustrious, Valiant, Affable, Liberall and Fortunate, that he may gain\nan opinion both of sufficiency, and of loving his Souldiers. This is\nPopularity, and breeds in the Souldiers both desire, and courage, to\nrecommend themselves to his favour; and protects the severity of\nthe Generall, in punishing (when need is) the Mutinous, or negligent\nSouldiers. But this love of Souldiers, (if caution be not given of\nthe Commanders fidelity,) is a dangerous thing to Soveraign Power;\nespecially when it is in the hands of an Assembly not popular. It\nbelongeth therefore to the safety of the People, both that they be good\nConductors, and faithfull subjects, to whom the Soveraign Commits his\nArmies.\n\nBut when the Soveraign himselfe is Popular, that is, reverenced and\nbeloved of his People, there is no danger at all from the Popularity of\na Subject. For Souldiers are never so generally unjust, as to side with\ntheir Captain; though they love him, against their Soveraign, when they\nlove not onely his Person, but also his Cause. And therefore those,\nwho by violence have at any time suppressed the Power of their Lawfull\nSoveraign, before they could settle themselves in his place, have been\nalwayes put to the trouble of contriving their Titles, to save the\nPeople from the shame of receiving them. To have a known Right to\nSoveraign Power, is so popular a quality, as he that has it needs no\nmore, for his own part, to turn the hearts of his Subjects to him, but\nthat they see him able absolutely to govern his own Family: Nor, on the\npart of his enemies, but a disbanding of their Armies. For the greatest\nand most active part of Mankind, has never hetherto been well contented\nwith the present.\n\nConcerning the Offices of one Soveraign to another, which are\ncomprehended in that Law, which is commonly called the Law of Nations,\nI need not say any thing in this place; because the Law of Nations, and\nthe Law of Nature, is the same thing. And every Soveraign hath the same\nRight, in procuring the safety of his People, that any particular man\ncan have, in procuring the safety of his own Body. And the same Law,\nthat dictateth to men that have no Civil Government, what they ought to\ndo, and what to avoyd in regard of one another, dictateth the same to\nCommon-wealths, that is, to the Consciences of Soveraign Princes, and\nSoveraign Assemblies; there being no Court of Naturall Justice, but\nin the Conscience onely; where not Man, but God raigneth; whose Lawes,\n(such of them as oblige all Mankind,) in respect of God, as he is the\nAuthor of Nature, are Naturall; and in respect of the same God, as he is\nKing of Kings, are Lawes. But of the Kingdome of God, as King of Kings,\nand as King also of a peculiar People, I shall speak in the rest of this\ndiscourse.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXI. OF THE KINGDOME OF GOD BY NATURE\n\n\n\n\nThe Scope Of The Following Chapters\n\nThat the condition of meer Nature, that is to say, of absolute Liberty,\nsuch as is theirs, that neither are Soveraigns, nor Subjects, is\nAnarchy, and the condition of Warre: That the Praecepts, by which men\nare guided to avoyd that condition, are the Lawes of Nature: That\na Common-wealth, without Soveraign Power, is but a word, without\nsubstance, and cannot stand: That Subjects owe to Soveraigns, simple\nObedience, in all things, wherein their obedience is not repugnant\nto the Lawes of God, I have sufficiently proved, in that which I have\nalready written. There wants onely, for the entire knowledge of Civill\nduty, to know what are those Lawes of God. For without that, a man knows\nnot, when he is commanded any thing by the Civill Power, whether it be\ncontrary to the Law of God, or not: and so, either by too much civill\nobedience, offends the Divine Majesty, or through feare of offending\nGod, transgresses the commandements of the Common-wealth. To avoyd both\nthese Rocks, it is necessary to know what are the Lawes Divine. And\nseeing the knowledge of all Law, dependeth on the knowledge of the\nSoveraign Power; I shall say something in that which followeth, of the\nKINGDOME OF GOD.\n\n\n\n\nWho Are Subjects In The Kingdome Of God\n\n\"God is King, let the Earth rejoice,\" saith the Psalmist. (Psal. 96. 1).\nAnd again, \"God is King though the Nations be angry; and he that sitteth\non the Cherubins, though the earth be moved.\" (Psal. 98. 1). Whether\nmen will or not, they must be subject alwayes to the Divine Power. By\ndenying the Existence, or Providence of God, men may shake off their\nEase, but not their Yoke. But to call this Power of God, which extendeth\nit selfe not onely to Man, but also to Beasts, and Plants, and Bodies\ninanimate, by the name of Kingdome, is but a metaphoricall use of\nthe word. For he onely is properly said to Raigne, that governs his\nSubjects, by his Word, and by promise of Rewards to those that obey\nit, and by threatning them with Punishment that obey it not. Subjects\ntherefore in the Kingdome of God, are not Bodies Inanimate, nor\ncreatures Irrationall; because they understand no Precepts as his: Nor\nAtheists; nor they that believe not that God has any care of the actions\nof mankind; because they acknowledge no Word for his, nor have hope of\nhis rewards, or fear of his threatnings. They therefore that believe\nthere is a God that governeth the world, and hath given Praecepts, and\npropounded Rewards, and Punishments to Mankind, are Gods Subjects; all\nthe rest, are to be understood as Enemies.\n\n\n\n\nA Threefold Word Of God, Reason, Revelation, Prophecy\n\nTo rule by Words, requires that such Words be manifestly made known;\nfor else they are no Lawes: For to the nature of Lawes belongeth a\nsufficient, and clear Promulgation, such as may take away the excuse of\nIgnorance; which in the Lawes of men is but of one onely kind, and that\nis, Proclamation, or Promulgation by the voyce of man. But God\ndeclareth his Lawes three wayes; by the Dictates of Naturall Reason, By\nRevelation, and by the Voyce of some Man, to whom by the operation of\nMiracles, he procureth credit with the rest. From hence there ariseth\na triple Word of God, Rational, Sensible, and Prophetique: to which\nCorrespondeth a triple Hearing; Right Reason, Sense Supernaturall, and\nFaith. As for Sense Supernaturall, which consisteth in Revelation, or\nInspiration, there have not been any Universall Lawes so given, because\nGod speaketh not in that manner, but to particular persons, and to\ndivers men divers things.\n\nA Twofold Kingdome Of God, Naturall And Prophetique From the difference\nbetween the other two kinds of Gods Word, Rationall, and Prophetique,\nthere may be attributed to God, a two-fold Kingdome, Naturall, and\nProphetique: Naturall, wherein he governeth as many of Mankind as\nacknowledge his Providence, by the naturall Dictates of Right Reason;\nAnd Prophetique, wherein having chosen out one peculiar Nation (the\nJewes) for his Subjects, he governed them, and none but them, not onely\nby naturall Reason, but by Positive Lawes, which he gave them by the\nmouths of his holy Prophets. Of the Naturall Kingdome of God I intend to\nspeak in this Chapter.\n\nThe Right Of Gods Soveraignty Is Derived From His Omnipotence The Right\nof Nature, whereby God reigneth over men, and punisheth those that\nbreak his Lawes, is to be derived, not from his Creating them, as if\nhe required obedience, as of Gratitude for his benefits; but from his\nIrresistible Power. I have formerly shewn, how the Soveraign Right\nariseth from Pact: To shew how the same Right may arise from Nature,\nrequires no more, but to shew in what case it is never taken away.\nSeeing all men by Nature had Right to All things, they had Right every\none to reigne over all the rest. But because this Right could not be\nobtained by force, it concerned the safety of every one, laying by that\nRight, to set up men (with Soveraign Authority) by common consent,\nto rule and defend them: whereas if there had been any man of Power\nIrresistible; there had been no reason, why he should not by that Power\nhave ruled, and defended both himselfe, and them, according to his own\ndiscretion. To those therefore whose Power is irresistible, the dominion\nof all men adhaereth naturally by their excellence of Power; and\nconsequently it is from that Power, that the Kingdome over men, and\nthe Right of afflicting men at his pleasure, belongeth Naturally to God\nAlmighty; not as Creator, and Gracious; but as Omnipotent. And though\nPunishment be due for Sinne onely, because by that word is understood\nAffliction for Sinne; yet the Right of Afflicting, is not alwayes\nderived from mens Sinne, but from Gods Power.\n\n\n\n\nSinne Not The Cause Of All Affliction\n\nThis question, \"Why Evill men often Prosper, and Good men suffer\nAdversity,\" has been much disputed by the Antient, and is the same\nwith this of ours, \"By what Right God dispenseth the Prosperities and\nAdversities of this life;\" and is of that difficulty, as it hath shaken\nthe faith, not onely of the Vulgar, but of Philosophers, and which is\nmore, of the Saints, concerning the Divine Providence. \"How Good,\" saith\nDavid, \"is the God of Israel to those that are Upright in Heart; and yet\nmy feet were almost gone, my treadings had well-nigh slipt; for I was\ngrieved at the Wicked, when I saw the Ungodly in such Prosperity.\"\nAnd Job, how earnestly does he expostulate with God, for the many\nAfflictions he suffered, notwithstanding his Righteousnesse? This\nquestion in the case of Job, is decided by God himselfe, not by\narguments derived from Job's Sinne, but his own Power. For whereas the\nfriends of Job drew their arguments from his Affliction to his Sinne,\nand he defended himselfe by the conscience of his Innocence, God\nhimselfe taketh up the matter, and having justified the Affliction by\narguments drawn from his Power, such as this \"Where was thou when I\nlayd the foundations of the earth,\" and the like, both approved\nJob's Innocence, and reproved the Erroneous doctrine of his friends.\nConformable to this doctrine is the sentence of our Saviour, concerning\nthe man that was born Blind, in these words, \"Neither hath this man\nsinned, nor his fathers; but that the works of God might be made\nmanifest in him.\" And though it be said \"That Death entred into the\nworld by sinne,\" (by which is meant that if Adam had never sinned, he had\nnever dyed, that is, never suffered any separation of his soule from his\nbody,) it follows not thence, that God could not justly have Afflicted\nhim, though he had not Sinned, as well as he afflicteth other living\ncreatures, that cannot sinne.\n\n\n\n\nDivine Lawes\n\nHaving spoken of the Right of Gods Soveraignty, as grounded onely on\nNature; we are to consider next, what are the Divine Lawes, or Dictates\nof Naturall Reason; which Lawes concern either the naturall Duties of\none man to another, or the Honour naturally due to our Divine Soveraign.\nThe first are the same Lawes of Nature, of which I have spoken already\nin the 14. and 15. Chapters of this Treatise; namely, Equity, Justice,\nMercy, Humility, and the rest of the Morall Vertues. It remaineth\ntherefore that we consider, what Praecepts are dictated to men, by their\nNaturall Reason onely, without other word of God, touching the Honour\nand Worship of the Divine Majesty.\n\n\n\n\nHonour And Worship What\n\nHonour consisteth in the inward thought, and opinion of the Power, and\nGoodnesse of another: and therefore to Honour God, is to think as Highly\nof his Power and Goodnesse, as is possible. And of that opinion, the\nexternall signes appearing in the Words, and Actions of men, are called\nWorship; which is one part of that which the Latines understand by the\nword Cultus: For Cultus signifieth properly, and constantly, that labour\nwhich a man bestowes on any thing, with a purpose to make benefit by it.\nNow those things whereof we make benefit, are either subject to us, and\nthe profit they yeeld, followeth the labour we bestow upon them, as a\nnaturall effect; or they are not subject to us, but answer our labour,\naccording to their own Wills. In the first sense the labour bestowed on\nthe Earth, is called Culture; and the education of Children a Culture of\ntheir mindes. In the second sense, where mens wills are to be wrought to\nour purpose, not by Force, but by Compleasance, it signifieth as much as\nCourting, that is, a winning of favour by good offices; as by praises,\nby acknowledging their Power, and by whatsoever is pleasing to them from\nwhom we look for any benefit. And this is properly Worship: in which\nsense Publicola, is understood for a Worshipper of the People, and\nCultus Dei, for the Worship of God.\n\n\n\n\nSeverall Signes Of Honour\n\nFrom internall Honour, consisting in the opinion of Power and Goodnesse,\narise three Passions; Love, which hath reference to Goodnesse; and Hope,\nand Fear, that relate to Power: And three parts of externall worship;\nPraise, Magnifying, and Blessing: The subject of Praise, being\nGoodnesse; the subject of Magnifying, and Blessing, being Power, and the\neffect thereof Felicity. Praise, and Magnifying are significant both by\nWords, and Actions: By Words, when we say a man is Good, or Great:\nBy Actions, when we thank him for his Bounty, and obey his Power. The\nopinion of the Happinesse of another, can onely be expressed by words.\n\n\n\n\nWorship Naturall And Arbitrary\n\nThere be some signes of Honour, (both in Attributes and Actions,) that\nbe Naturally so; as amongst Attributes, Good, Just, Liberall, and the\nlike; and amongst Actions, Prayers, Thanks, and Obedience. Others are\nso by Institution, or Custome of men; and in some times and places are\nHonourable; in others Dishonourable; in others Indifferent: such as are\nthe Gestures in Salutation, Prayer, and Thanksgiving, in different\ntimes and places, differently used. The former is Naturall; the later\nArbitrary Worship.\n\n\n\n\nWorship Commanded And Free\n\nAnd of Arbitrary Worship, there bee two differences: For sometimes it is\na Commanded, sometimes Voluntary Worship: Commanded, when it is such\nas hee requireth, who is Worshipped: Free, when it is such as the\nWorshipper thinks fit. When it is Commanded, not the words, or gestures,\nbut the obedience is the Worship. But when Free, the Worship consists\nin the opinion of the beholders: for if to them the words, or actions by\nwhich we intend honour, seem ridiculous, and tending to contumely; they\nare not Worship; because a signe is not a signe to him that giveth it,\nbut to him to whom it is made; that is, to the spectator.\n\n\n\n\nWorship Publique And Private\n\nAgain, there is a Publique, and a Private Worship. Publique, is the\nWorship that a Common-wealth performeth, as one Person. Private, is that\nwhich a Private person exhibiteth. Publique, in respect of the whole\nCommon-wealth, is Free; but in respect of Particular men it is not so.\nPrivate, is in secret Free; but in the sight of the multitude, it is\nnever without some Restraint, either from the Lawes, or from the Opinion\nof men; which is contrary to the nature of Liberty.\n\n\n\n\nThe End Of Worship\n\nThe End of Worship amongst men, is Power. For where a man seeth another\nworshipped he supposeth him powerfull, and is the readier to obey him;\nwhich makes his Power greater. But God has no Ends: the worship we do\nhim, proceeds from our duty, and is directed according to our capacity,\nby those rules of Honour, that Reason dictateth to be done by the weak\nto the more potent men, in hope of benefit, for fear of dammage, or in\nthankfulnesse for good already received from them.\n\n\n\n\nAttributes Of Divine Honour\n\nThat we may know what worship of God is taught us by the light of\nNature, I will begin with his Attributes. Where, First, it is manifest,\nwe ought to attribute to him Existence: For no man can have the will to\nhonour that, which he thinks not to have any Beeing.\n\nSecondly, that those Philosophers, who sayd the World, or the Soule of\nthe World was God, spake unworthily of him; and denyed his Existence:\nFor by God, is understood the cause of the World; and to say the World\nis God, is to say there is no cause of it, that is, no God.\n\nThirdly, to say the World was not Created, but Eternall, (seeing that\nwhich is Eternall has no cause,) is to deny there is a God.\n\nFourthly, that they who attributing (as they think) Ease to God, take\nfrom him the care of Mankind; take from him his Honour: for it takes\naway mens love, and fear of him; which is the root of Honour.\n\nFifthly, in those things that signifie Greatnesse, and Power; to say he\nis Finite, is not to Honour him: For it is not a signe of the Will to\nHonour God, to attribute to him lesse than we can; and Finite, is lesse\nthan we can; because to Finite, it is easie to adde more.\n\nTherefore to attribute Figure to him, is not Honour; for all Figure is\nFinite:\n\nNor to say we conceive, and imagine, or have an Idea of him, in our\nmind: for whatsoever we conceive is Finite:\n\nNot to attribute to him Parts, or Totality; which are the Attributes\nonely of things Finite:\n\nNor to say he is this, or that Place: for whatsoever is in Place, is\nbounded, and Finite:\n\nNor that he is Moved, or Resteth: for both these Attributes ascribe to\nhim Place:\n\nNor that there be more Gods than one; because it implies them all\nFinite: for there cannot be more than one Infinite: Nor to ascribe to\nhim (unlesse Metaphorically, meaning not the Passion, but the Effect)\nPassions that partake of Griefe; as Repentance, Anger, Mercy: or of\nWant; as Appetite, Hope, Desire; or of any Passive faculty: For Passion,\nis Power limited by somewhat else.\n\nAnd therefore when we ascribe to God a Will, it is not to be understood,\nas that of Man, for a Rationall Appetite; but as the Power, by which he\neffecteth every thing.\n\nLikewise when we attribute to him Sight, and other acts of Sense; as\nalso Knowledge, and Understanding; which in us is nothing else, but\na tumult of the mind, raised by externall things that presse the\norganicall parts of mans body: For there is no such thing in God; and\nbeing things that depend on naturall causes, cannot be attributed to\nhim.\n\nHee that will attribute to God, nothing but what is warranted by\nnaturall Reason, must either use such Negative Attributes, as Infinite,\nEternall, Incomprehensible; or Superlatives, as Most High, Most Great,\nand the like; or Indefinite, as Good, Just, Holy, Creator; and in such\nsense, as if he meant not to declare what he is, (for that were to\ncircumscribe him within the limits of our Fancy,) but how much wee\nadmire him, and how ready we would be to obey him; which is a signe of\nHumility, and of a Will to honour him as much as we can: For there is\nbut one Name to signifie our Conception of his Nature, and that is, I\nAM: and but one Name of his Relation to us, and that is God; in which is\ncontained Father, King, and Lord.\n\n\n\n\nActions That Are Signes Of Divine Honour\n\nConcerning the actions of Divine Worship, it is a most generall Precept\nof Reason, that they be signes of the Intention to Honour God; such as\nare, First, Prayers: For not the Carvers, when they made Images, were\nthought to make them Gods; but the People that Prayed to them.\n\nSecondly, Thanksgiving; which differeth from Prayer in Divine Worship,\nno otherwise, than that Prayers precede, and Thanks succeed the benefit;\nthe end both of the one, and the other, being to acknowledge God, for\nAuthor of all benefits, as well past, as future.\n\nThirdly, Gifts; that is to say, Sacrifices, and Oblations, (if they be\nof the best,) are signes of Honour: for they are Thanksgivings.\n\nFourthly, Not to swear by any but God, is naturally a signe of Honour:\nfor it is a confession that God onely knoweth the heart; and that no\nmans wit, or strength can protect a man against Gods vengence on the\nperjured.\n\nFifthly, it is a part of Rationall Worship, to speak Considerately\nof God; for it argues a Fear of him, and Fear, is a confession of his\nPower. Hence followeth, That the name of God is not to be used rashly,\nand to no purpose; for that is as much, as in Vain: And it is to\nno purpose; unlesse it be by way of Oath, and by order of the\nCommon-wealth, to make Judgements certain; or between Common-wealths,\nto avoyd Warre. And that disputing of Gods nature is contrary to his\nHonour: For it is supposed, that in this naturall Kingdome of God, there\nis no other way to know any thing, but by naturall Reason; that is, from\nthe Principles of naturall Science; which are so farre from teaching us\nany thing of Gods nature, as they cannot teach us our own nature, nor\nthe nature of the smallest creature living. And therefore, when men out\nof the Principles of naturall Reason, dispute of the Attributes of God,\nthey but dishonour him: For in the Attributes which we give to God, we\nare not to consider the signification of Philosophicall Truth; but the\nsignification of Pious Intention, to do him the greatest Honour we are\nable. From the want of which consideration, have proceeded the volumes\nof disputation about the Nature of God, that tend not to his Honour, but\nto the honour of our own wits, and learning; and are nothing else but\ninconsiderate, and vain abuses of his Sacred Name.\n\nSixthly, in Prayers, Thanksgivings, Offerings and Sacrifices, it is a\nDictate of naturall Reason, that they be every one in his kind the\nbest, and most significant of Honour. As for example, that Prayers, and\nThanksgiving, be made in Words and Phrases, not sudden, nor light, nor\nPlebeian; but beautifull and well composed; For else we do not God\nas much honour as we can. And therefore the Heathens did absurdly, to\nworship Images for Gods: But their doing it in Verse, and with Musick,\nboth of Voyce, and Instruments, was reasonable. Also that the Beasts\nthey offered in sacrifice, and the Gifts they offered, and their actions\nin Worshipping, were full of submission, and commemorative of benefits\nreceived, was according to reason, as proceeding from an intention to\nhonour him.\n\nSeventhly, Reason directeth not onely to worship God in Secret; but\nalso, and especially, in Publique, and in the sight of men: For without\nthat, (that which in honour is most acceptable) the procuring others to\nhonour him, is lost.\n\nLastly, Obedience to his Lawes (that is, in this case to the Lawes\nof Nature,) is the greatest worship of all. For as Obedience is\nmore acceptable to God than sacrifice; so also to set light by his\nCommandements, is the greatest of all contumelies. And these are the\nLawes of that Divine Worship, which naturall Reason dictateth to private\nmen.\n\n\n\n\nPublique Worship Consisteth In Uniformity\n\nBut seeing a Common-wealth is but one Person, it ought also to exhibite\nto God but one Worship; which then it doth, when it commandeth it to be\nexhibited by Private men, Publiquely. And this is Publique Worship; the\nproperty whereof, is to be Uniforme: For those actions that are done\ndifferently, by different men, cannot be said to be a Publique Worship.\nAnd therefore, where many sorts of Worship be allowed, proceeding from\nthe different Religions of Private men, it cannot be said there is any\nPublique Worship, nor that the Common-wealth is of any Religion at all.\n\n\n\n\nAll Attributes Depend On The Lawes Civill\n\nAnd because words (and consequently the Attributes of God) have their\nsignification by agreement, and constitution of men; those Attributes\nare to be held significative of Honour, that men intend shall so be; and\nwhatsoever may be done by the wills of particular men, where there is no\nLaw but Reason, may be done by the will of the Common-wealth, by Lawes\nCivill. And because a Common-wealth hath no Will, nor makes no Lawes,\nbut those that are made by the Will of him, or them that have the\nSoveraign Power; it followeth, that those Attributes which the Soveraign\nordaineth, in the Worship of God, for signes of Honour, ought to be\ntaken and used for such, by private men in their publique Worship.\n\n\n\n\nNot All Actions\n\nBut because not all Actions are signes by Constitution; but some are\nNaturally signes of Honour, others of Contumely, these later (which are\nthose that men are ashamed to do in the sight of them they reverence)\ncannot be made by humane power a part of Divine worship; nor the former\n(such as are decent, modest, humble Behaviour) ever be separated from\nit. But whereas there be an infinite number of Actions, and Gestures, of\nan indifferent nature; such of them as the Common-wealth shall ordain to\nbe Publiquely and Universally in use, as signes of Honour, and part of\nGods Worship, are to be taken and used for such by the Subjects. And\nthat which is said in the Scripture, \"It is better to obey God than\nmen,\" hath place in the kingdome of God by Pact, and not by Nature.\n\n\n\n\nNaturall Punishments\n\nHaving thus briefly spoken of the Naturall Kingdome of God, and his\nNaturall Lawes, I will adde onely to this Chapter a short declaration of\nhis Naturall Punishments. There is no action of man in this life, that\nis not the beginning of so long a chayn of Consequences, as no humane\nProvidence, is high enough, to give a man a prospect to the end. And\nin this Chayn, there are linked together both pleasing and unpleasing\nevents; in such manner, as he that will do any thing for his pleasure,\nmust engage himselfe to suffer all the pains annexed to it; and these\npains, are the Naturall Punishments of those actions, which are the\nbeginning of more Harme that Good. And hereby it comes to passe, that\nIntemperance, is naturally punished with Diseases; Rashnesse, with\nMischances; Injustice, with the Violence of Enemies; Pride, with Ruine;\nCowardise, with Oppression; Negligent government of Princes, with\nRebellion; and Rebellion, with Slaughter. For seeing Punishments\nare consequent to the breach of Lawes; Naturall Punishments must be\nnaturally consequent to the breach of the Lawes of Nature; and therfore\nfollow them as their naturall, not arbitrary effects.\n\n\n\n\nThe Conclusion Of The Second Part\n\nAnd thus farre concerning the Constitution, Nature, and Right of\nSoveraigns; and concerning the Duty of Subjects, derived from the\nPrinciples of Naturall Reason. And now, considering how different\nthis Doctrine is, from the Practise of the greatest part of the world,\nespecially of these Western parts, that have received their Morall\nlearning from Rome, and Athens; and how much depth of Morall Philosophy\nis required, in them that have the Administration of the Soveraign\nPower; I am at the point of believing this my labour, as uselesse,\nand the Common-wealth of Plato; For he also is of opinion that it is\nimpossible for the disorders of State, and change of Governments by\nCivill Warre, ever to be taken away, till Soveraigns be Philosophers.\nBut when I consider again, that the Science of Naturall Justice, is the\nonely Science necessary for Soveraigns, and their principall Ministers;\nand that they need not be charged with the Sciences Mathematicall, (as\nby Plato they are,) further, than by good Lawes to encourage men to\nthe study of them; and that neither Plato, nor any other Philosopher\nhitherto, hath put into order, and sufficiently, or probably proved all\nthe Theoremes of Morall doctrine, that men may learn thereby, both how\nto govern, and how to obey; I recover some hope, that one time or other,\nthis writing of mine, may fall into the hands of a Soveraign, who will\nconsider it himselfe, (for it is short, and I think clear,) without the\nhelp of any interested, or envious Interpreter; and by the exercise of\nentire Soveraignty, in protecting the Publique teaching of it, convert\nthis Truth of Speculation, into the Utility of Practice.\n\n\n\n\n\nPART III. OF A CHRISTIAN COMMON-WEALTH\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXII. OF THE PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIAN POLITIQUES\n\n\nThe Word Of God Delivered By Prophets Is The Main Principle\n\nOf Christian Politiques\n\nI have derived the Rights of Soveraigne Power, and the duty of Subjects\nhitherto, from the Principles of Nature onely; such as Experience has\nfound true, or Consent (concerning the use of words) has made so; that\nis to say, from the nature of Men, known to us by Experience, and\nfrom Definitions (of such words as are Essentiall to all Politicall\nreasoning) universally agreed on. But in that I am next to handle, which\nis the Nature and Rights of a CHRISTIAN COMMON-WEALTH, whereof there\ndependeth much upon Supernaturall Revelations of the Will of God; the\nground of my Discourse must be, not only the Naturall Word of God, but\nalso the Propheticall.\n\nNeverthelesse, we are not to renounce our Senses, and Experience; nor\n(that which is the undoubted Word of God) our naturall Reason. For they\nare the talents which he hath put into our hands to negotiate, till the\ncoming again of our blessed Saviour; and therefore not to be folded up\nin the Napkin of an Implicate Faith, but employed in the purchase of\nJustice, Peace, and true Religion, For though there be many things in\nGods Word above Reason; that is to say, which cannot by naturall reason\nbe either demonstrated, or confuted; yet there is nothing contrary\nto it; but when it seemeth so, the fault is either in our unskilfull\nInterpretation, or erroneous Ratiocination.\n\nTherefore, when any thing therein written is too hard for our\nexamination, wee are bidden to captivate our understanding to the Words;\nand not to labour in sifting out a Philosophicall truth by Logick, of\nsuch mysteries as are not comprehensible, nor fall under any rule of\nnaturall science. For it is with the mysteries of our Religion, as with\nwholsome pills for the sick, which swallowed whole, have the vertue to\ncure; but chewed, are for the most part cast up again without effect.\n\n\n\n\nWhat It Is To Captivate The Understanding\n\nBut by the Captivity of our Understanding, is not meant a Submission of\nthe Intellectual faculty, to the Opinion of any other man; but of\nthe Will to Obedience, where obedience is due. For Sense, Memory,\nUnderstanding, Reason, and Opinion are not in our power to change; but\nalwaies, and necessarily such, as the things we see, hear, and consider\nsuggest unto us; and therefore are not effects of our Will, but our Will\nof them. We then Captivate our Understanding and Reason, when we forbear\ncontradiction; when we so speak, as (by lawfull Authority) we are\ncommanded; and when we live accordingly; which in sum, is Trust, and\nFaith reposed in him that speaketh, though the mind be incapable of any\nNotion at all from the words spoken.\n\n\n\n\nHow God Speaketh To Men\n\nWhen God speaketh to man, it must be either immediately; or by mediation\nof another man, to whom he had formerly spoken by himself immediately.\nHow God speaketh to a man immediately, may be understood by those well\nenough, to whom he hath so spoken; but how the same should be understood\nby another, is hard, if not impossible to know. For if a man pretend to\nme, that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I\nmake doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce,\nto oblige me to beleeve it. It is true, that if he be my Soveraign,\nhe may oblige me to obedience, so, as not by act or word to declare I\nbeleeve him not; but not to think any otherwise then my reason perswades\nme. But if one that hath not such authority over me, shall pretend the\nsame, there is nothing that exacteth either beleefe, or obedience.\n\nFor to say that God hath spoken to him in the Holy Scripture, is not\nto say God hath spoken to him immediately, but by mediation of the\nProphets, or of the Apostles, or of the Church, in such manner as he\nspeaks to all other Christian men. To say he hath spoken to him in a\nDream, is no more than to say he dreamed that God spake to him; which is\nnot of force to win beleef from any man, that knows dreams are for\nthe most part naturall, and may proceed from former thoughts; and such\ndreams as that, from selfe conceit, and foolish arrogance, and false\nopinion of a mans own godlinesse, or other vertue, by which he thinks he\nhath merited the favour of extraordinary Revelation. To say he hath\nseen a Vision, or heard a Voice, is to say, that he hath dreamed between\nsleeping and waking: for in such manner a man doth many times naturally\ntake his dream for a vision, as not having well observed his own\nslumbering. To say he speaks by supernaturall Inspiration, is to say he\nfinds an ardent desire to speak, or some strong opinion of himself, for\nwhich he can alledge no naturall and sufficient reason. So that\nthough God Almighty can speak to a man, by Dreams, Visions, Voice, and\nInspiration; yet he obliges no man to beleeve he hath so done to him\nthat pretends it; who (being a man), may erre, and (which is more) may\nlie.\n\n\n\n\nBy What Marks Prophets Are Known\n\nHow then can he, to whom God hath never revealed his Wil immediately\n(saving by the way of natural reason) know when he is to obey, or not\nto obey his Word, delivered by him, that sayes he is a Prophet? (1 Kings\n22) Of 400 Prophets, of whom the K. of Israel asked counsel, concerning\nthe warre he made against Ramoth Gilead, only Micaiah was a true one.(1\nKings 13) The Prophet that was sent to prophecy against the Altar set up\nby Jeroboam, though a true Prophet, and that by two miracles done in\nhis presence appears to be a Prophet sent from God, was yet deceived by\nanother old Prophet, that perswaded him as from the mouth of God, to eat\nand drink with him. If one Prophet deceive another, what certainty is\nthere of knowing the will of God, by other way than that of Reason? To\nwhich I answer out of the Holy Scripture, that there be two marks, by\nwhich together, not asunder, a true Prophet is to be known. One is the\ndoing of miracles; the other is the not teaching any other Religion than\nthat which is already established. Asunder (I say) neither of these is\nsufficient. (Deut. 13 v. 1,2,3,4,5 ) \"If a Prophet rise amongst you, or\na Dreamer of dreams, and shall pretend the doing of a miracle, and the\nmiracle come to passe; if he say, Let us follow strange Gods, which thou\nhast not known, thou shalt not hearken to him, &c. But that Prophet and\nDreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he hath spoken to you\nto Revolt from the Lord your God.\" In which words two things are to\nbe observed, First, that God wil not have miracles alone serve for\narguments, to approve the Prophets calling; but (as it is in the third\nverse) for an experiment of the constancy of our adherence to himself.\nFor the works of the Egyptian Sorcerers, though not so great as those\nof Moses, yet were great miracles. Secondly, that how great soever the\nmiracle be, yet if it tend to stir up revolt against the King, or him\nthat governeth by the Kings authority, he that doth such miracle, is\nnot to be considered otherwise than as sent to make triall of their\nallegiance. For these words, \"revolt from the Lord your God,\" are in\nthis place equivalent to \"revolt from your King.\" For they had made God\ntheir King by pact at the foot of Mount Sinai; who ruled them by Moses\nonly; for he only spake with God, and from time to time declared Gods\nCommandements to the people. In like manner, after our Saviour Christ\nhad made his Disciples acknowledge him for the Messiah, (that is to say,\nfor Gods anointed, whom the nation of the Jews daily expected for their\nKing, but refused when he came,) he omitted not to advertise them of the\ndanger of miracles. \"There shall arise,\" (saith he) \"false Christs, and\nfalse Prophets, and shall doe great wonders and miracles, even to the\nseducing (if it were possible) of the very Elect.\" (Mat. 24. 24) By\nwhich it appears, that false Prophets may have the power of miracles;\nyet are wee not to take their doctrin for Gods Word. St. Paul says\nfurther to the Galatians, that \"if himself, or an Angell from heaven\npreach another Gospel to them, than he had preached, let him be\naccursed.\" (Gal. 1. 8) That Gospel was, that Christ was King; so that\nall preaching against the power of the King received, in consequence\nto these words, is by St. Paul accursed. For his speech is addressed to\nthose, who by his preaching had already received Jesus for the Christ,\nthat is to say, for King of the Jews.\n\n\n\n\nThe Marks Of A Prophet In The Old Law, Miracles, And Doctrine\n\nConformable To The Law\n\nAnd as Miracles, without preaching that Doctrine which God hath\nestablished; so preaching the true Doctrine, without the doing of\nMiracles, is an unsufficient argument of immediate Revelation. For if\na man that teacheth not false Doctrine, should pretend to bee a Prophet\nwithout shewing any Miracle, he is never the more to bee regarded for\nhis pretence, as is evident by Deut. 18. v. 21, 22. \"If thou say in\nthy heart, How shall we know that the Word (of the Prophet) is not that\nwhich the Lord hath spoken. When the Prophet shall have spoken in the\nname of the Lord, that which shall not come to passe, that's the word\nwhich the Lord hath not spoken, but the Prophet has spoken it out of\nthe pride of his own heart, fear him not.\" But a man may here again ask,\nWhen the Prophet hath foretold a thing, how shal we know whether it will\ncome to passe or not? For he may foretel it as a thing to arrive after\na certain long time, longer then the time of mans life; or indefinitely,\nthat it will come to passe one time or other: in which case this mark\nof a Prophet is unusefull; and therefore the miracles that oblige us to\nbeleeve a Prophet, ought to be confirmed by an immediate, or a not\nlong deferr'd event. So that it is manifest, that the teaching of\nthe Religion which God hath established, and the showing of a present\nMiracle, joined together, were the only marks whereby the Scripture\nwould have a true Prophet, that is to say immediate Revelation to be\nacknowledged; neither of them being singly sufficient to oblige any\nother man to regard what he saith.\n\n\n\n\nMiracles Ceasing, Prophets Cease, The Scripture Supplies Their Place\n\nSeeing therefore Miracles now cease, we have no sign left, whereby to\nacknowledge the pretended Revelations, or Inspirations of any private\nman; nor obligation to give ear to any Doctrine, farther than it is\nconformable to the Holy Scriptures, which since the time of our Saviour,\nsupply the want of all other Prophecy; and from which, by wise and\ncareful ratiocination, all rules and precepts necessary to the knowledge\nof our duty both to God and man, without Enthusiasme, or supernaturall\nInspiration, may easily be deduced. And this Scripture is it, out of\nwhich I am to take the Principles of my Discourse, concerning the\nRights of those that are the Supream Govenors on earth, of Christian\nCommon-wealths; and of the duty of Christian Subjects towards their\nSoveraigns. And to that end, I shall speak in the next Chapter, or the\nBooks, Writers, Scope and Authority of the Bible.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIII. OF THE NUMBER, ANTIQUITY, SCOPE, AUTHORITY,\n\nAND INTERPRETERS OF THE BOOKS OF HOLY SCRIPTURES\n\n\n\n\nOf The Books Of Holy Scripture\n\nBy the Books of Holy SCRIPTURE, are understood those, which ought to be\nthe Canon, that is to say, the Rules of Christian life. And because all\nRules of life, which men are in conscience bound to observe, are Laws;\nthe question of the Scripture, is the question of what is Law throughout\nall Christendome, both Naturall, and Civill. For though it be not\ndetermined in Scripture, what Laws every Christian King shall constitute\nin his own Dominions; yet it is determined what laws he shall not\nconstitute. Seeing therefore I have already proved, that Soveraigns\nin their own Dominions are the sole Legislators; those Books only are\nCanonicall, that is, Law, in every nation, which are established for\nsuch by the Soveraign Authority. It is true, that God is the Soveraign\nof all Soveraigns; and therefore, when he speaks to any Subject, he\nought to be obeyed, whatsoever any earthly Potentate command to the\ncontrary. But the question is not of obedience to God, but of When,\nand What God hath said; which to Subjects that have no supernaturall\nrevelation, cannot be known, but by that naturall reason, which guided\nthem, for the obtaining of Peace and Justice, to obey the authority\nof their severall Common-wealths; that is to say, of their lawfull\nSoveraigns. According to this obligation, I can acknowledge no other\nBooks of the Old Testament, to be Holy Scripture, but those which have\nbeen commanded to be acknowledged for such, by the Authority of the\nChurch of England. What Books these are, is sufficiently known, without\na Catalogue of them here; and they are the same that are acknowledged\nby St. Jerome, who holdeth the rest, namely, the Wisdome of Solomon,\nEcclesiasticus, Judith, Tobias, the first and second of Maccabees,\n(though he had seen the first in Hebrew) and the third and fourth of\nEsdras, for Apocrypha. Of the Canonicall, Josephus a learned Jew, that\nwrote in the time of the Emperor Domitian, reckoneth Twenty Two, making\nthe number agree with the Hebrew Alphabet. St. Jerome does the same,\nthough they reckon them in different manner. For Josephus numbers Five\nBooks of Moses, Thirteen of Prophets, that writ the History of their own\ntimes (which how it agrees with the Prophets writings contained in the\nBible wee shall see hereafter), and Four of Hymnes and Morall Precepts.\nBut St. Jerome reckons Five Books of Moses, Eight of Prophets, and Nine\nof other Holy writ, which he calls of Hagiographa. The Septuagint, who\nwere 70. learned men of the Jews, sent for by Ptolemy King of Egypt, to\ntranslate the Jewish Law, out of the Hebrew into the Greek, have left us\nno other for holy Scripture in the Greek tongue, but the same that are\nreceived in the Church of England.\n\nAs for the Books of the New Testament, they are equally acknowledged for\nCanon by all Christian Churches, and by all sects of Christians, that\nadmit any Books at all for Canonicall.\n\n\n\n\nTheir Antiquity\n\nWho were the originall writers of the severall Books of Holy Scripture,\nhas not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History,\n(which is the only proof of matter of fact); nor can be by any arguments\nof naturall Reason; for Reason serves only to convince the truth (not\nof fact, but) of consequence. The light therefore that must guide us in\nthis question, must be that which is held out unto us from the Bookes\nthemselves: And this light, though it show us not the writer of every\nbook, yet it is not unusefull to give us knowledge of the time, wherein\nthey were written.\n\n\n\n\nThe Pentateuch Not Written By Moses\n\nAnd first, for the Pentateuch, it is not argument enough that they were\nwritten by Moses, because they are called the five Books of Moses; no\nmore than these titles, The Book of Joshua, the Book of Judges, The Book\nof Ruth, and the Books of the Kings, are arguments sufficient to prove,\nthat they were written by Joshua, by the Judges, by Ruth, and by the\nKings. For in titles of Books, the subject is marked, as often as the\nwriter. The History Of Livy, denotes the Writer; but the History Of\nScanderbeg, is denominated from the subject. We read in the last Chapter\nof Deuteronomie, Ver. 6. concerning the sepulcher of Moses, \"that no man\nknoweth of his sepulcher to this day,\" that is, to the day wherein those\nwords were written. It is therefore manifest, that those words were\nwritten after his interrement. For it were a strange interpretation, to\nsay Moses spake of his own sepulcher (though by Prophecy), that it was\nnot found to that day, wherein he was yet living. But it may perhaps\nbe alledged, that the last Chapter only, not the whole Pentateuch, was\nwritten by some other man, but the rest not: Let us therefore consider\nthat which we find in the Book of Genesis, Chap. 12. Ver. 6 \"And Abraham\npassed through the land to the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh,\nand the Canaanite was then in the land;\" which must needs bee the\nwords of one that wrote when the Canaanite was not in the land; and\nconsequently, not of Moses, who dyed before he came into it. Likewise\nNumbers 21. Ver. 14. the Writer citeth another more ancient Book,\nEntituled, The Book of the Warres of the Lord, wherein were registred\nthe Acts of Moses, at the Red-sea, and at the brook of Arnon. It is\ntherefore sufficiently evident, that the five Books of Moses were\nwritten after his time, though how long after it be not so manifest.\n\nBut though Moses did not compile those Books entirely, and in the form\nwe have them; yet he wrote all that which hee is there said to have\nwritten: as for example, the Volume of the Law, which is contained, as\nit seemeth in the 11 of Deuteronomie, and the following Chapters to the\n27. which was also commanded to be written on stones, in their entry\ninto the land of Canaan. (Deut. 31. 9) And this did Moses himself\nwrite, and deliver to the Priests and Elders of Israel, to be read\nevery seventh year to all Israel, at their assembling in the feast of\nTabernacles. And this is that Law which God commanded, that their Kings\n(when they should have established that form of Government) should take\na copy of from the Priests and Levites to lay in the side of the Arke;\n(Deut. 31. 26) and the same which having been lost, was long time after\nfound again by Hilkiah, and sent to King Josias, who causing it to be\nread to the People, renewed the Covenant between God and them. (2 King.\n22. 8 & 23. 1,2,3)\n\n\n\n\nThe Book of Joshua Written After His Time\n\nThat the Book of Joshua was also written long after the time of Joshua,\nmay be gathered out of many places of the Book it self. Joshua had\nset up twelve stones in the middest of Jordan, for a monument of their\npassage; (Josh 4. 9) of which the Writer saith thus, \"They are there\nunto this day;\" (Josh 5. 9) for \"unto this day\", is a phrase that\nsignifieth a time past, beyond the memory of man. In like manner, upon\nthe saying of the Lord, that he had rolled off from the people the\nReproach of Egypt, the Writer saith, \"The place is called Gilgal unto\nthis day;\" which to have said in the time of Joshua had been improper.\nSo also the name of the Valley of Achor, from the trouble that Achan\nraised in the Camp, (Josh. 7. 26) the Writer saith, \"remaineth unto\nthis day;\" which must needs bee therefore long after the time of Joshua.\nArguments of this kind there be many other; as Josh. 8. 29. 13. 13. 14.\n14. 15. 63.\n\n\n\n\nThe Booke Of Judges And Ruth Written Long After The Captivity\n\nThe same is manifest by like arguments of the Book of Judges, chap. 1.\n21,26 6.24 10.4 15.19 17.6 and Ruth 1. 1. but especially Judg. 18. 30.\nwhere it is said, that Jonathan \"and his sonnes were Priests to the\nTribe of Dan, untill the day of the captivity of the land.\"\n\n\n\n\nThe Like Of The Bookes Of Samuel\n\nThat the Books of Samuel were also written after his own time, there\nare the like arguments, 1 Sam. 5.5. 7.13,15. 27.6. & 30.25. where, after\nDavid had adjudged equall part of the spoiles, to them that guarded\nthe Ammunition, with them that fought, the Writer saith, \"He made it a\nStatute and an Ordinance to Israel to this day.\" (2. Sam. 6.4.) Again,\nwhen David (displeased, that the Lord had slain Uzzah, for putting out\nhis hand to sustain the Ark,) called the place Perez-Uzzah, the Writer\nsaith, it is called so \"to this day\": the time therefore of the writing\nof that Book, must be long after the time of the fact; that is, long\nafter the time of David.\n\n\n\n\nThe Books Of The Kings, And The Chronicles\n\nAs for the two Books of the Kings, and the two books of the Chronicles,\nbesides the places which mention such monuments, as the Writer saith,\nremained till his own days; such as are 1 Kings 9.13. 9.21. 10. 12.\n12.19. 2 Kings 2.22. 8.22. 10.27. 14.7. 16.6. 17.23. 17.34. 17.41. 1\nChron. 4.41. 5.26. It is argument sufficient they were written after the\ncaptivity in Babylon, that the History of them is continued till that\ntime. For the Facts Registred are alwaies more ancient than such Books\nas make mention of, and quote the Register; as these Books doe in divers\nplaces, referring the Reader to the Chronicles of the Kings of Juda,\nto the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, to the Books of the Prophet\nSamuel, or the Prophet Nathan, of the Prophet Ahijah; to the Vision of\nJehdo, to the Books of the Prophet Serveiah, and of the Prophet Addo.\n\n\n\n\nEzra And Nehemiah\n\nThe Books of Esdras and Nehemiah were written certainly after their\nreturn from captivity; because their return, the re-edification of\nthe walls and houses of Jerusalem, the renovation of the Covenant, and\nordination of their policy are therein contained.\n\n\n\n\nEsther\n\nThe History of Queen Esther is of the time of the Captivity; and\ntherefore the Writer must have been of the same time, or after it.\n\n\n\n\nJob\n\nThe Book of Job hath no mark in it of the time wherein it was written:\nand though it appear sufficiently (Exekiel 14.14, and James 5.11.)\nthat he was no fained person; yet the Book it self seemeth not to be\na History, but a Treatise concerning a question in ancient time much\ndisputed, \"why wicked men have often prospered in this world, and good\nmen have been afflicted;\" and it is the most probably, because from the\nbeginning, to the third verse of the third chapter, where the complaint\nof Job beginneth, the Hebrew is (as St. Jerome testifies) in prose; and\nfrom thence to the sixt verse of the last chapter in Hexameter Verses;\nand the rest of that chapter again in prose. So that the dispute is all\nin verse; and the prose is added, but as a Preface in the beginning, and\nan Epilogue in the end. But Verse is no usuall stile of such, as either\nare themselves in great pain, as Job; or of such as come to comfort\nthem, as his friends; but in Philosophy, especially morall Philosophy,\nin ancient time frequent.\n\n\n\n\nThe Psalter\n\nThe Psalmes were written the most part by David, for the use of the\nQuire. To these are added some songs of Moses, and other holy men; and\nsome of them after the return from the Captivity; as the 137. and the\n126. whereby it is manifest that the Psalter was compiled, and put into\nthe form it now hath, after the return of the Jews from Babylon.\n\n\n\n\nThe Proverbs\n\nThe Proverbs, being a Collection of wise and godly Sayings, partly of\nSolomon, partly of Agur the son of Jakeh; and partly of the Mother\nof King Lemuel, cannot probably be thought to have been collected by\nSolomon, rather then by Agur, or the Mother of Lemues; and that, though\nthe sentences be theirs, yet the collection or compiling them into this\none Book, was the work of some other godly man, that lived after them\nall.\n\n\n\n\nEcclesiastes And The Canticles\n\nThe Books of Ecclesiastes and the Canticles have nothing that was not\nSolomons, except it be the Titles, or Inscriptions. For \"The Words of\nthe Preacher, the Son of David, King in Jerusalem;\" and, \"the Song of\nSongs, which is Solomon's,\" seem to have been made for distinctions\nsake, then, when the Books of Scripture were gathered into one body of\nthe Law; to the end, that not the Doctrine only, but the Authors also\nmight be extant.\n\n\n\n\nThe Prophets\n\nOf the Prophets, the most ancient, are Sophoniah, Jonas, Amos, Hosea,\nIsaiah and Michaiah, who lived in the time of Amaziah, and Azariah,\notherwise Ozias, Kings of Judah. But the Book of Jonas is not properly\na Register of his Prophecy, (for that is contained in these few words,\n\"Fourty dayes and Ninivy shall be destroyed,\") but a History or Narration\nof his frowardenesse and disputing Gods commandements; so that there is\nsmall probability he should be the Author, seeing he is the subject of\nit. But the Book of Amos is his Prophecy.\n\nJeremiah, Abdias, Nahum, and Habakkuk prophecyed in the time of Josiah.\n\nEzekiel, Daniel, Aggeus, and Zacharias, in the Captivity.\n\nWhen Joel and Malachi prophecyed, is not evident by their Writings. But\nconsidering the Inscriptions, or Titles of their Books, it is manifest\nenough, that the whole Scripture of the Old Testament, was set forth in\nthe form we have it, after the return of the Jews from their Captivity\nin Babylon, and before the time of Ptolemaeus Philadelphus, that caused\nit to bee translated into Greek by seventy men, which were sent him\nout of Judea for that purpose. And if the Books of Apocrypha (which\nare recommended to us by the Church, though not for Canonicall, yet for\nprofitable Books for our instruction) may in this point be credited, the\nScripture was set forth in the form wee have it in, by Esdras; as may\nappear by that which he himself saith, in the second book, chapt. 14.\nverse 21, 22, &c. where speaking to God, he saith thus, \"Thy law is\nburnt; therefore no man knoweth the things which thou has done, or the\nworks that are to begin. But if I have found Grace before thee, send\ndown the holy Spirit into me, and I shall write all that hath been done\nin the world, since the beginning, which were written in thy Law, that\nmen may find thy path, and that they which will live in the later days,\nmay live.\" And verse 45. \"And it came to passe when the forty dayes were\nfulfilled, that the Highest spake, saying, 'The first that thou hast\nwritten, publish openly, that the worthy and unworthy may read it; but\nkeep the seventy last, that thou mayst deliver them onely to such as\nbe wise among the people.'\" And thus much concerning the time of the\nwriting of the Bookes of the Old Testament.\n\n\n\n\nThe New Testament\n\nThe Writers of the New Testament lived all in lesse then an age after\nChrists Ascension, and had all of them seen our Saviour, or been his\nDisciples, except St. Paul, and St. Luke; and consequently whatsoever\nwas written by them, is as ancient as the time of the Apostles. But\nthe time wherein the Books of the New Testament were received, and\nacknowledged by the Church to be of their writing, is not altogether so\nancient. For, as the Bookes of the Old Testament are derived to us, from\nno higher time then that of Esdras, who by the direction of Gods Spirit\nretrived them, when they were lost: Those of the New Testament, of which\nthe copies were not many, nor could easily be all in any one private\nmans hand, cannot bee derived from a higher time, that that wherein the\nGovernours of the Church collected, approved, and recommended them to\nus, as the writings of those Apostles and Disciples; under whose names\nthey go. The first enumeration of all the Bookes, both of the Old,\nand New Testament, is in the Canons of the Apostles, supposed to be\ncollected by Clement the first (after St. Peter) Bishop of Rome. But\nbecause that is but supposed, and by many questioned, the Councell of\nLaodicea is the first we know, that recommended the Bible to the then\nChristian Churches, for the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles: and\nthis Councell was held in the 364. yeer after Christ. At which time,\nthough ambition had so far prevailed on the great Doctors of the Church,\nas no more to esteem Emperours, though Christian, for the Shepherds of\nthe people, but for Sheep; and Emperours not Christian, for Wolves; and\nendeavoured to passe their Doctrine, not for Counsell, and Information,\nas Preachers; but for Laws, as absolute Governours; and thought such\nfrauds as tended to make the people the more obedient to Christian\nDoctrine, to be pious; yet I am perswaded they did not therefore\nfalsifie the Scriptures, though the copies of the Books of the New\nTestament, were in the hands only of the Ecclesiasticks; because if they\nhad had an intention so to doe, they would surely have made them more\nfavorable to their power over Christian Princes, and Civill Soveraignty,\nthan they are. I see not therefore any reason to doubt, but that the\nOld, and New Testament, as we have them now, are the true Registers of\nthose things, which were done and said by the Prophets, and Apostles.\nAnd so perhaps are some of those Books which are called Apocrypha, if\nleft out of the Canon, not for inconformity of Doctrine with the\nrest, but only because they are not found in the Hebrew. For after the\nconquest of Asia by Alexander the Great, there were few learned Jews,\nthat were not perfect in the Greek tongue. For the seventy Interpreters\nthat converted the Bible into Greek, were all of them Hebrews; and we\nhave extant the works of Philo and Josephus both Jews, written by them\neloquently in Greek. But it is not the Writer, but the authority of the\nChurch, that maketh a Book Canonicall.\n\n\n\n\nTheir Scope\n\nAnd although these Books were written by divers men, yet it is manifest\nthe Writers were all indued with one and the same Spirit, in that they\nconspire to one and the same end, which is the setting forth of the\nRights of the Kingdome of God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For\nthe Book of Genesis, deriveth the Genealogy of Gods people, from the\ncreation of the World, to the going into Egypt: the other four Books of\nMoses, contain the Election of God for their King, and the Laws which\nhee prescribed for their Government: The Books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth,\nand Samuel, to the time of Saul, describe the acts of Gods people,\ntill the time they cast off Gods yoke, and called for a King, after the\nmanner of their neighbour nations; The rest of the History of the\nOld Testament, derives the succession of the line of David, to the\nCaptivity, out of which line was to spring the restorer of the Kingdome\nof God, even our blessed Saviour God the Son, whose coming was foretold\nin the Bookes of the Prophets, after whom the Evangelists writt his\nlife, and actions, and his claim to the Kingdome, whilst he lived one\nearth: and lastly, the Acts, and Epistles of the Apostles, declare the\ncoming of God, the Holy Ghost, and the Authority he left with them, and\ntheir successors, for the direction of the Jews, and for the invitation\nof the Gentiles. In summe, the Histories and the Prophecies of the old\nTestament, and the Gospels, and Epistles of the New Testament, have had\none and the same scope, to convert men to the obedience of God; 1. in\nMoses, and the Priests; 2. in the man Christ; and 3. in the Apostles and\nthe successors to Apostolicall power. For these three at several times\ndid represent the person of God: Moses, and his successors the High\nPriests, and Kings of Judah, in the Old Testament: Christ himself, in\nthe time he lived on earth: and the Apostles, and their successors, from\nthe day of Pentecost (when the Holy Ghost descended on them) to this\nday.\n\n\n\n\nThe Question Of The Authority Of The Scriptures Stated.\n\nIt is a question much disputed between the divers sects of Christian\nReligion, From Whence The Scriptures Derive Their Authority; which\nquestion is also propounded sometimes in other terms, as, How Wee Know\nThem To Be The Word Of God, or, Why We Beleeve Them To Be So: and the\ndifficulty of resolving it, ariseth chiefly from the impropernesse of\nthe words wherein the question it self is couched. For it is beleeved\non all hands, that the first and originall Author of them is God; and\nconsequently the question disputed, is not that. Again, it is manifest,\nthat none can know they are Gods Word, (though all true Christians\nbeleeve it,) but those to whom God himself hath revealed it\nsupernaturally; and therefore the question is not rightly moved, of our\nKnowledge of it. Lastly, when the question is propounded of our Beleefe;\nbecause some are moved to beleeve for one, and others for other reasons,\nthere can be rendred no one generall answer for them all. The question\ntruly stated is, By What Authority They Are Made Law.\n\n\n\n\nTheir Authority And Interpretation\n\nAs far as they differ not from the Laws of Nature, there is no doubt,\nbut they are the Law of God, and carry their Authority with them,\nlegible to all men that have the use of naturall reason: but this is\nno other Authority, then that of all other Morall Doctrine consonant to\nReason; the Dictates whereof are Laws, not Made, but Eternall.\n\nIf they be made Law by God himselfe, they are of the nature of written\nLaw, which are Laws to them only to whom God hath so sufficiently\npublished them, as no man can excuse himself, by saying, he know not\nthey were his.\n\nHe therefore, to whom God hath not supernaturally revealed, that they\nare his, nor that those that published them, were sent by him, is not\nobliged to obey them, by any Authority, but his, whose Commands have\nalready the force of Laws; that is to say, by any other Authority, then\nthat of the Common-wealth, residing in the Soveraign, who only has the\nLegislative power. Again, if it be not the Legislative Authority of\nthe Common-wealth, that giveth them the force of Laws, it must bee\nsome other Authority derived from God, either private, or publique:\nif private, it obliges onely him, to whom in particular God hath been\npleased to reveale it. For if every man should be obliged, to take for\nGods Law, what particular men, on pretence of private Inspiration, or\nRevelation, should obtrude upon him, (in such a number of men, that out\nof pride, and ignorance, take their own Dreams, and extravagant Fancies,\nand Madnesse, for testimonies of Gods Spirit; or out of ambition,\npretend to such Divine testimonies, falsely, and contrary to their\nown consciences,) it were impossible that any Divine Law should be\nacknowledged. If publique, it is the Authority of the Common-wealth, or\nof the Church. But the Church, if it be one person, is the same thing\nwith a Common-wealth of Christians; called a Common-wealth, because it\nconsisteth of men united in one person, their Soveraign; and a Church,\nbecause it consisteth in Christian men, united in one Christian\nSoveraign. But if the Church be not one person, then it hath no\nauthority at all; it can neither command, nor doe any action at all; nor\nis capable of having any power, or right to any thing; nor has any Will,\nReason, nor Voice; for all these qualities are personall. Now if the\nwhole number of Christians be not contained in one Common-wealth, they\nare not one person; nor is there an Universall Church that hath any\nauthority over them; and therefore the Scriptures are not made Laws,\nby the Universall Church: or if it bee one Common-wealth, then all\nChristian Monarchs, and States are private persons, and subject to\nbee judged, deposed, and punished by an Universall Soveraigne of all\nChristendome. So that the question of the Authority of the Scriptures is\nreduced to this, \"Whether Christian Kings, and the Soveraigne Assemblies\nin Christian Common-wealths, be absolute in their own Territories,\nimmediately under God; or subject to one Vicar of Christ, constituted\nover the Universall Church; to bee judged, condemned, deposed, and put\nto death, as hee shall think expedient, or necessary for the common\ngood.\"\n\nWhich question cannot bee resolved, without a more particular\nconsideration of the Kingdome of God; from whence also, wee are to judge\nof the Authority of Interpreting the Scripture. For, whosoever hath a\nlawfull power over any Writing, to make it Law, hath the power also to\napprove, or disapprove the interpretation of the same.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIV. OF THE SIGNIFICATION OF SPIRIT, ANGEL, AND INSPIRATION IN\nTHE BOOKS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE\n\n\n\n\nBody And Spirit How Taken In The Scripture\n\nSeeing the foundation of all true Ratiocination, is the constant\nSignification of words; which in the Doctrine following, dependeth not\n(as in naturall science) on the Will of the Writer, nor (as in common\nconversation) on vulgar use, but on the sense they carry in the\nScripture; It is necessary, before I proceed any further, to determine,\nout of the Bible, the meaning of such words, as by their ambiguity, may\nrender what I am to inferre upon them, obscure, or disputable. I will\nbegin with the words BODY, and SPIRIT, which in the language of the\nSchools are termed, Substances, Corporeall, and Incorporeall.\n\nThe Word Body, in the most generall acceptation, signifieth that\nwhich filleth, or occupyeth some certain room, or imagined place; and\ndependeth not on the imagination, but is a reall part of that we call\nthe Universe. For the Universe, being the Aggregate of all Bodies, there\nis no reall part thereof that is not also Body; nor any thing properly\na Body, that is not also part of (that Aggregate of all Bodies) the\nUniverse. The same also, because Bodies are subject to change, that is\nto say, to variety of apparence to the sense of living creatures, is\ncalled Substance, that is to say, Subject, to various accidents, as\nsometimes to be Moved, sometimes to stand Still; and to seem to our\nsenses sometimes Hot, sometimes Cold, sometimes of one Colour, Smel,\nTast, or Sound, somtimes of another. And this diversity of Seeming,\n(produced by the diversity of the operation of bodies, on the organs\nof our sense) we attribute to alterations of the Bodies that operate, &\ncall them Accidents of those Bodies. And according to this acceptation\nof the word, Substance and Body, signifie the same thing; and therefore\nSubstance Incorporeall are words, which when they are joined together,\ndestroy one another, as if a man should say, an Incorporeall Body.\n\nBut in the sense of common people, not all the Universe is called Body,\nbut only such parts thereof as they can discern by the sense of Feeling,\nto resist their force, or by the sense of their Eyes, to hinder them\nfrom a farther prospect. Therefore in the common language of men, Aire,\nand Aeriall Substances, use not to be taken for Bodies, but (as often\nas men are sensible of their effects) are called Wind, or Breath, or\n(because the some are called in the Latine Spiritus) Spirits; as when\nthey call that aeriall substance, which in the body of any living\ncreature, gives it life and motion, Vitall and Animall Spirits. But for\nthose Idols of the brain, which represent Bodies to us, where they\nare not, as in a Looking-glasse, in a Dream, or to a Distempered brain\nwaking, they are (as the Apostle saith generally of all Idols) nothing;\nNothing at all, I say, there where they seem to bee; and in the brain\nit self, nothing but tumult, proceeding either from the action of the\nobjects, or from the disorderly agitation of the Organs of our Sense.\nAnd men, that are otherwise imployed, then to search into their causes,\nknow not of themselves, what to call them; and may therefore easily be\nperswaded, by those whose knowledge they much reverence, some to\ncall them Bodies, and think them made of aire compacted by a power\nsupernaturall, because the sight judges them corporeall; and some to\ncall them Spirits, because the sense of Touch discerneth nothing in the\nplace where they appear, to resist their fingers: So that the proper\nsignification of Spirit in common speech, is either a subtile, fluid,\nand invisible Body, or a Ghost, or other Idol or Phantasme of the\nImagination. But for metaphoricall significations, there be many: for\nsometimes it is taken for Disposition or Inclination of the mind; as\nwhen for the disposition to controwl the sayings of other men, we say,\nA Spirit Contradiction; For A Disposition to Uncleannesse, An Unclean\nSpirit; for Perversenesse, A Froward Spirit; for Sullennesse, A Dumb\nSpirit, and for Inclination To Godlinesse, And Gods Service, the Spirit\nof God: sometimes for any eminent ability, or extraordinary passion,\nor disease of the mind, as when Great Wisdome is called the Spirit Of\nWisdome; and Mad Men are said to be Possessed With A Spirit.\n\nOther signification of Spirit I find no where any; and where none\nof these can satisfie the sense of that word in Scripture, the place\nfalleth not under humane Understanding; and our Faith therein consisteth\nnot in our Opinion, but in our Submission; as in all places where God\nis said to be a Spirit; or where by the Spirit of God, is meant God\nhimselfe. For the nature of God is incomprehensible; that is to say, we\nunderstand nothing of What He Is, but only That He Is; and therefore the\nAttributes we give him, are not to tell one another, What He Is, Nor\nto signifie our opinion of his Nature, but our desire to honor him with\nsuch names as we conceive most honorable amongst our selves.\n\n\n\n\nSpirit Of God Taken In The Scripture Sometimes For A Wind, Or Breath\n\nGen. 1. 2. \"The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the Waters.\" Here\nif by the Spirit of God be meant God himself, then is Motion attributed\nto God, and consequently Place, which are intelligible only of Bodies,\nand not of substances incorporeall; and so the place is above our\nunderstanding, that can conceive nothing moved that changes not place,\nor that has not dimension; and whatsoever has dimension, is Body. But\nthe meaning of those words is best understood by the like place, Gen.\n8. 1. Where when the earth was covered with Waters, as in the beginning,\nGod intending to abate them, and again to discover the dry land, useth\nlike words, \"I will bring my Spirit upon the Earth, and the waters shall\nbe diminished:\" in which place by Spirit is understood a Wind, (that is\nan Aire or Spirit Moved,) which might be called (as in the former place)\nthe Spirit of God, because it was Gods Work.\n\n\n\n\nSecondly, For Extraordinary Gifts Of The Understanding\n\nGen. 41. 38. Pharaoh calleth the Wisdome of Joseph, the Spirit of God.\nFor Joseph having advised him to look out a wise and discreet man, and\nto set him over the land of Egypt, he saith thus, \"Can we find such a\nman as this is, in whom is the Spirit of God?\" and Exod. 28.3. \"Thou\nshalt speak (saith God) to all that are wise hearted, whom I have filled\nwith the Spirit of Wisdome, to make Aaron Garments, to consecrate him.\"\nWhere extraordinary Understanding, though but in making Garments, as\nbeing the Gift of God, is called the Spirit of God. The same is found\nagain, Exod. 31.3,4,5,6. and 35.31. And Isaiah 11.2,3. where the Prophet\nspeaking of the Messiah, saith, \"The Spirit of the Lord shall abide upon\nhim, the Spirit of wisdome and understanding, the Spirit of counsell,\nand fortitude; and the Spirit of the fear of the Lord.\" Where manifestly\nis meant, not so many Ghosts, but so many eminent Graces that God would\ngive him.\n\n\n\n\nThirdly, For Extraordinary Affections\n\nIn the Book of Judges, an extraordinary Zeal, and Courage in the\ndefence of Gods people, is called the Spirit of God; as when it excited\nOthoniel, Gideon, Jeptha, and Samson to deliver them from servitude,\nJudg. 3.10. 6.34. 11.29. 13.25. 14.6,19. And of Saul, upon the newes of\nthe insolence of the Ammonites towards the men of Jabeth Gilead, it is\nsaid (1 Sam.11.6.) that \"The Spirit of God came upon Saul, and his Anger\n(or, as it is in the Latine, His Fury) was kindled greatly.\" Where it is\nnot probable was meant a Ghost, but an extraordinary Zeal to punish the\ncruelty of the Ammonites. In like manner by the Spirit of God, that came\nupon Saul, when hee was amongst the Prophets that praised God in Songs,\nand Musick (1 Sam.19.20.) is to be understood, not a Ghost, but an\nunexpected and sudden Zeal to join with them in their devotions.\n\n\n\n\nFourthly, For The Gift Of Prediction By Dreams And Visions\n\nThe false Prophet Zedekiah, saith to Micaiah (1 Kings 22.24.) \"Which way\nwent the Spirit of the Lord from me to speak to thee?\" Which cannot be\nunderstood of a Ghost; for Micaiah declared before the Kings of Israel\nand Judah, the event of the battle, as from a Vision, and not as from a\nSpirit, speaking in him.\n\nIn the same manner it appeareth, in the Books of the Prophets, that\nthough they spake by the Spirit of God, that is to say, by a speciall\ngrace of Prediction; yet their knowledge of the future, was not by a\nGhost within them, but by some supernaturall Dream or Vision.\n\n\n\n\nFiftly, For Life\n\nGen. 2.7. It is said, \"God made man of the dust of the Earth, and\nbreathed into his nostrills (spiraculum vitae) the breath of life, and\nman was made a living soul.\" There the Breath of Life inspired by God,\nsignifies no more, but that God gave him life; And (Job 27.3.) \"as long\nas the Spirit of God is in my nostrils;\" is no more then to say, \"as\nlong as I live.\" So in Ezek. 1.20. \"the Spirit of life was in the\nwheels,\" is equivalent to, \"the wheels were alive.\" And (Ezek. 2.30.)\n\"the spirit entred into me, and set me on my feet,\" that is, \"I\nrecovered my vitall strength;\" not that any Ghost, or incorporeal\nsubstance entred into, and possessed his body.\n\n\n\n\nSixtly, For A Subordination To Authority\n\nIn the 11 chap. of Numbers. verse 17. \"I will take (saith God) of the\nSpirit, which is upon thee, and will put it upon them, and they shall\nbear the burthen of the people with thee;\" that is, upon the seventy\nElders: whereupon two of the seventy are said to prophecy in the campe;\nof whom some complained, and Joshua desired Moses to forbid them; which\nMoses would not doe. Whereby it appears; that Joshua knew not they had\nreceived authority so to do, and prophecyed according to the mind of\nMoses, that is to say, by a Spirit, or Authority subordinate to his own.\n\nIn the like sense we read (Deut. 34.9.) that \"Joshua was full of the\nSpirit of wisdome,\" because Moses had laid his hands upon him: that is,\nbecause he was Ordained by Moses, to prosecute the work hee had himselfe\nbegun, (namely, the bringing of Gods people into the promised land), but\nprevented by death, could not finish.\n\nIn the like sense it is said, (Rom. 8.9.) \"If any man have not the\nSpirit of Christ, he is none of his:\" not meaning thereby the Ghost of\nChrist, but a Submission to his Doctrine. As also (1 John 4.2.) \"Hereby\nyou shall know the Spirit of God; Every Spirit that confesseth that\nJesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God;\" by which is meant the\nSpirit of unfained Christianity, or Submission to that main Article of\nChristian faith, that Jesus is the Christ; which cannot be interpreted\nof a Ghost.\n\nLikewise these words (Luke 4.1.) \"And Jesus full of the Holy Ghost\"\n(that is, as it is exprest, Mat. 4.1. and Mar. 1.12. \"of the Holy\nSpirit\",) may be understood, for Zeal to doe the work for which hee was\nsent by God the Father: but to interpret it of a Ghost, is to say, that\nGod himselfe (for so our Saviour was,) was filled with God; which is\nvery unproper, and unsignificant. How we came to translate Spirits, by\nthe word Ghosts, which signifieth nothing, neither in heaven, nor earth,\nbut the Imaginary inhabitants of mans brain, I examine not: but this I\nsay, the word Spirit in the text signifieth no such thing; but either\nproperly a reall Substance, or Metaphorically, some extraordinary\nAbility of Affection of the Mind, or of the Body.\n\n\n\n\nSeventhly, For Aeriall Bodies\n\nThe Disciples of Christ, seeing him walking upon the sea, (Mat. 14.26.\nand Marke 6.49.) supposed him to be a Spirit, meaning thereby an Aeriall\nBody, and not a Phantasme: for it is said, they all saw him; which\ncannot be understood of the delusions of the brain, (which are not\ncommon to many at once, as visible Bodies are; but singular, because of\nthe differences of Fancies), but of Bodies only. In like manner, where\nhe was taken for a Spirit, by the same Apostles (Luke 24.3,7.): So also\n(Acts 12.15) when St. Peter was delivered out of Prison, it would not\nbe beleeved; but when the Maid said he was at the dore, they said it\nwas his Angel; by which must be meant a corporeall substance, or we must\nsay, the Disciples themselves did follow the common opinion of both Jews\nand Gentiles, that some such apparitions were not Imaginary, but Reall;\nand such as needed not the fancy of man for their Existence: These the\nJews called Spirits, and Angels, Good or Bad; as the Greeks called the\nsame by the name of Daemons. And some such apparitions may be reall, and\nsubstantiall; that is to say, subtile Bodies, which God can form by\nthe same power, by which he formed all things, and make use of, as of\nMinisters, and Messengers (that is to say, Angels) to declare his\nwill, and execute the same when he pleaseth, in extraordinary and\nsupernaturall manner. But when hee hath so formed them they are\nSubstances, endued with dimensions, and take up roome, and can be moved\nfrom place to place, which is peculiar to Bodies; and therefore are not\nGhosts Incorporeall, that is to say, Ghosts that are in No Place;\nthat is to say, that are No Where; that is to say, that seeming to be\nSomewhat, are Nothing. But if corporeall be taken in the most vulgar\nmanner, for such Substances as are perceptible by our externall Senses;\nthen is Substance Incorporeall, a thing not Imaginary, but Reall;\nnamely, a thin Substance Invisible, but that hath the same dimensions\nthat are in grosser Bodies.\n\n\n\n\nAngel What\n\nBy the name of ANGEL, is signified generally, a Messenger; and most\noften, a Messenger of God: And by a Messenger of God, is signified, any\nthing that makes known his extraordinary Presence; that is to say, the\nextraordinary manifestation of his power, especially by a Dream, or\nVision.\n\nConcerning the creation of Angels, there is nothing delivered in the\nScriptures. That they are Spirits, is often repeated: but by the name of\nSpirit, is signified both in Scripture, and vulgarly, both amongst Jews,\nand Gentiles, sometimes thin Bodies; as the Aire, the Wind, the Spirits\nVitall, and Animall, of living creatures; and sometimes the Images\nthat rise in the fancy in Dreams, and Visions; which are not reall\nSubstances, but accidents of the brain; yet when God raiseth them\nsupernaturally, to signifie his Will, they are not unproperly termed\nGods Messengers, that is to say, his Angels.\n\nAnd as the Gentiles did vulgarly conceive the Imagery of the brain, for\nthings really subsistent without them, and not dependent on the fancy;\nand out of them framed their opinions of Daemons, Good and Evill; which\nbecause they seemed to subsist really, they called Substances; and\nbecause they could not feel them with their hands, Incorporeall: so also\nthe Jews upon the same ground, without any thing in the Old Testament\nthat constrained them thereunto, had generally an opinion, (except the\nsect of the Sadduces,) that those apparitions (which it pleased God\nsometimes to produce in the fancie of men, for his own service, and\ntherefore called them his Angels) were substances, not dependent on the\nfancy, but permanent creatures of God; whereof those which they thought\nwere good to them, they esteemed the Angels of God, and those they\nthought would hurt them, they called Evill Angels, or Evill Spirits;\nsuch as was the Spirit of Python, and the Spirits of Mad-men, of\nLunatiques, and Epileptiques: For they esteemed such as were troubled\nwith such diseases, Daemoniaques.\n\nBut if we consider the places of the Old Testament where Angels are\nmentioned, we shall find, that in most of them, there can nothing else\nbe understood by the word Angel, but some image raised (supernaturally)\nin the fancy, to signifie the presence of God in the execution of some\nsupernaturall work; and therefore in the rest, where their nature is not\nexprest, it may be understood in the same manner.\n\nFor we read Gen. 16. that the same apparition is called, not onely an\nAngel, but God; where that which (verse 7.) is called the Angel of\nthe Lord, in the tenth verse, saith to Agar, \"I will multiply thy seed\nexceedingly;\" that is, speaketh in the person of God. Neither was this\napparition a Fancy figured, but a Voice. By which it is manifest,\nthat Angel signifieth there, nothing but God himself, that caused Agar\nsupernaturally to apprehend a voice supernaturall, testifying Gods\nspeciall presence there. Why therefore may not the Angels that appeared\nto Lot, and are called Gen. 19.13. Men; and to whom, though they were\nbut two, Lot speaketh (ver. 18.) as but one, and that one, as God, (for\nthe words are, \"Lot said unto them, Oh not so my Lord\") be understood of\nimages of men, supernaturally formed in the Fancy; as well as before by\nAngel was understood a fancyed Voice? When the Angel called to Abraham\nout of heaven, to stay his hand (Gen. 22.11.) from slaying Isaac, there\nwas no Apparition, but a Voice; which neverthelesse was called properly\nenough a Messenger, or Angel of God, because it declared Gods will\nsupernaturally, and saves the labour of supposing any permanent Ghosts.\nThe Angels which Jacob saw on the Ladder of Heaven (Gen. 28.12.) were\na Vision of his sleep; therefore onely Fancy, and a Dream; yet being\nsupernaturall, and signs of Gods Speciall presence, those apparitions\nare not improperly called Angels. The same is to be understood\n(Gen.31.11.) where Jacob saith thus, \"The Angel of the Lord appeared to\nmee in my sleep.\" For an apparition made to a man in his sleep, is\nthat which all men call a Dreame, whether such Dreame be naturall, or\nsupernaturall: and that which there Jacob calleth an Angel, was God\nhimselfe; for the same Angel saith (verse 13.) \"I am the God of Bethel.\"\n\nAlso (Exod.14.9.) the Angel that went before the Army of Israel to the\nRed Sea, and then came behind it, is (verse 19.) the Lord himself; and\nhe appeared not in the form of a beautifull man, but in form (by day)\nof a Pillar Of Cloud and (by night) in form of a Pillar Of Fire; and yet\nthis Pillar was all the apparition, and Angel promised to Moses (Exod.\n14.9.) for the Armies guide: For this cloudy pillar, is said, to have\ndescended, and stood at the dore of the Tabernacle, and to have talked\nwith Moses.\n\nThere you see Motion, and Speech, which are commonly attributed to\nAngels, attributed to a Cloud, because the Cloud served as a sign of\nGods presence; and was no lesse an Angel, then if it had had the form of\na Man, or Child of never so great beauty; or Wings, as usually they are\npainted, for the false instruction of common people. For it is not the\nshape; but their use, that makes them Angels. But their use is to be\nsignifications of Gods presence in supernaturall operations; As when\nMoses (Exod. 33.14.) had desired God to goe along with the Campe, (as\nhe had done alwaies before the making of the Golden Calfe,) God did not\nanswer, \"I will goe,\" nor \"I will send an Angel in my stead;\" but thus,\n\"my presence shall goe with thee.\"\n\nTo mention all the places of the Old Testament where the name of Angel\nis found, would be too long. Therefore to comprehend them all at once,\nI say, there is no text in that part of the Old Testament, which the\nChurch of England holdeth for Canonicall, from which we can conclude,\nthere is, or hath been created, any permanent thing (understood by the\nname of Spirit or Angel,) that hath not quantity; and that may not be,\nby the understanding divided; that is to say, considered by parts; so\nas one part may bee in one place, and the next part in the next place\nto it; and, in summe, which is not (taking Body for that, which is some\nwhat, or some where) Corporeall; but in every place, the sense will bear\nthe interpretation of Angel, for Messenger; as John Baptist is called\nan Angel, and Christ the Angel of the Covenant; and as (according to the\nsame Analogy) the Dove, and the Fiery Tongues, in that they were signes\nof Gods speciall presence, might also be called Angels. Though we find\nin Daniel two names of Angels, Gabriel, and Michael; yet is cleer out of\nthe text it selfe, (Dan. 12.1) that by Michael is meant Christ, not as\nan Angel, but as a Prince: and that Gabriel (as the like apparitions\nmade to other holy men in their sleep) was nothing but a supernaturall\nphantasme, by which it seemed to Daniel, in his dream, that two Saints\nbeing in talke, one of them said to the other, \"Gabriel, let us make\nthis man understand his Vision:\" For God needeth not, to distinguish\nhis Celestiall servants by names, which are usefull onely to the short\nmemories of Mortalls. Nor in the New Testament is there any place, out\nof which it can be proved, that Angels (except when they are put for\nsuch men, as God hath made the Messengers, and Ministers of his word,\nor works) are things permanent, and withall incorporeall. That they\nare permanent, may bee gathered from the words of our Saviour himselfe,\n(Mat. 25.41.) where he saith, it shall be said to the wicked in the last\nday, \"Go ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his\nAngels:\" which place is manifest for the permanence of Evill Angels,\n(unlesse wee might think the name of Devill and his Angels may be\nunderstood of the Churches Adversaries and their Ministers;) but then\nit is repugnant to their Immateriality; because Everlasting fire is no\npunishment to impatible substances, such as are all things Incorporeall.\nAngels therefore are not thence proved to be Incorporeall. In like\nmanner where St. Paul sayes (1 Cor. 6.3.) \"Knew ye not that wee shall\njudge the Angels?\" And (2 Pet. 2.4.) \"For if God spared not the Angels\nthat sinned, but cast them down into Hell.\" And (Jude 1,6.) \"And the\nAngels that kept not their first estate, but left their owne habitation,\nhee hath reserved in everlasting chaines under darknesse unto the\nJudgement of the last day;\" though it prove the Permanence of Angelicall\nnature, it confirmeth also their Materiality. And (Mat. 22.30.) In the\nresurrection men doe neither marry, nor give in marriage, but are as\nthe Angels of God in heaven:\" but in the resurrection men shall be\nPermanent, and not Incorporeall; so therefore also are the Angels.\n\nThere be divers other places out of which may be drawn the like\nconclusion. To men that understand the signification of these words,\nSubstance, and Incorporeall; as Incorporeall is taken not for subtile\nbody, but for Not Body, they imply a contradiction: insomuch as to say,\nan Angel, or Spirit is (in that sense) an Incorporeall Substance, is\nto say in effect, there is no Angel nor Spirit at all. Considering\ntherefore the signification of the word Angel in the Old Testament, and\nthe nature of Dreams and Visions that happen to men by the ordinary way\nof Nature; I was enclined to this opinion, that Angels were nothing\nbut supernaturall apparitions of the Fancy, raised by the speciall\nand extraordinary operation of God, thereby to make his presence and\ncommandements known to mankind, and chiefly to his own people. But the\nmany places of the New Testament, and our Saviours own words, and in\nsuch texts, wherein is no suspicion of corruption of the Scripture, have\nextorted from my feeble Reason, an acknowledgement, and beleef, that\nthere be also Angels substantiall, and permanent. But to beleeve they be\nin no place, that is to say, no where, that is to say, nothing, as they\n(though indirectly) say, that will have them Incorporeall, cannot by\nScripture bee evinced.\n\n\n\n\nInspiration What\n\nOn the signification of the word Spirit, dependeth that of the word\nINSPIRATION; which must either be taken properly; and then it is nothing\nbut the blowing into a man some thin and subtile aire, or wind, in such\nmanner as a man filleth a bladder with his breath; or if Spirits be not\ncorporeal, but have their existence only in the fancy, it is nothing but\nthe blowing in of a Phantasme; which is improper to say, and impossible;\nfor Phantasmes are not, but only seem to be somewhat. That word\ntherefore is used in the Scripture metaphorically onely: As (Gen. 2.7.)\nwhere it is said, that God Inspired into man the breath of life, no more\nis meant, then that God gave unto him vitall motion. For we are not to\nthink that God made first a living breath, and then blew it into Adam\nafter he was made, whether that breath were reall, or seeming; but only\nas it is (Acts 17.25.) \"that he gave him life and breath;\" that is,\nmade him a living creature. And where it is said (2 Tim. 3.16.) \"all\nScripture is given by Inspiration from God,\" speaking there of the\nScripture of the Old Testament, it is an easie metaphor, to signifie,\nthat God enclined the spirit or mind of those Writers, to write that\nwhich should be usefull, in teaching, reproving, correcting, and\ninstructing men in the way of righteous living. But where St. Peter (2\nPet. 1.21.) saith, that \"Prophecy came not in old time by the will\nof man, but the holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy\nSpirit,\" by the Holy Spirit, is meant the voice of God in a Dream, or\nVision supernaturall, which is not Inspiration; Nor when our Saviour\nbreathing on his Disciples, said, \"Receive the Holy Spirit,\" was that\nBreath the Spirit, but a sign of the spirituall graces he gave unto\nthem. And though it be said of many, and of our Saviour himself, that he\nwas full of the Holy Spirit; yet that Fulnesse is not to be understood\nfor Infusion of the substance of God, but for accumulation of his gifts,\nsuch as are the gift of sanctity of life, of tongues, and the like,\nwhether attained supernaturally, or by study and industry; for in all\ncases they are the gifts of God. So likewise where God sayes (Joel\n2.28.) \"I will powre out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your Sons and\nyour Daughters shall prophecy, your Old men shall dream Dreams, and your\nYoung men shall see Visions,\" wee are not to understand it in the\nproper sense, as if his Spirit were like water, subject to effusion, or\ninfusion; but as if God had promised to give them Propheticall Dreams,\nand Visions. For the proper use of the word Infused, in speaking of\nthe graces of God, is an abuse of it; for those graces are Vertues, not\nBodies to be carryed hither and thither, and to be powred into men, as\ninto barrels.\n\nIn the same manner, to take Inspiration in the proper sense, or to\nsay that Good Spirits entred into men to make them prophecy, or Evill\nSpirits into those that became Phrenetique, Lunatique, or Epileptique,\nis not to take the word in the sense of the Scripture; for the Spirit\nthere is taken for the power of God, working by causes to us unknown. As\nalso (Acts 2.2.) the wind, that is there said to fill the house wherein\nthe Apostles were assembled on the day of Pentecost, is not to be\nunderstood for the Holy Spirit, which is the Deity it self; but for an\nExternall sign of Gods speciall working on their hearts, to effect in\nthem the internall graces, and holy vertues hee thought requisite for\nthe performance of their Apostleship.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXV. OF THE SIGNIFICATION IN SCRIPTURE OF KINGDOME OF GOD, OF\nHOLY, SACRED, AND SACRAMENT\n\n\n\n\nKingdom Of God Taken By Divines Metaphorically But In The Scriptures\n\nProperly\n\nThe Kingdome of God in the Writings of Divines, and specially in\nSermons, and Treatises of Devotion, is taken most commonly for Eternall\nFelicity, after this life, in the Highest Heaven, which they also call\nthe Kingdome of Glory; and sometimes for (the earnest of that felicity)\nSanctification, which they terme the Kingdome of Grace, but never\nfor the Monarchy, that is to say, the Soveraign Power of God over\nany Subjects acquired by their own consent, which is the proper\nsignification of Kingdome.\n\nTo the contrary, I find the KINGDOME OF GOD, to signifie in most places\nof Scripture, a Kingdome Properly So Named, constituted by the Votes\nof the People of Israel in peculiar manner; wherein they chose God\nfor their King by Covenant made with him, upon Gods promising them the\npossession of the land of Canaan; and but seldom metaphorically;\nand then it is taken for Dominion Over Sinne; (and only in the New\nTestament;) because such a Dominion as that, every Subject shall have in\nthe Kingdome of God, and without prejudice to the Soveraign.\n\nFrom the very Creation, God not only reigned over all men Naturally by\nhis might; but also had Peculiar Subjects, whom he commanded by a Voice,\nas one man speaketh to another. In which manner he Reigned over Adam,\nand gave him commandement to abstaine from the tree of cognizance of\nGood and Evill; which when he obeyed not, but tasting thereof, took upon\nhim to be as God, judging between Good and Evill, not by his Creators\ncommandement, but by his own sense, his punishment was a privation of\nthe estate of Eternall life, wherein God had at first created him: And\nafterwards God punished his posterity, for their vices, all but eight\npersons, with an universall deluge; And in these eight did consist the\nthen Kingdome Of God.\n\n\n\n\nThe Originall Of The Kingdome Of God\n\nAfter this, it pleased God to speak to Abraham, and (Gen. 17.7,8.) to\nmake a Covenant with him in these words, \"I will establish my Covenant\nbetween me, and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations,\nfor an everlasting Covenant, to be a God to thee, and to thy seed after\nthee; And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land\nwherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting\npossession.\" And for a memoriall, and a token of this Covenant, he\nordaineth (verse 11.) the Sacrament of Circumcision. This is it which is\ncalled the Old Covenant, or Testament; and containeth a Contract between\nGod and Abraham; by which Abraham obligeth himself, and his posterity,\nin a peculiar manner to be subject to Gods positive Law; for to the Law\nMorall he was obliged before, as by an Oath of Allegiance. And though\nthe name of King be not yet given to God, nor of Kingdome to Abraham and\nhis seed; yet the thing is the same; namely, an Institution by pact,\nof Gods peculiar Soveraignty over the seed of Abraham; which in the\nrenewing of the same Covenant by Moses, at Mount Sinai, is expressely\ncalled a peculiar Kingdome of God over the Jews: and it is of Abraham\n(not of Moses) St. Paul saith (Rom. 4.11.) that he is the \"Father of the\nFaithfull,\" that is, of those that are loyall, and doe not violate their\nAllegiance sworn to God, then by Circumcision, and afterwards in the New\nCovenant by Baptisme.\n\n\n\n\nThat The Kingdome Of God Is Properly His Civill Soveraignty Over\n\nA Peculiar People By Pact\n\nThis Covenant, at the Foot of Mount Sinai, was renewed by Moses (Exod.\n19.5.) where the Lord commandeth Moses to speak to the people in this\nmanner, \"If you will obey my voice indeed, and keep my Covenant, then\nyee shall be a peculiar people to me, for all the Earth is mine; and\nyee shall be unto me a Sacerdotall Kingdome, and an holy Nation.\" For a\n\"Peculiar people\" the vulgar Latine hath, Peculium De Cunctis Populis:\nthe English translation made in the beginning of the Reign of King\nJames, hath, a \"Peculiar treasure unto me above all Nations;\" and the\nGeneva French, \"the most precious Jewel of all Nations.\" But the truest\nTranslation is the first, because it is confirmed by St. Paul himself\n(Tit. 2.14.) where he saith, alluding to that place, that our blessed\nSaviour \"gave himself for us, that he might purifie us to himself, a\npeculiar (that is, an extraordinary) people:\" for the word is in the\nGreek periousios, which is opposed commonly to the word epiousios: and\nas this signifieth Ordinary, Quotidian, or (as in the Lords Prayer) Of\nDaily Use; so the other signifieth that which is Overplus, and Stored\nUp, and Enjoyed In A Speciall Manner; which the Latines call Peculium;\nand this meaning of the place is confirmed by the reason God rendereth\nof it, which followeth immediately, in that he addeth, \"For all the\nEarth is mine,\" as if he should say, \"All the Nations of the world are\nmine;\" but it is not so that you are mine, but in a Speciall Manner: For\nthey are all mine, by reason of my Power; but you shall be mine, by your\nown Consent, and Covenant; which is an addition to his ordinary title,\nto all nations.\n\nThe same is again confirmed in expresse words in the same Text, \"Yee\nshall be to me a Sacerdotall Kingdome, and an holy Nation.\" The Vulgar\nLatine hath it, Regnum Sacerdotale, to which agreeth the Translation of\nthat place (1 Pet. 2.9.) Sacerdotium Regale, A Regal Priesthood; as also\nthe Institution it self, by which no man might enter into the Sanctum\nSanctorum, that is to say, no man might enquire Gods will immediately of\nGod himselfe, but onely the High Priest. The English Translation before\nmentioned, following that of Geneva, has, \"a Kingdome of Priests;\" which\nis either meant of the succession of one High Priest after another, or\nelse it accordeth not with St. Peter, nor with the exercise of the High\nPriesthood; For there was never any but the High Priest onely, that was\nto informe the People of Gods Will; nor any Convocation of Priests ever\nallowed to enter into the Sanctum Sanctorum.\n\nAgain, the title of a Holy Nation confirmes the same: For Holy\nsignifies, that which is Gods by speciall, not by generall Right. All\nthe Earth (as is said in the text) is Gods; but all the Earth is\nnot called Holy, but that onely which is set apart for his especiall\nservice, as was the Nation of the Jews. It is therefore manifest enough\nby this one place, that by the Kingdome of God, is properly meant a\nCommon-wealth, instituted (by the consent of those which were to be\nsubject thereto) for their Civill Government, and the regulating of\ntheir behaviour, not onely towards God their King, but also towards one\nanother in point of justice, and towards other Nations both in peace and\nwarre; which properly was a Kingdome, wherein God was King, and the\nHigh priest was to be (after the death of Moses) his sole Viceroy, or\nLieutenant.\n\nBut there be many other places that clearly prove the same. As first (1\nSam. 8.7.) when the Elders of Israel (grieved with the corruption of\nthe Sons of Samuel) demanded a King, Samuel displeased therewith, prayed\nunto the Lord; and the Lord answering said unto him, \"Hearken unto the\nvoice of the People, for they have not rejected thee, but they have\nrejected me, that I should not reign over them.\" Out of which it is\nevident, that God himself was then their King; and Samuel did not\ncommand the people, but only delivered to them that which God from time\nto time appointed him.\n\nAgain, (1 Sam. 12.12.) where Samuel saith to the People, \"When yee saw\nthat Nahash King of the Children of Ammon came against you, ye said unto\nme, Nay, but a King shall reign over us, when the Lord your God was your\nKing:\" It is manifest that God was their King, and governed the Civill\nState of their Common-wealth.\n\nAnd after the Israelites had rejected God, the Prophets did foretell his\nrestitution; as (Isaiah 24.23.) \"Then the Moon shall be confounded, and\nthe Sun ashamed when the Lord of Hosts shall reign in Mount Zion, and\nin Jerusalem;\" where he speaketh expressely of his Reign in Zion, and\nJerusalem; that is, on Earth. And (Micah 4.7.) \"And the Lord shall\nreign over them in Mount Zion:\" This Mount Zion is in Jerusalem upon the\nEarth. And (Ezek. 20.33.) \"As I live, saith the Lord God, surely with a\nmighty hand, and a stretched out arme, and with fury powred out, I wil\nrule over you; and (verse 37.) I will cause you to passe under the rod,\nand I will bring you into the bond of the Covenant;\" that is, I will\nreign over you, and make you to stand to that Covenant which you made\nwith me by Moses, and brake in your rebellion against me in the days of\nSamuel, and in your election of another King.\n\nAnd in the New testament, the Angel Gabriel saith of our Saviour (Luke\n1.32,33) \"He shall be great, and be called the Son of the Most High,\nand the Lord shall give him the throne of his Father David; and he shall\nreign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his Kingdome there shall\nbe no end.\" This is also a Kingdome upon Earth; for the claim whereof,\nas an enemy to Caesar, he was put to death; the title of his crosse,\nwas, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews; hee was crowned in scorn with\na crown of Thornes; and for the proclaiming of him, it is said of\nthe Disciples (Acts 17.7.) \"That they did all of them contrary to\nthe decrees of Caesar, saying there was another King, one Jesus. The\nKingdome therefore of God, is a reall, not a metaphoricall Kingdome; and\nso taken, not onely in the Old Testament, but the New; when we say, \"For\nthine is the Kingdome, the Power, and Glory,\" it is to be understood of\nGods Kingdome, by force of our Covenant, not by the Right of Gods Power;\nfor such a Kingdome God alwaies hath; so that it were superfluous to\nsay in our prayer, \"Thy Kingdome come,\" unlesse it be meant of the\nRestauration of that Kingdome of God by Christ, which by revolt of the\nIsraelites had been interrupted in the election of Saul. Nor had it been\nproper to say, \"The Kingdome of Heaven is at hand,\" or to pray, \"Thy\nKingdome come,\" if it had still continued.\n\nThere be so many other places that confirm this interpretation, that it\nwere a wonder there is no greater notice taken of it, but that it gives\ntoo much light to Christian Kings to see their right of Ecclesiastical\nGovernment. This they have observed, that in stead of a Sacerdotall\nKingdome, translate, a Kingdome of Priests: for they may as well\ntranslate a Royall Priesthood, (as it is in St. Peter) into a Priesthood\nof Kings. And whereas, for a Peculiar People, they put a Pretious Jewel,\nor Treasure, a man might as well call the speciall Regiment, or Company\nof a Generall, the Generalls pretious Jewel, or his Treasure.\n\nIn short, the Kingdome of God is a Civill Kingdome; which consisted,\nfirst in the obligation of the people of Israel to those Laws, which\nMoses should bring unto them from Mount Sinai; and which afterwards the\nHigh Priest of the time being, should deliver to them from before the\nCherubins in the Sanctum Sanctorum; and which kingdome having been cast\noff, in the election of Saul, the Prophets foretold, should be restored\nby Christ; and the Restauration whereof we daily pray for, when we\nsay in the Lords Prayer, \"Thy Kingdome come;\" and the Right whereof we\nacknowledge, when we adde, \"For thine is the Kingdome, the Power, and\nGlory, for ever and ever, Amen;\" and the Proclaiming whereof, was\nthe Preaching of the Apostles; and to which men are prepared, by the\nTeachers of the Gospel; to embrace which Gospel, (that is to say, to\npromise obedience to Gods government) is, to bee in the Kingdome of\nGrace, because God hath gratis given to such the power to bee the\nsubjects (that is, Children) of God hereafter, when Christ shall come\nin Majesty to judge the world, and actually to govern his owne people,\nwhich is called the Kingdome of Glory. If the Kingdome of God (called\nalso the Kingdome of Heaven, from the gloriousnesse, and admirable\nheight of that throne) were not a Kingdome which God by his Lieutenant,\nor Vicars, who deliver his Commandements to the people, did exercise on\nEarth; there would not have been so much contention, and warre, about\nwho it is, by whom God speaketh to us; neither would many Priests have\ntroubled themselves with Spirituall Jurisdiction, nor any King have\ndenied it them.\n\nOut of this literall interpretation of the Kingdome of God, ariseth also\nthe true interpretation of the word HOLY. For it is a word, which in\nGods Kingdome answereth to that, which men in their Kingdomes use to\ncall Publique, or the Kings.\n\nThe King of any Countrey is the Publique Person, or Representative of\nall his own Subjects. And God the King of Israel was the Holy One of\nIsrael. The Nation which is subject to one earthly Soveraign, is the\nNation of that Soveraign, that is, of the Publique Person. So the Jews,\nwho were Gods Nation, were called (Exod. 19.6.) \"a Holy Nation.\" For by\nHoly, is alwaies understood, either God himselfe, or that which is Gods\nin propriety; as by Publique is alwaies meant, either the Person of the\nCommon-wealth it self, or something that is so the Common-wealths, as no\nprivate person can claim any propriety therein.\n\nTherefore the Sabbath (Gods day) is a Holy Day; the Temple, (Gods house)\na Holy House; Sacrifices, Tithes, and Offerings (Gods tribute) Holy\nDuties; Priests, Prophets, and anointed Kings, under Christ (Gods\nministers) Holy Men; The Coelestiall ministring Spirits (Gods\nMessengers) Holy Angels; and the like: and wheresoever the word Holy is\ntaken properly, there is still something signified of Propriety, gotten\nby consent. In saying \"Hallowed be thy name,\" we do but pray to God for\ngrace to keep the first Commandement, of \"having no other Gods but\nHim.\" Mankind is Gods Nation in propriety: but the Jews only were a Holy\nNation. Why, but because they became his Propriety by covenant.\n\n\n\n\nSacred What\n\nAnd the word Profane, is usually taken in the Scripture for the same\nwith Common; and consequently their contraries, Holy, and Proper, in the\nKingdome of God must be the same also. But figuratively, those men also\nare called Holy, that led such godly lives, as if they had forsaken all\nworldly designes, and wholly devoted, and given themselves to God.\nIn the proper sense, that which is made Holy by Gods appropriating or\nseparating it to his own use, is said to be Sanctified by God, as the\nSeventh day in the fourth Commandement; and as the Elect in the New\nTestament were said to bee Sanctified, when they were endued with the\nSpirit of godlinesse. And that which is made Holy by the dedication of\nmen, and given to God, so as to be used onely in his publique service,\nis called also SACRED, and said to be consecrated, as Temples, and other\nHouses of Publique Prayer, and their Utensils, Priests, and Ministers,\nVictimes, Offerings, and the externall matter of Sacraments.\n\n\n\n\nDegrees of Sanctity\n\nOf Holinesse there be degrees: for of those things that are set apart\nfor the service of God, there may bee some set apart again, for a neerer\nand more especial service. The whole Nation of the Israelites were a\npeople Holy to God; yet the tribe of Levi was amongst the Israelites a\nHoly tribe; and amongst the Levites, the Priests were yet more Holy; and\namongst the Priests, the High Priest was the most Holy. So the Land\nof Judea was the Holy Land; but the Holy City wherein God was to be\nworshipped, was more Holy; and again, the Temples more Holy than the\nCity; and the Sanctum Sanctorum more Holy than the rest of the Temple.\n\n\n\n\nSacrament\n\nA SACRAMENT, is a separation of some visible thing from common use;\nand a consecration of it to Gods service, for a sign, either of our\nadmission into the Kingdome of God, to be of the number of his peculiar\npeople, or for a Commemoration of the same. In the Old Testament, the\nsign of Admission was Circumcision; in the New Testament, Baptisme. The\nCommemoration of it in the Old Testament, was the Eating (at a certain\ntime, which was Anniversary) of the Paschall Lamb; by which they were\nput in mind of the night wherein they were delivered out of their\nbondage in Egypt; and in the New Testament, the celebrating of the\nLords Supper; by which, we are put in mind, of our deliverance from\nthe bondage of sin, by our Blessed Saviours death upon the crosse. The\nSacraments of Admission, are but once to be used, because there needs\nbut one Admission; but because we have need of being often put in\nmind of our deliverance, and of our Allegeance, The Sacraments of\nCommemoration have need to be reiterated. And these are the principall\nSacraments, and as it were the solemne oathes we make of our\nAlleageance. There be also other Consecrations, that may be called\nSacraments, as the word implyeth onely Consecration to Gods service; but\nas it implies an oath, or promise of Alleageance to God, there were no\nother in the Old Testament, but Circumcision, and the Passover; nor\nare there any other in the New Testament, but Baptisme, and the Lords\nSupper.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVI. OF THE WORD OF GOD, AND OF PROPHETS\n\n\n\n\nWord What\n\nWhen there is mention of the Word of God, or of Man, it doth not\nsignifie a part of Speech, such as Grammarians call a Nown, or a Verb,\nor any simple voice, without a contexture with other words to make it\nsignificative; but a perfect Speech or Discourse, whereby the speaker\nAffirmeth, Denieth, Commandeth, Promiseth, Threateneth, Wisheth, or\nInterrogateth. In which sense it is not Vocabulum, that signifies a\nWord; but Sermo, (in Greek Logos) that is some Speech, Discourse, or\nSaying.\n\n\n\n\nThe Words Spoken By God And Concerning God, Both Are Called Gods Word\n\nIn Scripture\n\nAgain, if we say the Word of God, or of Man, it may bee understood\nsometimes of the Speaker, (as the words that God hath spoken, or that\na Man hath spoken): In which sense, when we say, the Gospel of St.\nMatthew, we understand St. Matthew to be the Writer of it: and sometimes\nof the Subject: In which sense, when we read in the Bible, \"The words\nof the days of the Kings of Israel, or Judah,\" 'tis meant, that the acts\nthat were done in those days, were the Subject of those Words; And in\nthe Greek, which (in the Scripture) retaineth many Hebraismes, by the\nWord of God is oftentimes meant, not that which is spoken by God, but\nconcerning God, and his government; that is to say, the Doctrine of\nReligion: Insomuch, as it is all one, to say Logos Theou, and Theologia;\nwhich is, that Doctrine which wee usually call Divinity, as is manifest\nby the places following (Acts 13.46.) \"Then Paul and Barnabas waxed\nbold, and said, It was necessary that the Word of God should first\nhave been spoken to you, but seeing you put it from you, and judge your\nselves unworthy of everlasting life, loe, we turn to the Gentiles.\"\nThat which is here called the Word of god, was the Doctrine of Christian\nReligion; as it appears evidently by that which goes before. And (Acts\n5.20.) where it is said to the Apostles by an Angel, \"Go stand and speak\nin the Temple, all the Words of this life;\" by the Words of this life,\nis meant, the Doctrine of the Gospel; as is evident by what they did in\nthe Temple, and is expressed in the last verse of the same Chap. \"Daily\nin the Temple, and in every house they ceased not to teach and preach\nChrist Jesus:\" In which place it is manifest, that Jesus Christ was the\nsubject of this Word of Life; or (which is all one) the subject of the\nWords of this Life Eternall, that our saviour offered them. So (Acts\n15.7.) the Word of God, is called the Word of the Gospel, because it\ncontaineth the Doctrine of the Kingdome of Christ; and the same Word\n(Rom. 10.8,9.) is called the Word of Faith; that is, as is there\nexpressed, the Doctrine of Christ come, and raised from the dead. Also\n(Mat. 13. 19.) \"When any one heareth the Word of the Kingdome;\" that is,\nthe Doctrine of the Kingdome taught by Christ. Again, the same Word, is\nsaid (Acts 12. 24.) \"to grow and to be multiplied;\" which to understand\nof the Evangelicall Doctrine is easie, but of the Voice, or Speech\nof God, hard and strange. In the same sense the Doctrine of Devils,\nsignifieth not the Words of any Devill, but the Doctrine of Heathen men\nconcerning Daemons, and those Phantasms which they worshipped as Gods.\n(1 Tim. 4.1.)\n\nConsidering these two significations of the WORD OF GOD, as it is taken\nin Scripture, it is manifest in this later sense (where it is taken for\nthe Doctrine of the Christian Religion,) that the whole scripture is the\nWord of God: but in the former sense not so. For example, though these\nwords, \"I am the Lord thy God, &c.\" to the end of the Ten Commandements,\nwere spoken by God to Moses; yet the Preface, \"God spake these words\nand said,\" is to be understood for the Words of him that wrote the holy\nHistory. The Word of God, as it is taken for that which he hath spoken,\nis understood sometimes Properly, sometimes Metaphorically. Properly,\nas the words, he hath spoken to his Prophets; Metaphorically, for his\nWisdome, Power, and eternall Decree, in making the world; in which\nsense, those Fiats, \"Let there be light,\" \"Let there be a firmament,\"\n\"Let us make man,\" &c. (Gen. 1.) are the Word of God. And in the same\nsense it is said (John 1.3.) \"All things were made by it, and without it\nwas nothing made that was made; And (Heb. 1.3.) \"He upholdeth all things\nby the word of his Power;\" that is, by the Power of his Word; that is,\nby his Power; and (Heb. 11.3.) \"The worlds were framed by the Word\nof God;\" and many other places to the same sense: As also amongst the\nLatines, the name of Fate, which signifieth properly The Word Spoken, is\ntaken in the same sense.\n\n\n\n\nSecondly, For The Effect Of His Word\n\nSecondly, for the effect of his Word; that is to say, for the thing it\nself, which by his Word is Affirmed, Commanded, Threatned, or Promised;\nas (Psalm 105.19.) where Joseph is said to have been kept in prison,\n\"till his Word was come;\" that is, till that was come to passe which\nhe had (Gen. 40.13.) foretold to Pharaohs Butler, concerning his being\nrestored to his office: for there by His Word Was Come, is meant, the\nthing it self was come to passe. So also (1 King. 18.36.) Elijah saith\nto God, \"I have done all these thy Words,\" in stead of \"I have done all\nthese things at thy Word,\" or commandement: and (Jer. 17.15.) \"Where is\nthe Word of the Lord,\" is put for, \"Where is the Evill he threatened:\"\nAnd (Ezek. 12.28.) \"There shall none of my Words be prolonged any\nmore:\" by \"Words\" are understood those Things, which God promised to his\npeople. And in the New Testament (Mat. 24.35.) \"heaven and earth shal\npass away, but my Words shall not pass away;\" that is, there is nothing\nthat I have promised or foretold, that shall not come to passe. And in\nthis sense it is, that St. John the Evangelist, and, I think, St. John\nonely calleth our Saviour himself as in the flesh \"the Word of God\n(as Joh. 1.14.) the Word was made Flesh;\" that is to say, the Word, or\nPromise that Christ should come into the world, \"who in the beginning\nwas with God;\" that is to say, it was in the purpose of God the Father,\nto send God the Son into the world, to enlighten men in the way of\nEternall life, but it was not till then put in execution, and actually\nincarnate; So that our Saviour is there called \"the Word,\" not because\nhe was the promise, but the thing promised. They that taking occasion\nfrom this place, doe commonly call him the Verbe of God, do but render\nthe text more obscure. They might as well term him the Nown of God:\nfor as by Nown, so also by Verbe, men understand nothing but a part\nof speech, a voice, a sound, that neither affirms, nor denies, nor\ncommands, nor promiseth, nor is any substance corporeall, or spirituall;\nand therefore it cannot be said to bee either God, or Man; whereas our\nSaviour is both. And this Word which St. John in his Gospel saith was\nwith God, is (in his 1 Epistle, verse 1.) called \"the Word of Life;\" and\n(verse 2.) \"The eternall life, which was with the Father:\" so that he\ncan be in no other sense called the Word, then in that, wherein he is\ncalled Eternall life; that is, \"he that hath procured us Eternall life,\"\nby his comming in the flesh. So also (Apocalypse 19.13.) the Apostle\nspeaking of Christ, clothed in a garment dipt in bloud, saith; his name\nis \"the Word of God;\" which is to be understood, as if he had said his\nname had been, \"He that was come according to the purpose of God from\nthe beginning, and according to his Word and promises delivered by the\nProphets.\" So that there is nothing here of the Incarnation of a Word,\nbut of the Incarnation of God the Son, therefore called the Word,\nbecause his Incarnation was the Performance of the Promise; In like\nmanner as the Holy Ghost is called The Promise. (Acts 1.4. Luke 24.49.)\n\n\n\n\nThirdly, For The Words Of Reason And Equity\n\nThere are also places of the Scripture, where, by the Word of God, is\nsignified such Words as are consonant to reason, and equity, though\nspoken sometimes neither by prophet, nor by a holy man. For Pharaoh\nNecho was an Idolator; yet his Words to the good King Josiah, in which\nhe advised him by Messengers, not to oppose him in his march against\nCarchemish, are said to have proceeded from the mouth of God; and that\nJosiah not hearkning to them, was slain in the battle; as is to be read\n2 Chron. 35. vers. 21,22,23. It is true, that as the same History is\nrelated in the first book of Esdras, not Pharaoh, but Jeremiah spake\nthese words to Josiah, from the mouth of the Lord. But wee are to\ngive credit to the Canonicall Scripture, whatsoever be written in the\nApocrypha.\n\nThe Word of God, is then also to be taken for the Dictates of reason,\nand equity, when the same is said in the Scriptures to bee written in\nmans heart; as Psalm 36.31. Jerem. 31.33. Deut.30.11, 14. and many other\nlike places.\n\n\n\n\nDivers Acceptions Of The Word Prophet\n\nThe name of PROPHET, signifieth in Scripture sometimes Prolocutor; that\nis, he that speaketh from God to Man, or from man to God: And sometimes\nPraedictor, or a foreteller of things to come; And sometimes one that\nspeaketh incoherently, as men that are distracted. It is most frequently\nused in the sense of speaking from God to the People. So Moses, Samuel,\nElijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others were Prophets. And in this sense\nthe High Priest was a Prophet, for he only went into the Sanctum\nSanctorum, to enquire of God; and was to declare his answer to the\npeople. And therefore when Caiphas said, it was expedient that one man\nshould die for the people, St. John saith (chap. 11.51.) that \"He spake\nnot this of himselfe, but being High Priest that year, he prophesied\nthat one man should dye for the nation.\" Also they that in Christian\nCongregations taught the people, (1 Cor. 14.3.) are said to Prophecy. In\nthe like sense it is, that God saith to Moses (Exod. 4.16.) concerning\nAaron, \"He shall be thy Spokes-man to the People; and he shall be to\nthee a mouth, and thou shalt be to him in stead of God;\" that which here\nis Spokesman, is (chap.7.1.) interpreted Prophet; \"See (saith God)\nI have made thee a God to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy Brother shall be thy\nProphet.\" In the sense of speaking from man to God, Abraham is called\na Prophet (Genes. 20.7.) where God in a Dream speaketh to Abimelech\nin this manner, \"Now therefore restore the man his wife, for he is a\nProphet, and shall pray for thee;\" whereby may be also gathered,\nthat the name of Prophet may be given, not unproperly to them that\nin Christian Churches, have a Calling to say publique prayers for the\nCongregation. In the same sense, the Prophets that came down from the\nHigh place (or Hill of God) with a Psaltery, and a Tabret, and a Pipe,\nand a Harp (1 Sam. 10.5,6.) and (vers. 10.) Saul amongst them, are said\nto Prophecy, in that they praised God, in that manner publiquely. In the\nlike sense, is Miriam (Exod. 15.20.) called a Prophetesse. So is it\nalso to be taken (1 Cor. 11.4,5.) where St. Paul saith, \"Every man that\nprayeth or prophecyeth with his head covered, &c. and every woman that\nprayeth or prophecyeth with her head uncovered: For Prophecy in that\nplace, signifieth no more, but praising God in Psalmes, and Holy Songs;\nwhich women might doe in the Church, though it were not lawfull for them\nto speak to the Congregation. And in this signification it is, that the\nPoets of the Heathen, that composed Hymnes and other sorts of Poems in\nthe honor of their Gods, were called Vates (Prophets) as is well enough\nknown by all that are versed in the Books of the Gentiles, and as\nis evident (Tit. 1.12.) where St. Paul saith of the Cretians, that a\nProphet of their owne said, they were Liars; not that St. Paul held\ntheir Poets for Prophets, but acknowledgeth that the word Prophet was\ncommonly used to signifie them that celebrated the honour of God in\nVerse\n\n\n\n\nPraediction Of Future Contingents, Not Alwaies Prophecy\n\nWhen by Prophecy is meant Praediction, or foretelling of future\nContingents; not only they were Prophets, who were Gods Spokesmen, and\nforetold those things to others, which God had foretold to them; but\nalso all those Imposters, that pretend by the helpe of familiar spirits,\nor by superstitious divination of events past, from false causes, to\nforetell the like events in time to come: of which (as I have declared\nalready in the 12. chapter of this Discourse) there be many kinds, who\ngain in the opinion of the common sort of men, a greater reputation\nof Prophecy, by one casuall event that may bee but wrested to their\npurpose, than can be lost again by never so many failings. Prophecy is\nnot an art, nor (when it is taken for Praediction) a constant Vocation;\nbut an extraordinary, and temporary Employment from God, most often of\nGood men, but sometimes also of the Wicked. The woman of Endor, who\nis said to have had a familiar spirit, and thereby to have raised a\nPhantasme of Samuel, and foretold Saul his death, was not therefore a\nProphetesse; for neither had she any science, whereby she could raise\nsuch a Phantasme; nor does it appear that God commanded the raising of\nit; but onely guided that Imposture to be a means of Sauls terror and\ndiscouragement; and by consequent, of the discomfiture, by which he\nfell. And for Incoherent Speech, it was amongst the Gentiles taken for\none sort of Prophecy, because the Prophets of their Oracles, intoxicated\nwith a spirit, or vapour from the cave of the Pythian Oracle at Delphi,\nwere for the time really mad, and spake like mad-men; of whose loose\nwords a sense might be made to fit any event, in such sort, as all\nbodies are said to be made of Materia prima. In the Scripture I find\nit also so taken (1 Sam. 18. 10.) in these words, \"And the Evill spirit\ncame upon Saul, and he Prophecyed in the midst of the house.\"\n\n\n\n\nThe Manner How God Hath Spoken To The Prophets\n\nAnd although there be so many significations in Scripture of the word\nProphet; yet is that the most frequent, in which it is taken for him,\nto whom God speaketh immediately, that which the Prophet is to say from\nhim, to some other man, or to the people. And hereupon a question may\nbe asked, in what manner God speaketh to such a Prophet. Can it (may some\nsay) be properly said, that God hath voice and language, when it cannot\nbe properly said, he hath a tongue, or other organs, as a man? The\nProphet David argueth thus, \"Shall he that made the eye, not see? or he\nthat made the ear, not hear?\" But this may be spoken, not (as usually) to\nsignifie Gods nature, but to signifie our intention to honor him. For\nto See, and Hear, are Honorable Attributes, and may be given to God, to\ndeclare (as far as our capacity can conceive) his Almighty power. But\nif it were to be taken in the strict, and proper sense, one might argue\nfrom his making of all parts of mans body, that he had also the same use\nof them which we have; which would be many of them so uncomely, as it\nwould be the greatest contumely in the world to ascribe them to him.\nTherefore we are to interpret Gods speaking to men immediately, for that\nway (whatsoever it be), by which God makes them understand his will: And\nthe wayes whereby he doth this, are many; and to be sought onely in the\nHoly Scripture: where though many times it be said, that God spake to\nthis, and that person, without declaring in what manner; yet there be\nagain many places, that deliver also the signes by which they were\nto acknowledge his presence, and commandement; and by these may be\nunderstood, how he spake to many of the rest.\n\n\n\n\nTo The Extraordinary Prophets Of The Old Testament He Spake\n\nBy Dreams, Or Visions\n\nIn what manner God spake to Adam, and Eve, and Cain, and Noah, is not\nexpressed; nor how he spake to Abraham, till such time as he came out of\nhis own countrey to Sichem in the land of Canaan; and then (Gen. 12.7.)\nGod is said to have Appeared to him. So there is one way, whereby God\nmade his presence manifest; that is, by an Apparition, or Vision. And\nagain, (Gen. 15.1.) The Word of the Lord came to Abraham in a Vision;\nthat is to say, somewhat, as a sign of Gods presence, appeared as Gods\nMessenger, to speak to him. Again, the Lord appeared to Abraham (Gen.\n18. 1.) by an apparition of three Angels; and to Abimelech (Gen. 20. 3.)\nin a dream: To Lot (Gen. 19. 1.) by an apparition of Two Angels: And\nto Hagar (Gen. 21. 17.) by the apparition of one Angel: And to Abraham\nagain (Gen. 22. 11.) by the apparition of a voice from heaven: And (Gen.\n26. 24.) to Isaac in the night; (that is, in his sleep, or by dream):\nAnd to Jacob (Gen. 18. 12.) in a dream; that is to say (as are the words\nof the text) \"Jacob dreamed that he saw a ladder, &c.\" And (Gen. 32. 1.)\nin a Vision of Angels: And to Moses (Exod. 3.2.) in the apparition of a\nflame of fire out of the midst of a bush: And after the time of Moses,\n(where the manner how God spake immediately to man in the Old Testament,\nis expressed) hee spake alwaies by a Vision, or by a Dream; as to\nGideon, Samuel, Eliah, Elisha, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the rest of the\nProphets; and often in the New Testament, as to Joseph, to St. Peter, to\nSt. Paul, and to St. John the Evangelist in the Apocalypse.\n\nOnely to Moses hee spake in a more extraordinary manner in Mount Sinai,\nand in the Tabernacle; and to the High Priest in the Tabernacle, and in\nthe Sanctum Sanctorum of the Temple. But Moses, and after him the\nHigh Priests were Prophets of a more eminent place, and degree in\nGods favour; And God himself in express words declareth, that to other\nProphets hee spake in Dreams and Visions, but to his servant Moses, in\nsuch manner as a man speaketh to his friend. The words are these (Numb.\n12. 6,7,8.) \"If there be a Prophet among you, I the Lord will make my\nself known to him in a Vision, and will speak unto him in a Dream. My\nservant Moses is not so, who is faithfull in all my house; with him I\nwill speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, not in dark speeches; and\nthe similitude of the Lord shall he behold.\" And (Exod. 33. 11.) \"The\nLord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend.\"\nAnd yet this speaking of God to Moses, was by mediation of an Angel, or\nAngels, as appears expressely, Acts 7. ver. 35. and 53. and Gal. 3. 19.\nand was therefore a Vision, though a more cleer Vision than was given to\nother Prophets. And conformable hereunto, where God saith (Deut. 13. 1.)\n\"If there arise amongst you a Prophet, or Dreamer of Dreams,\" the later\nword is but the interpretation of the former. And (Joel 2. 28.) \"Your\nsons and your daughters shall Prophecy; your old men shall dream Dreams,\nand your young men shall see Visions:\" where again, the word Prophecy is\nexpounded by Dream, and Vision. And in the same manner it was, that God\nspake to Solomon, promising him Wisdome, Riches, and Honor; for the text\nsaith, (1 Kings 3. 15.) \"And Solomon awoak, and behold it was a Dream:\"\nSo that generally the Prophets extraordinary in the old Testament took\nnotice of the Word of God no otherwise, than from their Dreams, or\nVisions, that is to say, from the imaginations which they had in their\nsleep, or in an Extasie; which imaginations in every true Prophet were\nsupernaturall; but in false Prophets were either naturall, or feigned.\n\nThe same Prophets were neverthelesse said to speak by the Spirit; as\n(Zach. 7. 12.) where the Prophet speaking of the Jewes, saith, \"They\nmade their hearths hard as Adamant, lest they should hear the law, and\nthe words which the Lord of Hosts hath sent in his Spirit by the former\nProphets.\" By which it is manifest, that speaking by the Spirit, or\nInspiration, was not a particular manner of Gods speaking, different\nfrom Vision, when they that were said to speak by the Spirit, were\nextraordinary Prophets, such as for every new message, were to have a\nparticular Commission, or (which is all one) a new Dream, or Vision.\n\nTo Prophets Of Perpetuall Calling, And Supreme, God Spake In The\nOld Testament From The Mercy Seat, In A Manner Not Expressed In The\nScripture. Of Prophets, that were so by a perpetuall Calling in the Old\nTestament, some were Supreme, and some Subordinate: Supreme were first\nMoses; and after him the High Priest, every one for his time, as long\nas the Priesthood was Royall; and after the people of the Jews, had\nrejected God, that he should no more reign over them, those Kings which\nsubmitted themselves to Gods government, were also his chief Prophets;\nand the High Priests office became Ministeriall. And when God was to be\nconsulted, they put on the holy vestments, and enquired of the Lord,\nas the King commanded them, and were deprived of their office, when\nthe King thought fit. For King Saul (1 Sam. 13. 9.) commanded the burnt\noffering to be brought, and (1 Sam. 14. 18.) he commands the Priest to\nbring the Ark neer him; and (ver. 19.) again to let it alone, because he\nsaw an advantage upon his enemies. And in the same chapter Saul asketh\ncounsell of God. In like manner King David, after his being anointed,\nthough before he had possession of the Kingdome, is said to \"enquire\nof the Lord\" (1 Sam. 23. 2.) whether he should fight against the\nPhilistines at Keilah; and (verse 10.) David commandeth the Priest to\nbring him the Ephod, to enquire whether he should stay in Keilah,\nor not. And King Solomon (1 Kings 2. 27.) took the Priesthood from\nAbiathar, and gave it (verse 35.) to Zadoc. Therefore Moses, and\nthe High Priests, and the pious Kings, who enquired of God on all\nextraordinary occasions, how they were to carry themselves, or what\nevent they were to have, were all Soveraign Prophets. But in what manner\nGod spake unto them, is not manifest. To say that when Moses went up to\nGod in Mount Sinai, it was a Dream, or Vision, such as other Prophets\nhad, is contrary to that distinction which God made between Moses, and\nother Prophets, Numb. 12. 6,7,8. To say God spake or appeared as he\nis in his own nature, is to deny his Infinitenesse, Invisibility,\nIncomprehensibility. To say he spake by Inspiration, or Infusion of the\nHoly Spirit, as the Holy Spirit signifieth the Deity, is to make Moses\nequall with Christ, in whom onely the Godhead (as St. Paul speaketh Col.\n2.9.) dwelleth bodily. And lastly, to say he spake by the Holy Spirit,\nas it signifieth the graces, or gifts of the Holy Spirit, is to\nattribute nothing to him supernaturall. For God disposeth men to Piety,\nJustice, Mercy, Truth, Faith, and all manner of Vertue, both Morall,\nand Intellectuall, by doctrine, example, and by severall occasions,\nnaturall, and ordinary.\n\nAnd as these ways cannot be applyed to God, in his speaking to Moses, at\nMount Sinai; so also, they cannot be applyed to him, in his speaking\nto the High Priests, from the Mercy-Seat. Therefore in what manner God\nspake to those Soveraign Prophets of the Old Testament, whose office\nit was to enquire of him, is not intelligible. In the time of the New\nTestament, there was no Soveraign Prophet, but our Saviour; who was both\nGod that spake, and the Prophet to whom he spake.\n\nTo Prophets Of Perpetuall Calling, But Subordinate, God Spake By The\nSpirit. To subordinate Prophets of perpetuall Calling, I find not any\nplace that proveth God spake to them supernaturally; but onely in\nsuch manner, as naturally he inclineth men to Piety, to Beleef, to\nRighteousnesse, and to other vertues all other Christian Men. Which\nway, though it consist in Constitution, Instruction, Education, and the\noccasions and invitements men have to Christian vertues; yet it is truly\nattributed to the operation of the Spirit of God, or Holy Spirit\n(which we in our language call the Holy Ghost): For there is no good\ninclination, that is not of the operation of God. But these operations\nare not alwaies supernaturall. When therefore a Prophet is said to speak\nin the Spirit, or by the Spirit of God, we are to understand no more,\nbut that he speaks according to Gods will, declared by the supreme\nProphet. For the most common acceptation of the word Spirit, is in the\nsignification of a mans intention, mind, or disposition.\n\nIn the time of Moses, there were seventy men besides himself, that\nProphecyed in the Campe of the Israelites. In what manner God spake to\nthem, is declared in the 11 of Numbers, verse 25. \"The Lord came down in\na cloud, and spake unto Moses, and took of the Spirit that was upon him,\nand gave it to the seventy Elders. And it came to passe, when the Spirit\nrested upon them, they Prophecyed, and did not cease,\" By which it is\nmanifest, first, that their Prophecying to the people, was subservient,\nand subordinate to the Prophecying of Moses; for that God took of the\nSpirit of Moses, to put upon them; so that they Prophecyed as Moses\nwould have them: otherwise they had not been suffered to Prophecy at\nall. For there was (verse 27.) a complaint made against them to Moses;\nand Joshua would have Moses to have forbidden them; which he did not,\nbut said to Joshua, Bee not jealous in my behalf. Secondly, that\nthe Spirit of God in that place, signifieth nothing but the Mind and\nDisposition to obey, and assist Moses in the administration of the\nGovernment. For if it were meant they had the substantial Spirit of God;\nthat is, the Divine nature, inspired into them, then they had it in no\nlesse manner than Christ himself, in whom onely the Spirit of God dwelt\nbodily. It is meant therefore of the Gift and Grace of God, that guided\nthem to co-operate with Moses; from whom their Spirit was derived. And\nit appeareth (verse 16.) that, they were such as Moses himself should\nappoint for Elders and Officers of the People: For the words are,\n\"Gather unto me seventy men, whom thou knowest to be Elders and\nOfficers of the people:\" where, \"thou knowest,\" is the same with \"thou\nappointest,\" or \"hast appointed to be such.\" For we are told\nbefore (Exod. 18.) that Moses following the counsell of Jethro his\nFather-in-law, did appoint Judges, and Officers over the people, such as\nfeared God; and of these, were those Seventy, whom God by putting upon\nthem Moses spirit, inclined to aid Moses in the Administration of the\nKingdome: and in this sense the Spirit of God is said (1 Sam. 16. 13,\n14.) presently upon the anointing of David, to have come upon David, and\nleft Saul; God giving his graces to him he chose to govern his people,\nand taking them away from him, he rejected. So that by the Spirit is\nmeant Inclination to Gods service; and not any supernaturall Revelation.\n\n\n\n\nGod Sometimes Also Spake By Lots\n\nGod spake also many times by the event of Lots; which were ordered by\nsuch as he had put in Authority over his people. So wee read that God\nmanifested by the Lots which Saul caused to be drawn (1 Sam. 14. 43.)\nthe fault that Jonathan had committed, in eating a honey-comb, contrary\nto the oath taken by the people. And (Josh. 18. 10.) God divided the\nland of Canaan amongst the Israelite, by the \"lots that Joshua did cast\nbefore the Lord in Shiloh.\" In the same manner it seemeth to be, that\nGod discovered (Joshua 7.16., &c.) the crime of Achan. And these are the\nwayes whereby God declared his Will in the Old Testament.\n\nAll which ways he used also in the New Testament. To the Virgin Mary, by\na Vision of an Angel: To Joseph in a Dream: again to Paul in the way\nto Damascus in a Vision of our Saviour: and to Peter in the Vision of\na sheet let down from heaven, with divers sorts of flesh, of clean and\nunclean, beasts; and in prison, by Vision of an Angel: And to all the\nApostles, and Writers of the New Testament, by the graces of his Spirit;\nand to the Apostles again (at the choosing of Matthias in the place of\nJudas Iscariot) by lot.\n\n\n\n\nEvery Man Ought To Examine The Probability Of A Pretended Prophets\n\nCalling\n\nSeeing then all Prophecy supposeth Vision, or Dream, (which two, when\nthey be naturall, are the same,) or some especiall gift of God, so\nrarely observed in mankind, as to be admired where observed; and seeing\nas well such gifts, as the most extraordinary Dreams, and Visions, may\nproceed from God, not onely by his supernaturall, and immediate, but\nalso by his naturall operation, and by mediation of second causes;\nthere is need of Reason and Judgement to discern between naturall, and\nsupernaturall Gifts, and between naturall, and supernaturall Visions, or\nDreams. And consequently men had need to be very circumspect, and wary,\nin obeying the voice of man, that pretending himself to be a Prophet,\nrequires us to obey God in that way, which he in Gods name telleth us to\nbe the way to happinesse. For he that pretends to teach men the way of\nso great felicity, pretends to govern them; that is to say, to rule, and\nreign over them; which is a thing, that all men naturally desire, and\nis therefore worthy to be suspected of Ambition and Imposture; and\nconsequently, ought to be examined, and tryed by every man, before hee\nyeeld them obedience; unlesse he have yeelded it them already, in\nthe institution of a Common-wealth; as when the Prophet is the Civill\nSoveraign, or by the Civil Soveraign Authorized. And if this examination\nof Prophets, and Spirits, were not allowed to every one of the people,\nit had been to no purpose, to set out the marks, by which every man\nmight be able, to distinguish between those, whom they ought, and those\nwhom they ought not to follow. Seeing therefore such marks are set out\n(Deut. 13. 1,&c.) to know a Prophet by; and (1 John 4.1.&C) to know a\nSpirit by: and seeing there is so much Prophecying in the Old Testament;\nand so much Preaching in the New Testament against Prophets; and so much\ngreater a number ordinarily of false Prophets, then of true; every\none is to beware of obeying their directions, at their own perill. And\nfirst, that there were many more false than true Prophets, appears by\nthis, that when Ahab (1 Kings 12.) consulted four hundred Prophets, they\nwere all false Imposters, but onely one Michaiah. And a little before\nthe time of the Captivity, the Prophets were generally lyars. \"The\nProphets\" (saith the Lord by Jerem. cha. 14. verse 14.) \"prophecy Lies\nin my name. I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, nor spake\nunto them, they prophecy to you a false Vision, a thing of naught; and\nthe deceit of their heart.\" In so much as God commanded the People by\nthe mouth of the Prophet Jeremiah (chap. 23. 16.) not to obey them.\n\"Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, hearken not unto the words of the\nProphets, that prophecy to you. They make you vain, they speak a Vision\nof their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.\"\n\n\n\n\nAll Prophecy But Of The Soveraign Prophet Is To Be Examined\n\nBy Every Subject\n\nSeeing then there was in the time of the Old Testament, such quarrells\namongst the Visionary Prophets, one contesting with another, and asking\nWhen departed the Spirit from me, to go to thee? as between Michaiah,\nand the rest of the four hundred; and such giving of the Lye to one\nanother, (as in Jerem. 14.14.) and such controversies in the New\nTestament at this day, amongst the Spirituall Prophets: Every man then\nwas, and now is bound to make use of his Naturall Reason, to apply to\nall Prophecy those Rules which God hath given us, to discern the\ntrue from the false. Of which rules, in the Old Testament, one was,\nconformable doctrine to that which Moses the Soveraign Prophet had\ntaught them; and the other the miraculous power of foretelling what God\nwould bring to passe, as I have already shown out of Deut. 13. 1. &c.\nand in the New Testament there was but one onely mark; and that was the\npreaching of this Doctrine, That Jesus Is The Christ, that is, the\nKing of the Jews, promised in the Old Testament. Whosoever denyed that\nArticle, he was a false Prophet, whatsoever miracles he might seem to\nwork; and he that taught it was a true Prophet. For St. John (1 Epist,\n4. 2, &c) speaking expressely of the means to examine Spirits, whether\nthey be of God, or not; after he hath told them that there would arise\nfalse Prophets, saith thus, \"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God. Every\nSpirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of\nGod;\" that is, is approved and allowed as a Prophet of God: not that\nhe is a godly man, or one of the Elect, for this, that he confesseth,\nprofesseth, or preacheth Jesus to be the Christ; but for that he is a\nProphet avowed. For God sometimes speaketh by Prophets, whose persons he\nhath not accepted; as he did by Baalam; and as he foretold Saul of his\ndeath, by the Witch of Endor. Again in the next verse, \"Every Spirit\nthat confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh, is not\nof Christ. And this is the Spirit of Antichrist.\" So that the rule is\nperfect on both sides; that he is a true Prophet, which preacheth the\nMessiah already come, in the person of Jesus; and he a false one that\ndenyeth him come, and looketh for him in some future Imposter, that\nshall take upon him that honour falsely, whom the Apostle there properly\ncalleth Antichrist. Every man therefore ought to consider who is the\nSoveraign Prophet; that is to say, who it is, that is Gods Viceregent\non earth; and hath next under God, the Authority of Governing Christian\nmen; and to observe for a Rule, that Doctrine, which in the name of\nGod, hee commanded to bee taught; and thereby to examine and try out\nthe truth of those Doctrines, which pretended Prophets with miracles, or\nwithout, shall at any time advance: and if they find it contrary to that\nRule, to doe as they did, that came to Moses, and complained that there\nwere some that Prophecyed in the Campe, whose Authority so to doe they\ndoubted of; and leave to the Soveraign, as they did to Moses to uphold,\nor to forbid them, as hee should see cause; and if hee disavow them,\nthen no more to obey their voice; or if he approve them, then to obey\nthem, as men to whom God hath given a part of the Spirit of their\nSoveraigne. For when Christian men, take not their Christian Soveraign,\nfor Gods Prophet; they must either take their owne Dreams, for the\nprophecy they mean to bee governed by, and the tumour of their own\nhearts for the Spirit of God; or they must suffer themselves to bee lead\nby some strange Prince; or by some of their fellow subjects, that can\nbewitch them, by slander of the government, into rebellion, without\nother miracle to confirm their calling, then sometimes an extraordinary\nsuccesse, and Impunity; and by this means destroying all laws, both\ndivine, and humane, reduce all Order, Government, and Society, to the\nfirst Chaos of Violence, and Civill warre.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVII. OF MIRACLES, AND THEIR USE\n\n\n\n\nA Miracle Is A Work That Causeth Admiration\n\nBy Miracles are signified the Admirable works of God: & therefore they\nare also called Wonders. And because they are for the most part, done,\nfor a signification of his commandement, in such occasions, as\nwithout them, men are apt to doubt, (following their private naturall\nreasoning,) what he hath commanded, and what not, they are commonly in\nHoly Scripture, called Signes, in the same sense, as they are called by\nthe Latines, Ostenta, and Portenta, from shewing, and fore-signifying\nthat, which the Almighty is about to bring to passe.\n\n\n\n\nAnd Must Therefore Be Rare, Whereof There Is No Naturall Cause Known\n\nTo understand therefore what is a Miracle, we must first understand what\nworks they are, which men wonder at, and call Admirable. And there be\nbut two things which make men wonder at any event: The one is, if it\nbe strange, that is to say, such, as the like of it hath never, or very\nrarely been produced: The other is, if when it is produced, we cannot\nimagine it to have been done by naturall means, but onely by the\nimmediate hand of God. But when wee see some possible, naturall cause of\nit, how rarely soever the like has been done; or if the like have been\noften done, how impossible soever it be to imagine a naturall means\nthereof, we no more wonder, nor esteem it for a Miracle.\n\nTherefore, if a Horse, or Cow should speak, it were a Miracle; because\nboth the thing is strange, & the Naturall cause difficult to imagin: So\nalso were it, to see a strange deviation of nature, in the production\nof some new shape of a living creature. But when a man, or other Animal,\nengenders his like, though we know no more how this is done, than the\nother; yet because 'tis usuall, it is no Miracle. In like manner, if a\nman be metamorphosed into a stone, or into a pillar, it is a Miracle;\nbecause strange: but if a peece of wood be so changed; because we see it\noften, it is no Miracle: and yet we know no more, by what operation of\nGod, the one is brought to passe, than the other.\n\nThe first Rainbow that was seen in the world, was a Miracle, because the\nfirst; and consequently strange; and served for a sign from God, placed\nin heaven, to assure his people, there should be no more an universall\ndestruction of the world by Water. But at this day, because they\nare frequent, they are not Miracles, neither to them that know their\nnaturall causes, nor to them who know them not. Again, there be many\nrare works produced by the Art of man: yet when we know they are done;\nbecause thereby wee know also the means how they are done, we count them\nnot for Miracles, because not wrought by the immediate hand of God, but\nby mediation of humane Industry.\n\n\n\n\nThat Which Seemeth A Miracle To One Man, May Seem Otherwise To Another\n\nFurthermore, seeing Admiration and Wonder, is consequent to the\nknowledge and experience, wherewith men are endued, some more, some\nlesse; it followeth, that the same thing, may be a Miracle to one, and\nnot to another. And thence it is, that ignorant, and superstitious men\nmake great Wonders of those works, which other men, knowing to proceed\nfrom Nature, (which is not the immediate, but the ordinary work of God,)\nadmire not at all: As when Ecclipses of the Sun and Moon have been taken\nfor supernaturall works, by the common people; when neverthelesse, there\nwere others, could from their naturall causes, have foretold the very\nhour they should arrive: Or, as when a man, by confederacy, and secret\nintelligence, getting knowledge of the private actions of an ignorant,\nunwary man, thereby tells him, what he has done in former time; it seems\nto him a Miraculous thing; but amongst wise, and cautelous men, such\nMiracles as those, cannot easily be done.\n\n\n\n\nThe End Of Miracles\n\nAgain, it belongeth to the nature of a Miracle, that it be wrought for\nthe procuring of credit to Gods Messengers, Ministers, and Prophets,\nthat thereby men may know, they are called, sent, and employed by God,\nand thereby be the better inclined to obey them. And therefore, though\nthe creation of the world, and after that the destruction of all living\ncreatures in the universall deluge, were admirable works; yet because\nthey were not done to procure credit to any Prophet, or other Minister\nof God, they use not to be called Miracles. For how admirable soever any\nwork be, the Admiration consisteth not in that it could be done, because\nmen naturally beleeve the Almighty can doe all things, but because he\ndoes it at the Prayer, or Word of a man. But the works of God in Egypt,\nby the hand of Moses, were properly Miracles; because they were done\nwith intention to make the people of Israel beleeve, that Moses came\nunto them, not out of any design of his owne interest, but as sent from\nGod. Therefore after God had commanded him to deliver the Israelites\nfrom the Egyptian bondage, when he said (Exod 4.1. &c.) \"They will not\nbeleeve me, but will say, the Lord hath not appeared unto me,\" God gave\nhim power, to turn the Rod he had in his hand into a Serpent, and again\nto return it into a Rod; and by putting his hand into his bosome, to\nmake it leprous; and again by pulling it out to make it whole, to make\nthe Children of Israel beleeve (as it is verse 5.) that the God of their\nFathers had appeared unto him; And if that were not enough, he gave\nhim power to turn their waters into bloud. And when hee had done these\nMiracles before the people, it is said (verse 41.) that \"they beleeved\nhim.\" Neverthelesse, for fear of Pharaoh, they durst not yet obey him.\nTherefore the other works which were done to plague Pharaoh and the\nEgyptians, tended all to make the Israelites beleeve in Moses, and were\nproperly Miracles. In like manner if we consider all the Miracles\ndone by the hand of Moses, and all the rest of the Prophets, till the\nCaptivity; and those of our Saviour, and his Apostles afterward; we\nshall find, their end was alwaies to beget, or confirm beleefe, that\nthey came not of their own motion, but were sent by God. Wee may further\nobserve in Scripture, that the end of Miracles, was to beget beleef,\nnot universally in all men, elect, and reprobate; but in the elect\nonly; that is to say, is such as God had determined should become his\nSubjects. For those miraculous plagues of Egypt, had not for end, the\nconversion of Pharaoh; For God had told Moses before, that he would\nharden the heart of Pharaoh, that he should not let the people goe: And\nwhen he let them goe at last, not the Miracles perswaded him, but the\nplagues forced him to it. So also of our Saviour, it is written, (Mat.\n13. 58.) that he wrought not many Miracles in his own countrey, because\nof their unbeleef; and (in Marke 6.5.) in stead of, \"he wrought not\nmany,\" it is, \"he could work none.\" It was not because he wanted power;\nwhich to say, were blasphemy against God; nor that the end of Miracles\nwas not to convert incredulous men to Christ; for the end of all the\nMiracles of Moses, of Prophets, of our Saviour, and of his Apostles\nwas to adde men to the Church; but it was, because the end of their\nMiracles, was to adde to the Church (not all men, but) such as should\nbe saved; that is to say, such as God had elected. Seeing therefore\nour Saviour sent from his Father, hee could not use his power in the\nconversion of those, whom his Father had rejected. They that expounding\nthis place of St. Marke, say, that his word, \"Hee could not,\" is put\nfor, \"He would not,\" do it without example in the Greek tongue, (where\nWould Not, is put sometimes for Could Not, in things inanimate, that\nhave no will; but Could Not, for Would Not, never,) and thereby lay\na stumbling block before weak Christians; as if Christ could doe no\nMiracles, but amongst the credulous.\n\n\n\n\nThe Definition Of A Miracle\n\nFrom that which I have here set down, of the nature, and use of a\nMiracle, we may define it thus, \"A MIRACLE, is a work of God, (besides\nhis operation by the way of Nature, ordained in the Creation,) done\nfor the making manifest to his elect, the mission of an extraordinary\nMinister for their salvation.\"\n\nAnd from this definition, we may inferre; First, that in all Miracles,\nthe work done, is not the effect of any vertue in the Prophet; because\nit is the effect of the immediate hand of God; that is to say God hath\ndone it, without using the Prophet therein, as a subordinate cause.\n\nSecondly, that no Devil, Angel, or other created Spirit, can do a\nMiracle. For it must either be by vertue of some naturall science, or\nby Incantation, that is, vertue of words. For if the Inchanters do it\nby their own power independent, there is some power that proceedeth not\nfrom God; which all men deny: and if they doe it by power given them,\nthen is the work not from the immediate hand of God, but naturall, and\nconsequently no Miracle.\n\nThere be some texts of Scripture, that seem to attribute the power of\nworking wonders (equall to some of those immediate Miracles, wrought\nby God himself,) to certain Arts of Magick, and Incantation. As for\nexample, when we read that after the Rod of Moses being cast on the\nground became a Serpent, (Exod. 7. 11.) \"the Magicians of Egypt did the\nlike by their Enchantments;\" and that after Moses had turned the waters\nof the Egyptian Streams, Rivers, Ponds, and Pooles of water into blood,\n(Exod. 7. 22.) \"the Magicians of Egypt did so likewise, with their\nEnchantments;\" and that after Moses had by the power of God brought\nfrogs upon the land, (Exod. 8. 7.) \"the Magicians also did so with their\nEnchantments, and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt;\" will not a\nman be apt to attribute Miracles to Enchantments; that is to say, to the\nefficacy of the sound of Words; and think the same very well proved out\nof this, and other such places? and yet there is no place of Scripture,\nthat telleth us what on Enchantment is. If therefore Enchantment be not,\nas many think it, a working of strange effects by spells, and words;\nbut Imposture, and delusion, wrought by ordinary means; and so far\nfrom supernaturall, as the Impostors need not the study so much as of\nnaturall causes, but the ordinary ignorance, stupidity, and superstition\nof mankind, to doe them; those texts that seem to countenance the power\nof Magick, Witchcraft, and Enchantment, must needs have another sense,\nthan at first sight they seem to bear.\n\n\n\n\nThat Men Are Apt To Be Deceived By False Miracles\n\nFor it is evident enough, that Words have no effect, but on those\nthat understand them; and then they have no other, but to signifie the\nintentions, or passions of them that speak; and thereby produce, hope,\nfear, or other passions, or conceptions in the hearer. Therefore when a\nRod seemeth a Serpent, or the Water Bloud, or any other Miracle seemeth\ndone by Enchantment; if it be not to the edification of Gods people,\nnot the Rod, nor the Water, nor any other thing is enchanted; that is\nto say, wrought upon by the Words, but the Spectator. So that all the\nMiracle consisteth in this, that the Enchanter has deceived a man; which\nis no Miracle, but a very easie matter to doe.\n\nFor such is the ignorance, and aptitude to error generally of all men,\nbut especially of them that have not much knowledge of naturall causes,\nand of the nature, and interests of men; as by innumerable and easie\ntricks to be abused. What opinion of miraculous power, before it was\nknown there was a Science of the course of the Stars, might a man have\ngained, that should have told the people, This hour, or day the Sun\nshould be darkned? A juggler by the handling of his goblets, and other\ntrinkets, if it were not now ordinarily practised, would be thought\nto do his wonders by the power at least of the Devil. A man that hath\npractised to speak by drawing in of his breath, (which kind of men in\nantient time were called Ventriloqui,) and so make the weaknesse of\nhis voice seem to proceed, not from the weak impulsion of the organs\nof Speech, but from distance of place, is able to make very many men\nbeleeve it is a voice from Heaven, whatsoever he please to tell them.\nAnd for a crafty man, that hath enquired into the secrets, and familiar\nconfessions that one man ordinarily maketh to another of his actions and\nadventures past, to tell them him again is no hard matter; and yet there\nbe many, that by such means as that, obtain the reputation of being\nConjurers. But it is too long a businesse, to reckon up the severall\nsorts of those men, which the Greeks called Thaumaturgi, that is to say,\nworkers of things wonderfull; and yet these do all they do, by their\nown single dexterity. But if we looke upon the Impostures wrought by\nConfederacy, there is nothing how impossible soever to be done, that is\nimpossible to bee beleeved. For two men conspiring, one to seem lame,\nthe other to cure him with a charme, will deceive many: but many\nconspiring, one to seem lame, another so to cure him, and all the rest\nto bear witnesse; will deceive many more.\n\n\n\n\nCautions Against The Imposture Of Miracles\n\nIn this aptitude of mankind, to give too hasty beleefe to pretended\nMiracles, there can be no better, nor I think any other caution, than\nthat which God hath prescribed, first by Moses, (as I have said before\nin the precedent chapter,) in the beginning of the 13. and end of the\n18. of Deuteronomy; That wee take not any for Prophets, that teach any\nother Religion, then that which Gods Lieutenant, (which at that time was\nMoses,) hath established; nor any, (though he teach the same Religion,)\nwhose Praediction we doe not see come to passe. Moses therefore in his\ntime, and Aaron, and his successors in their times, and the Soveraign\nGovernour of Gods people, next under God himself, that is to say, the\nHead of the Church in all times, are to be consulted, what doctrine\nhe hath established, before wee give credit to a pretended Miracle, or\nProphet. And when that is done, the thing they pretend to be a Miracle,\nwe must both see it done, and use all means possible to consider,\nwhether it be really done; and not onely so, but whether it be such, as\nno man can do the like by his naturall power, but that it requires the\nimmediate hand of God. And in this also we must have recourse to Gods\nLieutenant; to whom in all doubtfull cases, wee have submitted our\nprivate judgments. For Example; if a man pretend, that after certain\nwords spoken over a peece of bread, that presently God hath made it not\nbread, but a God, or a man, or both, and neverthelesse it looketh still\nas like bread as ever it did; there is no reason for any man to think\nit really done; nor consequently to fear him, till he enquire of God,\nby his Vicar, or Lieutenant, whether it be done, or not. If he say not,\nthen followeth that which Moses saith, (Deut. 18. 22.) \"he hath spoken\nit presumptuously, thou shalt not fear him.\" If he say 'tis done, then\nhe is not to contradict it. So also if wee see not, but onely hear tell\nof a Miracle, we are to consult the Lawful Church; that is to say, the\nlawful Head thereof, how far we are to give credit to the relators of\nit. And this is chiefly the case of men, that in these days live under\nChristian Soveraigns. For in these times, I do not know one man, that\never saw any such wondrous work, done by the charm, or at the word,\nor prayer of a man, that a man endued but with a mediocrity of reason,\nwould think supernaturall: and the question is no more, whether what wee\nsee done, be a Miracle; whether the Miracle we hear, or read of, were\na reall work, and not the Act of a tongue, or pen; but in plain terms,\nwhether the report be true, or a lye. In which question we are not every\none, to make our own private Reason, or Conscience, but the Publique\nReason, that is, the reason of Gods Supreme Lieutenant, Judge; and\nindeed we have made him Judge already, if wee have given him a Soveraign\npower, to doe all that is necessary for our peace and defence. A private\nman has alwaies the liberty, (because thought is free,) to beleeve,\nor not beleeve in his heart, those acts that have been given out for\nMiracles, according as he shall see, what benefit can accrew by\nmens belief, to those that pretend, or countenance them, and thereby\nconjecture, whether they be Miracles, or Lies. But when it comes\nto confession of that faith, the Private Reason must submit to the\nPublique; that is to say, to Gods Lieutenant. But who is this Lieutenant\nof God, and Head of the Church, shall be considered in its proper place\nthereafter.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVIII. OF THE SIGNIFICATION IN SCRIPTURE OF ETERNALL LIFE,\n\nHELL, SALVATION, THE WORLD TO COME, AND REDEMPTION\n\n\nThe maintenance of Civill Society, depending on Justice; and Justice on\nthe power of Life and Death, and other lesse Rewards and Punishments,\nresiding in them that have the Soveraignty of the Common-wealth; It\nis impossible a Common-wealth should stand, where any other than the\nSoveraign, hath a power of giving greater rewards than Life; and of\ninflicting greater punishments than Death. Now seeing Eternall Life is\na greater reward, than the Life Present; and Eternall Torment a greater\npunishment than the Death of Nature; It is a thing worthy to be well\nconsidered, of all men that desire (by obeying Authority) to avoid\nthe calamities of Confusion, and Civill war, what is meant in Holy\nScripture, by Life Eternall, and Torment Eternall; and for what\noffences, against whom committed, men are to be Eternally Tormented; and\nfor what actions, they are to obtain Eternall Life.\n\n\n\n\nPlace Of Adams Eternity If He Had Not Sinned, The Terrestrial Paradise\n\nAnd first we find, that Adam was created in such a condition of life,\nas had he not broken the commandement of God, he had enjoyed it in the\nParadise of Eden Everlastingly. For there was the Tree of Life; whereof\nhe was so long allowed to eat, as he should forbear to eat of the tree\nof Knowledge of Good an Evill; which was not allowed him. And therefore\nas soon as he had eaten of it, God thrust him out of Paradise, \"lest he\nshould put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and live\nfor ever.\" (Gen. 3. 22.) By which it seemeth to me, (with submission\nneverthelesse both in this, and in all questions, whereof the\ndetermination dependeth on the Scriptures, to the interpretation of the\nBible authorized by the Common-wealth, whose Subject I am,) that Adam if\nhe had not sinned, had had an Eternall Life on Earth: and that Mortality\nentred upon himself, and his posterity, by his first Sin. Not that\nactuall Death then entred; for Adam then could never have had children;\nwhereas he lived long after, and saw a numerous posterity ere he dyed.\nBut where it is said, \"In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt\nsurely die,\" it must needs bee meant of his Mortality, and certitude\nof death. Seeing then Eternall life was lost by Adams forfeiture, in\ncommitting sin, he that should cancell that forfeiture was to recover\nthereby, that Life again. Now Jesus Christ hath satisfied for the sins\nof all that beleeve in him; and therefore recovered to all beleevers,\nthat ETERNALL LIFE, which was lost by the sin of Adam. And in this sense\nit is, that the comparison of St. Paul holdeth (Rom. 5.18, 19.) \"As by\nthe offence of one, Judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even\nso by the righteousnesse of one, the free gift came upon all men\nto Justification of Life.\" Which is again (1 Cor. 15.21,22) more\nperspicuously delivered in these words, \"For since by man came death, by\nman came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even\nso in Christ shall all be made alive.\"\n\n\n\n\nTexts Concerning The Place Of Life Eternall For Beleevers\n\nConcerning the place wherein men shall enjoy that Eternall Life, which\nChrist hath obtained for them, the texts next before alledged seem to\nmake it on Earth. For if as in Adam, all die, that is, have forfeited\nParadise, and Eternall Life on Earth; even so in Christ all shall be\nmade alive; then all men shall be made to live on Earth; for else\nthe comparison were not proper. Hereunto seemeth to agree that of the\nPsalmist, (Psal. 133.3.) \"Upon Zion God commanded the blessing, even\nLife for evermore;\" for Zion, is in Jerusalem, upon Earth: as also that\nof S. Joh. (Rev. 2.7.) \"To him that overcommeth I will give to eat of\nthe tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.\" This\nwas the tree of Adams Eternall life; but his life was to have been on\nEarth. The same seemeth to be confirmed again by St. Joh. (Rev. 21.2.)\nwhere he saith, \"I John saw the Holy City, New Jerusalem, coming down\nfrom God out of heaven, prepared as a Bride adorned for her husband:\"\nand again v. 10. to the same effect: As if he should say, the new\nJerusalem, the Paradise of God, at the coming again of Christ, should\ncome down to Gods people from Heaven, and not they goe up to it from\nEarth. And this differs nothing from that, which the two men in white\nclothing (that is, the two Angels) said to the Apostles, that were\nlooking upon Christ ascending (Acts 1.11.) \"This same Jesus, who is\ntaken up from you into Heaven, shall so come, as you have seen him go up\ninto Heaven.\" Which soundeth as if they had said, he should come down\nto govern them under his Father, Eternally here; and not take them up\nto govern them in Heaven; and is conformable to the Restauration of the\nKingdom of God, instituted under Moses; which was a Political government\nof the Jews on Earth. Again, that saying of our Saviour (Mat. 22.30.)\n\"that in the Resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,\nbut are as the Angels of God in heaven,\" is a description of an Eternall\nLife, resembling that which we lost in Adam in the point of Marriage.\nFor seeing Adam, and Eve, if they had not sinned, had lived on Earth\nEternally, in their individuall persons; it is manifest, they should\nnot continually have procreated their kind. For if Immortals should have\ngenerated, as Mankind doth now; the Earth in a small time, would not\nhave been able to afford them a place to stand on. The Jews that asked\nour Saviour the question, whose wife the woman that had married many\nbrothers, should be, in the resurrection, knew not what were the\nconsequences of Immortality; that there shal be no Generation, and\nconsequently no marriage, no more than there is Marriage, or generation\namong the Angels. The comparison between that Eternall life which Adam\nlost, and our Saviour by his Victory over death hath recovered; holdeth\nalso in this, that as Adam lost Eternall Life by his sin, and yet lived\nafter it for a time; so the faithful Christian hath recovered Eternal\nLife by Christs passion, though he die a natural death, and remaine dead\nfor a time; namely, till the Resurrection. For as Death is reckoned from\nthe Condemnation of Adam, not from the Execution; so life is reckoned\nfrom the Absolution, not from the Resurrection of them that are elected\nin Christ.\n\n\n\n\nAscension Into Heaven\n\nThat the place wherein men are to live Eternally, after the\nResurrection, is the Heavens, meaning by Heaven, those parts of the\nworld, which are the most remote from Earth, as where the stars are,\nor above the stars, in another Higher Heaven, called Caelum Empyreum,\n(whereof there is no mention in Scripture, nor ground in Reason) is not\neasily to be drawn from any text that I can find. By the Kingdome of\nHeaven, is meant the Kingdome of the King that dwelleth in Heaven; and\nhis Kingdome was the people of Israel, whom he ruled by the Prophets\nhis Lieutenants, first Moses, and after him Eleazar, and the Soveraign\nPriests, till in the days of Samuel they rebelled, and would have a\nmortall man for their King, after the manner of other Nations. And\nwhen our Saviour Christ, by the preaching of his Ministers, shall have\nperswaded the Jews to return, and called the Gentiles to his obedience,\nthen shall there be a new Kingdome of Heaven, because our King shall\nthen be God, whose Throne is Heaven; without any necessity evident in\nthe Scripture, that man shall ascend to his happinesse any higher than\nGods Footstool the Earth. On the contrary, we find written (Joh. 3.13.)\nthat \"no man hath ascended into Heaven, but he that came down from\nHeaven, even the Son of man, that is in Heaven.\" Where I observe by the\nway, that these words are not, as those which go immediately before, the\nwords of our Saviour, but of St. John himself; for Christ was then not\nin Heaven, but upon the Earth. The like is said of David (Acts 2.34.)\nwhere St. Peter, to prove the Ascension of Christ, using the words of\nthe Psalmist, (Psal. 16.10.) \"Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell, nor\nsuffer thine Holy one to see corruption,\" saith, they were spoken (not\nof David, but) of Christ; and to prove it, addeth this Reason, \"For\nDavid is not ascended into Heaven.\" But to this a man may easily answer,\nand say, that though their bodies were not to ascend till the generall\nday of Judgment, yet their souls were in Heaven as soon as they were\ndeparted from their bodies; which also seemeth to be confirmed by the\nwords of our Saviour (Luke 20.37,38.) who proving the Resurrection out\nof the word of Moses, saith thus, \"That the dead are raised, even Moses\nshewed, at the bush, when he calleth the Lord, the God of Abraham, and\nthe God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the Dead,\nbut of the Living; for they all live to him.\" But if these words be to\nbe understood only of the Immortality of the Soul, they prove not at all\nthat which our Saviour intended to prove, which was the Resurrection\nof the Body, that is to say, the Immortality of the Man. Therefore our\nSaviour meaneth, that those Patriarchs were Immortall; not by a property\nconsequent to the essence, and nature of mankind, but by the will of\nGod, that was pleased of his mere grace, to bestow Eternall Life upon\nthe faithfull. And though at that time the Patriarchs and many other\nfaithfull men were Dead, yet as it is in the text, they Lived To God;\nthat is, they were written in the Book of Life with them that were\nabsolved of their sinnes, and ordained to Life eternall at the\nResurrection. That the Soul of man is in its own nature Eternall, and\na living Creature independent on the Body; or that any meer man is\nImmortall, otherwise than by the Resurrection in the last day, (except\nEnos and Elias,) is a doctrine not apparent in Scripture. The whole 14.\nChapter of Job, which is the speech not of his friends, but of himselfe,\nis a complaint of this Mortality of Nature; and yet no contradiction of\nthe Immortality at the Resurrection. \"There is hope of a tree,\" (saith\nhee verse 7.) \"if it be cast down, Though the root thereof wax old, and\nthe stock thereof die in the ground, yet when it scenteth the water\nit will bud, and bring forth boughes like a Plant. But man dyeth, and\nwasteth away, yea, man giveth up the Ghost, and where is he?\" and (verse\n12.) \"man lyeth down, and riseth not, till the heavens be no more.\" But\nwhen is it, that the heavens shall be no more? St. Peter tells us, that\nit is at the generall Resurrection. For in his 2. Epistle, 3. Chapter,\nand 7. verse, he saith, that \"the Heavens and the Earth that are now,\nare reserved unto fire against the day of Judgment, and perdition of\nungodly men,\" and (verse 12.) \"looking for, and hasting to the comming\nof God, wherein the Heavens shall be on fire, and shall be dissolved,\nand the Elements shall melt with fervent heat. Neverthelesse, we\naccording to the promise look for new Heavens, and a new Earth, wherein\ndwelleth righteousnesse.\" Therefore where Job saith, man riseth not till\nthe Heavens be no more; it is all one, as if he had said, the Immortall\nLife (and Soule and Life in the Scripture, do usually signifie the same\nthing) beginneth not in man, till the Resurrection, and day of Judgment;\nand hath for cause, not his specificall nature, and generation; but the\nPromise. For St. Peter saies not, \"Wee look for new heavens, and a new\nearth, (from Nature) but from Promise.\"\n\nLastly, seeing it hath been already proved out of divers evident places\nof Scripture, in the 35. chapter of this book, that the Kingdom of God\nis a Civil Common-wealth, where God himself is Soveraign, by vertue\nfirst of the Old, and since of the New Covenant, wherein he reigneth by\nhis Vicar, or Lieutenant; the same places do therefore also prove, that\nafter the comming again of our Saviour in his Majesty, and glory, to\nreign actually, and Eternally; the Kingdom of God is to be on Earth. But\nbecause this doctrine (though proved out of places of Scripture not few,\nnor obscure) will appear to most men a novelty; I doe but propound\nit; maintaining nothing in this, or any other paradox of Religion;\nbut attending the end of that dispute of the sword, concerning the\nAuthority, (not yet amongst my Countrey-men decided,) by which all sorts\nof doctrine are to bee approved, or rejected; and whose commands, both\nin speech, and writing, (whatsoever be the opinions of private men) must\nby all men, that mean to be protected by their Laws, be obeyed. For\nthe points of doctrine concerning the Kingdome (of) God, have so great\ninfluence on the Kingdome of Man, as not to be determined, but by them,\nthat under God have the Soveraign Power.\n\n\n\n\nThe Place After Judgment, Of Those Who Were Never In The Kingdome\n\nOf God, Or Having Been In, Are Cast Out\n\nAs the Kingdome of God, and Eternall Life, so also Gods Enemies, and\ntheir Torments after Judgment, appear by the Scripture, to have their\nplace on Earth. The name of the place, where all men remain till the\nResurrection, that were either buryed, or swallowed up of the Earth, is\nusually called in Scripture, by words that signifie Under Ground; which\nthe Latines read generally Infernus, and Inferni, and the Greeks Hades;\nthat is to say, a place where men cannot see; and containeth as well the\nGrave, as any other deeper place. But for the place of the damned after\nthe Resurrection, it is not determined, neither in the Old, nor New\nTestament, by any note of situation; but onely by the company: as that\nit shall bee, where such wicked men were, as God in former times in\nextraordinary, and miraculous manner, had destroyed from off the face of\nthe Earth: As for Example, that they are in Inferno, in Tartarus, or in\nthe bottomelesse pit; because Corah, Dathan, and Abirom, were swallowed\nup alive into the earth. Not that the Writers of the Scripture would\nhave us beleeve, there could be in the globe of the Earth, which is\nnot only finite, but also (compared to the height of the Stars) of no\nconsiderable magnitude, a pit without a bottome; that is, a hole of\ninfinite depth, such as the Greeks in their Daemonologie (that is to\nsay, in their doctrine concerning Daemons,) and after them, the Romans\ncalled Tartarus; of which Virgill sayes,\n\n    Bis patet in praeceps, tantem tenditque sub umbras,\n    Quantus ad aethereum coeli suspectus Olympum:\n\nfor that is a thing the proportion of Earth to Heaven cannot bear: but\nthat wee should beleeve them there, indefinitely, where those men are,\non whom God inflicted that Exemplary punnishment.\n\n\n\n\nThe Congregation Of Giants\n\nAgain, because those mighty men of the Earth, that lived in the time\nof Noah, before the floud, (which the Greeks called Heroes, and the\nScripture Giants, and both say, were begotten, by copulation of the\nchildren of God, with the children of men,) were for their wicked life\ndestroyed by the generall deluge; the place of the Damned, is therefore\nalso sometimes marked out, by the company of those deceased Giants; as\nProverbs 21.16. \"The man that wandreth out of the way of understanding,\nshall remain in the congregation of the Giants,\" and Job 26.5. \"Behold\nthe Giants groan under water, and they that dwell with them.\" Here\nthe place of the Damned, is under the water. And Isaiah 14.9. \"Hell is\ntroubled how to meet thee,\" (that is, the King of Babylon) \"and will\ndisplace the Giants for thee:\" and here again the place of the Damned,\n(if the sense be literall,) is to be under water.\n\n\n\n\nLake Of Fire\n\nThirdly, because the Cities of Sodom, and Gomorrah, by the extraordinary\nwrath of God, were consumed for their wickednesse with Fire and\nBrimstone, and together with them the countrey about made a stinking\nbituminous Lake; the place of the Damned is sometimes expressed by\nFire, and a Fiery Lake: as in the Apocalypse ch.21.8. \"But the timorous,\nincredulous, and abominable, and Murderers, and Whoremongers, and\nSorcerers, and Idolators, and all Lyars, shall have their part in the\nLake that burneth with Fire, and Brimstone; which is the second Death.\"\nSo that it is manifest, that Hell Fire, which is here expressed by\nMetaphor, from the reall Fire of Sodome, signifieth not any certain\nkind, or place of Torment; but is to be taken indefinitely, for\nDestruction, as it is in the 20. Chapter, at the 14. verse; where it is\nsaid, that \"Death and Hell were cast into the Lake of Fire;\" that is\nto say, were abolished, and destroyed; as if after the day of Judgment,\nthere shall be no more Dying, nor no more going into Hell; that is, no\nmore going to Hades (from which word perhaps our word Hell is derived,)\nwhich is the same with no more Dying.\n\n\n\n\nUtter Darknesse\n\nFourthly, from the Plague of Darknesse inflicted on the Egyptians, of\nwhich it is written (Exod. 10.23.) \"They saw not one another, neither\nrose any man from his place for three days; but all the Children of\nIsrael had light in their dwellings;\" the place of the wicked after\nJudgment, is called Utter Darknesse, or (as it is in the originall)\nDarknesse Without. And so it is expressed (Mat. 22.13.) where the King\ncommandeth his Servants, \"to bind hand and foot the man that had not\non his Wedding garment, and to cast him out,\" Eis To Skotos To Exoteron,\nExternall Darknesse, or Darknesse Without: which though translated Utter\nDarknesse, does not signifie How Great, but Where that darknesse is to\nbe; namely, Without The Habitation of Gods Elect.\n\n\n\n\nGehenna, And Tophet\n\nLastly, whereas there was a place neer Jerusalem, called the Valley of\nthe Children of Hinnon; in a part whereof, called Tophet, the Jews had\ncommitted most grievous Idolatry, sacrificing their children to the\nIdol Moloch; and wherein also God had afflicted his enemies with most\ngrievous punishments; and wherein Josias had burnt the Priests of Moloch\nupon their own Altars, as appeareth at large in the 2 of Kings chap. 23.\nthe place served afterwards, to receive the filth, and garbage which was\ncarried thither, out of the City; and there used to be fires made, from\ntime to time, to purifie the aire, and take away the stench of Carrion.\nFrom this abominable place, the Jews used ever after to call the place\nof the Damned, by the name of Gehenna, or Valley of Hinnon. And this\nGehenna, is that word, which is usually now translated HELL; and\nfrom the fires from time to time there burning, we have the notion of\nEverlasting, and Unquenchable Fire.\n\n\n\n\nOf The Literall Sense Of The Scripture Concerning Hell\n\nSeeing now there is none, that so interprets the Scripture, as that\nafter the day of Judgment, the wicked are all Eternally to be punished\nin the Valley of Hinnon; or that they shall so rise again, as to be ever\nafter under ground, or under water; or that after the Resurrection, they\nshall no more see one another; nor stir from one place to another; it\nfolloweth, me thinks, very necessarily, that that which is thus said\nconcerning Hell Fire, is spoken metaphorically; and that therefore there\nis a proper sense to bee enquired after, (for of all Metaphors there is\nsome reall ground, that may be expressed in proper words) both of the\nPlace of Hell, and the nature of Hellish Torment, and Tormenters.\n\n\n\n\nSatan, Devill, Not Proper Names, But Appellatives\n\nAnd first for the Tormenters, wee have their nature, and properties,\nexactly and properly delivered by the names of, The Enemy, or Satan;\nThe Accuser, or Diabolus; The Destroyer, or Abbadon. Which significant\nnames, Satan, Devill, Abbadon, set not forth to us any Individuall\nperson, as proper names use to doe; but onely an office, or quality;\nand are therefore Appellatives; which ought not to have been left\nuntranslated, as they are, in the Latine, and Modern Bibles; because\nthereby they seem to be the proper names of Daemons; and men are the\nmore easily seduced to beleeve the doctrine of Devills; which at that\ntime was the Religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses,\nand of Christ.\n\nAnd because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer, is meant, the\nEnemy of them that shall be in the Kingdome of God; therefore if the\nKingdome of God after the Resurrection, bee upon the Earth, (as in the\nformer Chapter I have shewn by Scripture it seems to be,) The Enemy,\nand his Kingdome must be on Earth also. For so also was it, in the time\nbefore the Jews had deposed God. For Gods Kingdome was in Palestine;\nand the Nations round about, were the Kingdomes of the Enemy; and\nconsequently by Satan, is meant any Earthly Enemy of the Church.\n\n\n\n\nTorments Of Hell\n\nThe Torments of Hell, are expressed sometimes, by \"weeping, and gnashing\nof teeth,\" as Mat. 8.12. Sometimes, by \"the worm of Conscience;\" as\nIsa.66.24. and Mark 9.44, 46, 48; sometimes, by Fire, as in the place\nnow quoted, \"where the worm dyeth not, and the fire is not quenched,\"\nand many places beside: sometimes by \"Shame, and contempt,\" as Dan.\n12.2. \"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the Earth, shall\nawake; some to Everlasting life; and some to shame, and everlasting\ncontempt.\" All which places design metaphorically a grief, and\ndiscontent of mind, from the sight of that Eternall felicity in others,\nwhich they themselves through their own incredulity, and disobedience\nhave lost. And because such felicity in others, is not sensible but by\ncomparison with their own actuall miseries; it followeth that they are\nto suffer such bodily paines, and calamities, as are incident to those,\nwho not onely live under evill and cruell Governours, but have also for\nEnemy, the Eternall King of the Saints, God Almighty. And amongst these\nbodily paines, is to be reckoned also to every one of the wicked a\nsecond Death. For though the Scripture bee clear for an universall\nResurrection; yet wee do not read, that to any of the Reprobate is\npromised an Eternall life. For whereas St. Paul (1 Cor. 15.42, 43.) to\nthe question concerning what bodies men shall rise with again, saith,\nthat \"the body is sown in corruption, and is raised in incorruption; It\nis sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weaknesse, it\nis raised in power;\" Glory and Power cannot be applyed to the bodies of\nthe wicked: Nor can the name of Second Death, bee applyed to those\nthat can never die but once: And although in Metaphoricall speech, a\nCalamitous life Everlasting, may bee called an Everlasting Death yet it\ncannot well be understood of a Second Death. The fire prepared for the\nwicked, is an Everlasting Fire: that is to say, the estate wherein\nno man can be without torture, both of body and mind, after the\nResurrection, shall endure for ever; and in that sense the Fire shall\nbe unquenchable, and the torments Everlasting: but it cannot thence be\ninferred, that hee who shall be cast into that fire, or be tormented\nwith those torments, shall endure, and resist them so, as to be\neternally burnt, and tortured, and yet never be destroyed, nor die. And\nthough there be many places that affirm Everlasting Fire, and Torments\n(into which men may be cast successively one after another for ever;)\nyet I find none that affirm there shall bee an Eternall Life therein of\nany individuall person; but on the contrary, an Everlasting Death, which\nis the Second Death: (Apoc. 20. 13,14.) \"For after Death, and the Grave\nshall have delivered up the dead which were in them, and every man be\njudged according to his works; Death and the Grave shall also be cast\ninto the Lake of Fire. This is the Second Death.\" Whereby it is\nevident, that there is to bee a Second Death of every one that shall bee\ncondemned at the day of Judgement, after which hee shall die no more.\n\n\n\n\nThe Joyes Of Life Eternall, And Salvation The Same Thing,\n\nSalvation From Sin, And From Misery, All One\n\nThe joyes of Life Eternall, are in Scripture comprehended all under the\nname of SALVATION, or Being Saved. To be saved, is to be secured, either\nrespectively, against speciall Evills, or absolutely against all Evill,\ncomprehending Want, Sicknesse, and Death it self. And because man\nwas created in a condition Immortall, not subject to corruption, and\nconsequently to nothing that tendeth to the dissolution of his nature;\nand fell from that happinesse by the sin of Adam; it followeth, that\nto be Saved From Sin, is to be saved from all the Evill, and Calamities\nthat Sinne hath brought upon us. And therefore in the Holy Scripture,\nRemission of Sinne, and Salvation from Death and Misery, is the same\nthing, as it appears by the words of our Saviour, who having cured a man\nsick of the Palsey, by saying, (Mat. 9.2.) \"Son be of good cheer, thy\nSins be forgiven thee;\" and knowing that the Scribes took for blasphemy,\nthat a man should pretend to forgive Sins, asked them (v.5.) \"whether\nit were easier to say, Thy Sinnes be forgiven thee, or, Arise and walk;\"\nsignifying thereby, that it was all one, as to the saving of the sick,\nto say, \"Thy Sins are forgiven,\" and \"Arise and walk;\" and that he used\nthat form of speech, onely to shew he had power to forgive Sins. And\nit is besides evident in reason, that since Death and Misery, were the\npunishments of Sin, the discharge of Sinne, must also be a discharge\nof Death and Misery; that is to say, Salvation absolute, such as the\nfaithfull are to enjoy after the day of Judgment, by the power, and\nfavour of Jesus Christ, who for that cause is called our SAVIOUR.\n\nConcerning Particular Salvations, such as are understood, 1 Sam. 14.39.\n\"as the Lord liveth that saveth Israel,\" that is, from their temporary\nenemies, and 2 Sam. 22.4. \"Thou art my Saviour, thou savest me from\nviolence;\" and 2 Kings 13.5. \"God gave the Israelites a Saviour, and\nso they were delivered from the hand of the Assyrians,\" and the like,\nI need say nothing; there being neither difficulty, nor interest, to\ncorrupt the interpretation of texts of that kind.\n\n\n\n\nThe Place Of Eternall Salvation\n\nBut concerning the Generall Salvation, because it must be in the\nKingdome of Heaven, there is great difficulty concerning the Place.\nOn one side, by Kingdome (which is an estate ordained by men for their\nperpetuall security against enemies, and want) it seemeth that this\nSalvation should be on Earth. For by Salvation is set forth unto us,\na glorious Reign of our King, by Conquest; not a safety by Escape:\nand therefore there where we look for Salvation, we must look also\nfor Triumph; and before Triumph, for Victory; and before Victory, for\nBattell; which cannot well be supposed, shall be in Heaven. But how good\nsoever this reason may be, I will not trust to it, without very evident\nplaces of Scripture. The state of Salvation is described at large,\nIsaiah, 33. ver. 20,21,22,23,24.\n\n\"Look upon Zion, the City of our solemnities, thine eyes shall see\nJerusalem a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down;\nnot one of the stakes thereof shall ever be removed, neither shall any\nof the cords thereof be broken.\n\nBut there the glorious Lord will be unto us a place of broad rivers, and\nstreams; wherein shall goe no Gally with oares; neither shall gallant\nship passe thereby.\n\nFor the Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our\nKing, he will save us.\n\nThy tacklings are loosed; they could not well strengthen their mast;\nthey could not spread the sail: then is the prey of a great spoil\ndivided; the lame take the prey.\n\nAnd the Inhabitant shall not say, I am sicke; the people that shall\ndwell therein shall be forgiven their Iniquity.\"\n\nIn which words wee have the place from whence Salvation is to proceed,\n\"Jerusalem, a quiet habitation;\" the Eternity of it, \"a tabernacle that\nshall not be taken down,\" &c. The Saviour of it, \"the Lord, their Judge,\ntheir Lawgiver, their King, he will save us;\" the Salvation, \"the Lord\nshall be to them as a broad mote of swift waters,\" &c. the condition of\ntheir Enemies, \"their tacklings are loose, their masts weake, the\nlame shal take the spoil of them.\" The condition of the Saved,\n\"The Inhabitants shall not say, I am sick:\" And lastly, all this is\ncomprehended in Forgivenesse of sin, \"The people that dwell therein\nshall be forgiven their iniquity.\" By which it is evident, that\nSalvation shall be on Earth, then, when God shall reign, (at the coming\nagain of Christ) in Jerusalem; and from Jerusalem shall proceed the\nSalvation of the Gentiles that shall be received into Gods Kingdome; as\nis also more expressely declared by the same Prophet, Chap. 66.20, 21.\n\"And they,\" (that is, the Gentiles who had any Jew in bondage) \"shall\nbring all your brethren, for an offering to the Lord, out of all\nnations, upon horses, and in charets, and in litters, and upon mules,\nand upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain, Jerusalem, saith the Lord,\nas the Children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessell into\nthe House of the Lord. And I will also take of them for Priests and for\nLevites, saith the Lord:\" Whereby it is manifest, that the chief seat of\nGods Kingdome (which is the Place, from whence the Salvation of us that\nwere Gentiles, shall proceed) shall be Jerusalem; And the same is also\nconfirmed by our Saviour, in his discourse with the woman of Samaria,\nconcerning the place of Gods worship; to whom he saith, John 4.22. that\nthe Samaritans worshipped they know not what, but the Jews worship what\nthey knew, \"For Salvation is of the Jews (Ex Judais, that is, begins at\nthe Jews): as if he should say, you worship God, but know not by whom\nhe wil save you, as we doe, that know it shall be one of the tribe\nof Judah, a Jew, not a Samaritan. And therefore also the woman not\nimpertinently answered him again, \"We know the Messias shall come.\" So\nthat which our saviour saith, \"Salvation is from the Jews,\" is the\nsame that Paul sayes (Rom. 1.16,17.) \"The Gospel is the power of God to\nSalvation to every one that beleeveth; To the Jew first, and also to the\nGreek. For therein is the righteousnesse of God revealed from faith to\nfaith;\" from the faith of the Jew, to the faith of the Gentile. In\nthe like sense the Prophet Joel describing the day of Judgment, (chap.\n2.30,31.) that God would \"shew wonders in heaven, and in earth, bloud,\nand fire, and pillars of smoak. The Sun should be turned to darknesse,\nand the Moon into bloud, before the great and terrible day of the Lord\ncome,\" he addeth verse 32. \"and it shall come to passe, that whosoever\nshall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. For in Mount Zion,\nand in Jerusalem shall be Salvation.\" And Obadiah verse 17 saith\nthe same, \"Upon Mount Zion shall be Deliverance; and there shall be\nholinesse, and the house of Jacob shall possesse their possessions,\"\nthat is, the possessions of the Heathen, which possessions he expresseth\nmore particularly in the following verses, by the Mount of Esau, the\nLand of the Philistines, the Fields of Ephraim, of Samaria, Gilead, and\nthe Cities of the South, and concludes with these words, \"the Kingdom\nshall be the Lords.\" All these places are for Salvation, and the\nKingdome of God (after the day of Judgement) upon Earth. On the other\nside, I have not found any text that can probably be drawn, to prove\nany Ascension of the Saints into Heaven; that is to say, into any Coelum\nEmpyreum, or other aetheriall Region; saving that it is called the\nKingdome of Heaven; which name it may have, because God, that was King\nof the Jews, governed them by his commands, sent to Moses by Angels from\nHeaven, to reduce them to their obedience; and shall send him thence\nagain, to rule both them, and all other faithfull men, from the day of\nJudgment, Everlastingly: or from that, that the Throne of this our Great\nKing is in Heaven; whereas the Earth is but his Footstoole. But that the\nSubjects of God should have any place as high as his throne, or higher\nthan his Footstoole, it seemeth not sutable to the dignity of a King,\nnor can I find any evident text for it in holy Scripture.\n\nFrom this that hath been said of the Kingdom of God, and of Salvation,\nit is not hard to interpret, what is meant by the WORLD TO COME. There\nare three worlds mentioned in Scripture, the Old World, the Present\nWorld, and the World to Come. Of the first, St. Peter speaks, (2 Pet.\n2.5.) \"If God spared not the Old World, but saved Noah the eighth\nperson, a Preacher of righteousnesse, bringing the flood upon the world\nof the ungodly,\" &c. So the First World, was from Adam to the generall\nFlood. Of the present World, our Saviour speaks (John 18.36.) \"My\nKingdome is not of this World.\" For he came onely to teach men the way\nof Salvation, and to renew the Kingdome of his Father, by his doctrine.\nOf the World to come, St. Peter speaks, (2 Pet. 3. 13.) \"Neverthelesse\nwe according to his promise look for new Heavens, and a new Earth.\" This\nis that WORLD, wherein Christ coming down from Heaven, in the clouds,\nwith great power, and glory, shall send his Angels, and shall gather\ntogether his elect, from the four winds, and from the uttermost parts\nof the Earth, and thence forth reign over them, (under his Father)\nEverlastingly.\n\n\n\n\nRedemption\n\nSalvation of a sinner, supposeth a precedent REDEMPTION; for he that is\nonce guilty of Sin, is obnoxious to the Penalty of the same; and must\npay (or some other for him) such Ransome, as he that is offended, and\nhas him in his power, shall require. And seeing the person offended, is\nAlmighty God, in whose power are all things; such Ransome is to be paid\nbefore Salvation can be acquired, as God hath been pleased to require.\nBy this Ransome, is not intended a satisfaction for Sin, equivalent to\nthe Offence, which no sinner for himselfe, nor righteous man can ever be\nable to make for another; The dammage a man does to another, he may make\namends for by restitution, or recompence, but sin cannot be taken\naway by recompence; for that were to make the liberty to sin, a thing\nvendible. But sins may bee pardoned to the repentant, either Gratis, or\nupon such penalty, as God is pleased to accept. That which God usually\naccepted in the Old Testament, was some Sacrifice, or Oblation. To\nforgive sin is not an act of Injustice, though the punishment have\nbeen threatned. Even amongst men, though the promise of Good, bind the\npromiser; yet threats, that is to say, promises, of Evill, bind them\nnot; much lesse shall they bind God, who is infinitely more mercifull\nthen men. Our Saviour Christ therefore to Redeem us, did not in that\nsense satisfie for the Sins of men, as that his Death, of its own\nvertue, could make it unjust in God to punish sinners with Eternall\ndeath; but did make that Sacrifice, and Oblation of himself, at his\nfirst coming, which God was pleased to require, for the Salvation at his\nsecond coming, of such as in the mean time should repent, and beleeve in\nhim. And though this act of our Redemption, be not alwaies in Scripture\ncalled a Sacrifice, and Oblation, but sometimes a Price, yet by Price\nwe are not to understand any thing, by the value whereof, he could claim\nright to a pardon for us, from his offended Father, but that Price which\nGod the Father was pleased in mercy to demand.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIX. OF THE SIGNIFICATION IN SCRIPTURE OF THE WORD CHURCH\n\n\n\n\nChurch The Lords House\n\nThe word Church, (Ecclesia) signifieth in the Books of Holy Scripture\ndivers things. Sometimes (though not often) it is taken for Gods House,\nthat is to say, for a Temple, wherein Christians assemble to perform\nholy duties publiquely; as, 1 Cor. 14. ver. 34. \"Let your women keep\nsilence in the Churches:\" but this is Metaphorically put, for the\nCongregation there assembled; and hath been since used for the\nEdifice it self, to distinguish between the Temples of Christians, and\nIdolaters. The Temple of Jerusalem was Gods House, and the House of\nPrayer; and so is any Edifice dedicated by Christians to the worship of\nChrist, Christs House: and therefore the Greek Fathers call it Kuriake,\nThe Lords House; and thence, in our language it came to be called Kyrke,\nand Church.\n\n\n\n\nEcclesia Properly What\n\nChurch (when not taken for a House) signifieth the same that Ecclesia\nsignified in the Grecian Common-wealths; that is to say, a Congregation,\nor an Assembly of Citizens, called forth, to hear the Magistrate speak\nunto them; and which in the Common-wealth of Rome was called Concio, as\nhe that spake was called Ecclesiastes, and Concionator. And when they\nwere called forth by lawfull Authority, (Acts 19.39.) it was Ecclesia\nLegitima, a Lawfull Church, Ennomos Ecclesia. But when they were excited\nby tumultuous, and seditious clamor, then it was a confused Church,\nEcclesia Sugkechumene.\n\nIt is taken also sometimes for the men that have right to be of the\nCongregation, though not actually assembled; that is to say, for the\nwhole multitude of Christian men, how far soever they be dispersed: as\n(Act. 8.3.) where it is said, that \"Saul made havock of the Church:\" And\nin this sense is Christ said to be Head of the Church. And sometimes for\na certain part of Christians, as (Col. 4.15.) \"Salute the Church that is\nin his house.\" Sometimes also for the Elect onely; as (Ephes. 5.27.) \"A\nGlorious Church, without spot, or wrinkle, holy, and without blemish;\"\nwhich is meant of the Church Triumphant, or, Church To Come. Sometimes,\nfor a Congregation assembled, of professors of Christianity, whether\ntheir profession be true, or counterfeit, as it is understood, Mat.\n18.17. where it is said, \"Tell it to the Church, and if hee neglect to\nhear the Church, let him be to thee as a Gentile, or Publican.\"\n\n\n\n\nIn What Sense The Church Is One Person Church Defined\n\nAnd in this last sense only it is that the Church can be taken for one\nPerson; that is to say, that it can be said to have power to will, to\npronounce, to command, to be obeyed, to make laws, or to doe any other\naction whatsoever; For without authority from a lawfull Congregation,\nwhatsoever act be done in a concourse of people, it is the particular\nact of every one of those that were present, and gave their aid to the\nperformance of it; and not the act of them all in grosse, as of one\nbody; much lesse that act of them that were absent, or that being\npresent, were not willing it should be done. According to this sense, I\ndefine a CHURCH to be, \"A company of men professing Christian Religion,\nunited in the person of one Soveraign; at whose command they ought to\nassemble, and without whose authority they ought not to assemble.\" And\nbecause in all Common-wealths, that Assembly, which is without warrant\nfrom the Civil Soveraign, is unlawful; that Church also, which is\nassembled in any Common-wealth, that hath forbidden them to assemble, is\nan unlawfull Assembly.\n\n\n\n\nA Christian Common-wealth, And A Church All One\n\nIt followeth also, that there is on Earth, no such universall Church as\nall Christians are bound to obey; because there is no power on Earth, to\nwhich all other Common-wealths are subject: There are Christians, in\nthe Dominions of severall Princes and States; but every one of them\nis subject to that Common-wealth, whereof he is himself a member; and\nconsequently, cannot be subject to the commands of any other Person.\nAnd therefore a Church, such as one as is capable to Command, to Judge,\nAbsolve, Condemn, or do any other act, is the same thing with a Civil\nCommon-wealth, consisting of Christian men; and is called a Civill\nState, for that the subjects of it are Men; and a Church, for that the\nsubjects thereof are Christians. Temporall and Spirituall Government,\nare but two words brought into the world, to make men see double, and\nmistake their Lawfull Soveraign. It is true, that the bodies of the\nfaithfull, after the Resurrection shall be not onely Spirituall, but\nEternall; but in this life they are grosse, and corruptible. There\nis therefore no other Government in this life, neither of State, nor\nReligion, but Temporall; nor teaching of any doctrine, lawfull to any\nSubject, which the Governour both of the State, and of the Religion,\nforbiddeth to be taught: And that Governor must be one; or else there\nmust needs follow Faction, and Civil war in the Common-wealth, between\nthe Church and State; between Spiritualists, and Temporalists; between\nthe Sword Of Justice, and the Shield Of Faith; and (which is more) in\nevery Christian mans own brest, between the Christian, and the Man.\nThe Doctors of the Church, are called Pastors; so also are Civill\nSoveraignes: But if Pastors be not subordinate one to another, so\nas that there may bee one chief Pastor, men will be taught contrary\nDoctrines, whereof both may be, and one must be false. Who that one\nchief Pastor is, according to the law of Nature, hath been already\nshewn; namely, that it is the Civill Soveraign; And to whom the\nScripture hath assigned that Office, we shall see in the Chapters\nfollowing.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XL\n\nOF THE RIGHTS OF THE KINGDOME OF GOD, IN ABRAHAM, MOSES, HIGH PRIESTS,\n\nAND THE KINGS OF JUDAH\n\n\n\n\nThe Soveraign Rights Of Abraham\n\nThe Father of the Faithfull, and first in the Kingdome of God by\nCovenant, was Abraham. For with him was the Covenant first made; wherein\nhe obliged himself, and his seed after him, to acknowledge and obey the\ncommands of God; not onely such, as he could take notice of, (as Morall\nLaws,) by the light of Nature; but also such, as God should in speciall\nmanner deliver to him by Dreams and Visions. For as to the Morall law,\nthey were already obliged, and needed not have been contracted withall,\nby promise of the Land of Canaan. Nor was there any Contract, that could\nadde to, or strengthen the Obligation, by which both they, and all\nmen else were bound naturally to obey God Almighty: And therefore the\nCovenant which Abraham made with God, was to take for the Commandement\nof God, that which in the name of God was commanded him, in a Dream, or\nVision, and to deliver it to his family, and cause them to observe the\nsame.\n\n\n\n\nAbraham Had The Sole Power Of Ordering The Religion Of His Own People\n\nIn this Contract of God with Abraham, wee may observe three points of\nimportant consequence in the government of Gods people. First, that at\nthe making of this Covenant, God spake onely to Abraham; and therefore\ncontracted not with any of his family, or seed, otherwise then as their\nwills (which make the essence of all Covenants) were before the Contract\ninvolved in the will of Abraham; who was therefore supposed to have had\na lawfull power, to make them perform all that he covenanted for them.\nAccording whereunto (Gen 18.18, 19.) God saith, \"All the Nations of the\nEarth shall be blessed in him, For I know him that he will command his\nchildren and his houshold after him, and they shall keep the way of the\nLord.\" From whence may be concluded this first point, that they to\nwhom God hath not spoken immediately, are to receive the positive\ncommandements of God, from their Soveraign; as the family and seed of\nAbraham did from Abraham their Father, and Lord, and Civill Soveraign.\nAnd Consequently in every Common-wealth, they who have no supernaturall\nRevelation to the contrary, ought to obey the laws of their own\nSoveraign, in the externall acts and profession of Religion. As for the\ninward Thought, and beleef of men, which humane Governours can take no\nnotice of, (for God onely knoweth the heart) they are not voluntary, nor\nthe effect of the laws, but of the unrevealed will, and of the power of\nGod; and consequently fall not under obligation.\n\n\n\n\nNo Pretence Of Private Spirit Against The Religion Of Abraham\n\nFrom whence proceedeth another point, that it was not unlawfull for\nAbraham, when any of his Subjects should pretend Private Vision, or\nSpirit, or other Revelation from God, for the countenancing of any\ndoctrine which Abraham should forbid, or when they followed, or adhered\nto any such pretender, to punish them; and consequently that it is\nlawfull now for the Soveraign to punish any man that shall oppose his\nPrivate Spirit against the Laws: For hee hath the same place in the\nCommon-wealth, that Abraham had in his own Family.\n\n\n\n\nAbraham Sole Judge, And Interpreter Of What God Spake\n\nThere ariseth also from the same, a third point; that as none but\nAbraham in his family, so none but the Soveraign in a Christian\nCommon-wealth, can take notice what is, or what is not the Word of God.\nFor God spake onely to Abraham; and it was he onely, that was able\nto know what God said, and to interpret the same to his family: And\ntherefore also, they that have the place of Abraham in a Common-wealth,\nare the onely Interpreters of what God hath spoken.\n\n\n\n\nThe Authority Of Moses Whereon Grounded\n\nThe same Covenant was renewed with Isaac; and afterwards with Jacob; but\nafterwards no more, till the Israelites were freed from the Egyptians,\nand arrived at the Foot of Mount Sinai: and then it was renewed by Moses\n(as I have said before, chap. 35.) in such manner, as they became from\nthat time forward the Peculiar Kingdome of God; whose Lieutenant was\nMoses, for his owne time; and the succession to that office was setled\nupon Aaron, and his heirs after him, to bee to God a Sacerdotall\nKingdome for ever.\n\nBy this constitution, a Kingdome is acquired to God. But seeing Moses\nhad no authority to govern the Israelites, as a successor to the right\nof Abraham, because he could not claim it by inheritance; it appeareth\nnot as yet, that the people were obliged to take him for Gods\nLieutenant, longer than they beleeved that God spake unto him. And\ntherefore his authority (notwithstanding the Covenant they made with\nGod) depended yet merely upon the opinion they had of his Sanctity,\nand of the reality of his Conferences with God, and the verity of his\nMiracles; which opinion coming to change, they were no more obliged to\ntake any thing for the law of God, which he propounded to them in Gods\nname. We are therefore to consider, what other ground there was, of\ntheir obligation to obey him. For it could not be the commandement of\nGod that could oblige them; because God spake not to them immediately,\nbut by the mediation of Moses Himself; And our Saviour saith of himself,\n(John 5. 31.) \"If I bear witnesse of my self, my witnesse is not true,\"\nmuch lesse if Moses bear witnesse of himselfe, (especially in a claim of\nKingly power over Gods people) ought his testimony to be received. His\nauthority therefore, as the authority of all other Princes, must be\ngrounded on the Consent of the People, and their Promise to obey him.\nAnd so it was: for \"the people\" (Exod. 20.18.) \"when they saw the\nThunderings, and the Lightnings, and the noyse of the Trumpet, and the\nmountaine smoaking, removed, and stood a far off. And they said unto\nMoses, speak thou with us, and we will hear, but let not God speak with\nus lest we die.\" Here was their promise of obedience; and by this it was\nthey obliged themselves to obey whatsoever he should deliver unto them\nfor the Commandement of God.\n\n\n\n\nMoses Was (Under God) Soveraign Of The Jews, All His Own Time,\n\nThough Aaron Had The Priesthood\n\nAnd notwithstanding the Covenant constituted a Sacerdotall Kingdome,\nthat is to say, a Kingdome hereditary to Aaron; yet that is to be\nunderstood of the succession, after Moses should bee dead. For\nwhosoever ordereth, and establisheth the Policy, as first founder of\na Common-wealth (be it Monarchy, Aristocracy, or Democracy) must needs\nhave Soveraign Power over the people all the while he is doing of it.\nAnd that Moses had that power all his own time, is evidently affirmed in\nthe Scripture. First, in the text last before cited, because the people\npromised obedience, not to Aaron but to him. Secondly, (Exod. 24.1, 2.)\n\"And God said unto Moses, Come up unto the Lord, thou, and Aaron, Nadab\nand Abihu, and seventy of the Elders of Israel. And Moses alone shall\ncome neer the Lord, but they shall not come nigh, neither shall the\npeople goe up with him.\" By which it is plain, that Moses who was alone\ncalled up to God, (and not Aaron, nor the other Priests, nor the Seventy\nElders, nor the People who were forbidden to come up) was alone he, that\nrepresented to the Israelites the Person of God; that is to say, was\ntheir sole Soveraign under God. And though afterwards it be said (verse\n9.) \"Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the\nElders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel, and there was under\nhis feet, as it were a paved work of a saphire stone,\" &c. yet this was\nnot till after Moses had been with God before, and had brought to\nthe people the words which God had said to him. He onely went for the\nbusinesse of the people; the others, as the Nobles of his retinue, were\nadmitted for honour to that speciall grace, which was not allowed to\nthe people; which was, (as in the verse after appeareth) to see God and\nlive. \"God laid not his hand upon them, they saw God and did eat and\ndrink\" (that is, did live), but did not carry any commandement from\nhim to the people. Again, it is every where said, \"The Lord spake unto\nMoses,\" as in all other occasions of Government; so also in the ordering\nof the Ceremonies of Religion, contained in the 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,\nand 31 Chapters of Exodus, and throughout Leviticus: to Aaron seldome.\nThe Calfe that Aaron made, Moses threw into the fire. Lastly, the\nquestion of the Authority of Aaron, by occasion of his and Miriams\nmutiny against Moses, was (Numbers 12.) judged by God himself for Moses.\nSo also in the question between Moses, and the People, when Corah,\nDathan, and Abiram, and two hundred and fifty Princes of the Assembly\n\"gathered themselves together\" (Numbers 16. 3) \"against Moses, and\nagainst Aaron, and said unto them, 'Ye take too much upon you, seeing\nall the congregation are Holy, every one of them, and the Lord is\namongst them, why lift you up your selves above the congregation of the\nLord?'\" God caused the Earth to swallow Corah, Dathan, and Abiram with\ntheir wives and children alive, and consumed those two hundred and fifty\nPrinces with fire. Therefore neither Aaron, nor the People, nor any\nAristocracy of the chief Princes of the People, but Moses alone had next\nunder God the Soveraignty over the Israelites: And that not onely in\ncauses of Civill Policy, but also of Religion; For Moses onely spake\nwith God, and therefore onely could tell the People, what it was that\nGod required at their hands. No man upon pain of death might be so\npresumptuous as to approach the Mountain where God talked with Moses.\n\"Thou shalt set bounds\" (saith the Lord, Exod 19. 12.) \"to the people\nround about, and say, Take heed to your selves that you goe not up into\nthe Mount, or touch the border of it; whosoever toucheth the Mount shall\nsurely be put to death.\" and again (verse 21.) \"Get down, charge the\npeople, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze.\" Out of which we\nmay conclude, that whosoever in a Christian Common-wealth holdeth the\nplace of Moses, is the sole Messenger of God, and Interpreter of\nhis Commandements. And according hereunto, no man ought in the\ninterpretation of the Scripture to proceed further then the bounds which\nare set by their severall Soveraigns. For the Scriptures since God now\nspeaketh in them, are the Mount Sinai; the bounds whereof are the Laws\nof them that represent Gods Person on Earth. To look upon them and\ntherein to behold the wondrous works of God, and learn to fear him is\nallowed; but to interpret them; that is, to pry into what God saith to\nhim whom he appointeth to govern under him, and make themselves Judges\nwhether he govern as God commandeth him, or not, is to transgresse the\nbounds God hath set us, and to gaze upon God irreverently.\n\n\n\n\nAll Spirits Were Subordinate To The Spirit Of Moses\n\nThere was no Prophet in the time of Moses, nor pretender to the Spirit\nof God, but such as Moses had approved, and Authorized. For there were\nin his time but Seventy men, that are said to Prophecy by the Spirit of\nGod, and these were of all Moses his election; concerning whom God saith\nto Moses (Numb. 11.16.) \"Gather to mee Seventy of the Elders of Israel,\nwhom thou knowest to be the Elders of the People.\" To these God imparted\nhis Spirit; but it was not a different Spirit from that of Moses; for\nit is said (verse 25.) \"God came down in a cloud, and took of the Spirit\nthat was upon Moses, and gave it to the Seventy Elders.\" But as I have\nshewn before (chap. 36.) by Spirit, is understood the Mind; so that the\nsense of the place is no other than this, that God endued them with\na mind conformable, and subordinate to that of Moses, that they might\nProphecy, that is to say, speak to the people in Gods name, in such\nmanner, as to set forward (as Ministers of Moses, and by his authority)\nsuch doctrine as was agreeable to Moses his doctrine. For they were but\nMinisters; and when two of them Prophecyed in the Camp, it was thought\na new and unlawfull thing; and as it is in the 27. and 28. verses of\nthe same Chapter, they were accused of it, and Joshua advised Moses to\nforbid them, as not knowing that it was by Moses his Spirit that they\nProphecyed. By which it is manifest, that no Subject ought to pretend to\nProphecy, or to the Spirit, in opposition to the doctrine established by\nhim, whom God hath set in the place of Moses.\n\n\n\n\nAfter Moses The Soveraignty Was In The High Priest\n\nAaron being dead, and after him also Moses, the Kingdome, as being a\nSacerdotall Kingdome, descended by vertue of the Covenant, to Aarons\nSon, Eleazar the High Priest: And God declared him (next under himself)\nfor Soveraign, at the same time that he appointed Joshua for the\nGenerall of their Army. For thus God saith expressely (Numb. 27.21.)\nconcerning Joshua; \"He shall stand before Eleazar the Priest, who shall\nask counsell for him, before the Lord, at his word shall they goe out,\nand at his word they shall come in, both he, and all the Children of\nIsrael with him:\" Therefore the Supreme Power of making War and Peace,\nwas in the Priest. The Supreme Power of Judicature belonged also to\nthe High Priest: For the Book of the Law was in their keeping; and the\nPriests and Levites onely were the subordinate Judges in causes Civill,\nas appears in Deut. 17.8, 9, 10. And for the manner of Gods worship,\nthere was never doubt made, but that the High Priest till the time\nof Saul, had the Supreme Authority. Therefore the Civill and\nEcclesiasticall Power were both joined together in one and the same\nperson, the High Priest; and ought to bee so, in whosoever governeth by\nDivine Right; that is, by Authority immediate from God.\n\n\n\n\nOf The Soveraign Power Between The Time Of Joshua And Of Saul\n\nAfter the death of Joshua, till the time of Saul, the time between is\nnoted frequently in the Book of Judges, \"that there was in those dayes\nno King in Israel;\" and sometimes with this addition, that \"every\nman did that which was right in his own eyes.\" By which is to bee\nunderstood, that where it is said, \"there was no King,\" is meant, \"there\nwas no Soveraign Power\" in Israel. And so it was, if we consider the\nAct, and Exercise of such power. For after the death of Joshua, &\nEleazar, \"there arose another generation\" (Judges 2.10.) \"that knew not\nthe Lord, nor the works which he had done for Israel, but did evill in\nthe sight of the Lord, and served Baalim.\" And the Jews had that quality\nwhich St. Paul noteth, \"to look for a sign,\" not onely before they would\nsubmit themselves to the government of Moses, but also after they had\nobliged themselves by their submission. Whereas Signs, and Miracles had\nfor End to procure Faith, not to keep men from violating it, when they\nhave once given it; for to that men are obliged by the law of Nature.\nBut if we consider not the Exercise, but the Right of governing, the\nSoveraign power was still in the High Priest. Therefore whatsoever\nobedience was yeelded to any of the Judges, (who were men chosen by God\nextraordinarily, to save his rebellious subjects out of the hands of\nthe enemy,) it cannot bee drawn into argument against the Right the High\nPriest had to the Soveraign Power, in all matters, both of Policy and\nReligion. And neither the Judges, nor Samuel himselfe had an ordinary,\nbut extraordinary calling to the Government; and were obeyed by the\nIsraelites, not out of duty, but out of reverence to their favour\nwith God, appearing in their wisdome, courage, or felicity. Hitherto\ntherefore the Right of Regulating both the Policy, and the Religion,\nwere inseparable.\n\n\n\n\nOf The Rights Of The Kings Of Israel\n\nTo the Judges, succeeded Kings; And whereas before, all authority, both\nin Religion, and Policy, was in the High Priest; so now it was all in\nthe King. For the Soveraignty over the people, which was before, not\nonely by vertue of the Divine Power, but also by a particular pact of\nthe Israelites in God, and next under him, in the High Priest, as his\nViceregent on earth, was cast off by the People, with the consent of God\nhimselfe. For when they said to Samuel (1 Sam. 8.5.) \"make us a King to\njudge us, like all the Nations,\" they signified that they would no\nmore bee governed by the commands that should bee laid upon them by the\nPriest, in the name of God; but by one that should command them in the\nsame manner that all other nations were commanded; and consequently in\ndeposing the High Priest of Royall authority, they deposed that peculiar\nGovernment of God. And yet God consented to it, saying to Samuel (verse\n7.) \"Hearken unto the voice of the People, in all that they shall say\nunto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected mee,\nthat I should not reign over them.\" Having therefore rejected God, in\nwhose Right the Priests governed, there was no authority left to the\nPriests, but such as the King was pleased to allow them; which was\nmore, or lesse, according as the Kings were good, or evill. And for the\nGovernment of Civill affaires, it is manifest, it was all in the hands\nof the King. For in the same Chapter, verse 20. They say they will be\nlike all the Nations; that their King shall be their Judge, and goe\nbefore them, and fight their battells; that is, he shall have the\nwhole authority, both in Peace and War. In which is contained also the\nordering of Religion; for there was no other Word of God in that time,\nby which to regulate Religion, but the Law of Moses, which was their\nCivill Law. Besides, we read (1 Kings 2.27.) that Solomon \"thrust out\nAbiathar from being Priest before the Lord:\" He had therefore authority\nover the High Priest, as over any other Subject; which is a great\nmark of Supremacy in Religion. And we read also (1 Kings 8.) that hee\ndedicated the Temple; that he blessed the People; and that he himselfe\nin person made that excellent prayer, used in the Consecrations of all\nChurches, and houses of Prayer; which is another great mark of Supremacy\nin Religion. Again, we read (2 Kings 22.) that when there was question\nconcerning the Book of the Law found in the Temple, the same was not\ndecided by the High Priest, but Josiah sent both him, and others to\nenquire concerning it, of Hulda, the Prophetesse; which is another mark\nof the Supremacy in Religion. Lastly, wee read (1 Chro. 26.30.) that\nDavid made Hashabiah and his brethren, Hebronites, Officers of Israel\namong them Westward, \"in all businesse of the Lord, and in the service\nof the King.\" Likewise (verse 32.) that hee made other Hebronites,\n\"rulers over the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the halfe tribe of\nManasseh\" (these were the rest of Israel that dwelt beyond Jordan) \"for\nevery matter pertaining to God, and affairs of the King.\" Is not this\nfull Power, both Temporall and Spirituall, as they call it, that would\ndivide it? To conclude; from the first institution of Gods Kingdome, to\nthe Captivity, the Supremacy of Religion, was in the same hand with that\nof the Civill Soveraignty; and the Priests office after the election of\nSaul, was not Magisteriall, but Ministeriall.\n\n\n\n\nThe Practice Of Supremacy In Religion, Was Not In The Time Of The Kings,\n\nAccording To The Right Thereof\n\nNotwithstanding the government both in Policy and Religion, were joined,\nfirst in the High Priests, and afterwards in the Kings, so far forth as\nconcerned the Right; yet it appeareth by the same Holy History, that the\npeople understood it not; but there being amongst them a great part, and\nprobably the greatest part, that no longer than they saw great miracles,\nor (which is equivalent to a miracle) great abilities, or great felicity\nin the enterprises of their Governours, gave sufficient credit, either\nto the fame of Moses, or to the Colloquies between God and the Priests;\nthey took occasion as oft as their Governours displeased them, by\nblaming sometimes the Policy, sometimes the Religion, to change the\nGovernment, or revolt from their Obedience at their pleasure: And from\nthence proceeded from time to time the civill troubles, divisions, and\ncalamities of the Nation. As for example, after the death of Eleazar and\nJoshua, the next generation which had not seen the wonders of God, but\nwere left to their own weak reason, not knowing themselves obliged\nby the Covenant of a Sacerdotall Kingdome, regarded no more the\nCommandement of the Priest, nor any law of Moses, but did every man that\nwhich was right in his own eyes; and obeyed in Civill affairs, such\nmen, as from time to time they thought able to deliver them from the\nneighbour Nations that oppressed them; and consulted not with God (as\nthey ought to doe,) but with such men, or women, as they guessed to bee\nProphets by their Praedictions of things to come; and thought they had\nan Idol in their Chappel, yet if they had a Levite for their Chaplain,\nthey made account they worshipped the God of Israel.\n\nAnd afterwards when they demanded a King, after the manner of the\nnations; yet it was not with a design to depart from the worship of God\ntheir King; but despairing of the justice of the sons of Samuel, they\nwould have a King to judg them in Civill actions; but not that they\nwould allow their King to change the Religion which they thought was\nrecommended to them by Moses. So that they alwaies kept in store a\npretext, either of Justice, or Religion, to discharge themselves of\ntheir obedience, whensoever they had hope to prevaile. Samuel was\ndispleased with the people, for that they desired a King, (for God was\ntheir King already, and Samuel had but an authority under him); yet did\nSamuel, when Saul observed not his counsell, in destroying Agag as God\nhad commanded, anoint another King, namely David, to take the succession\nfrom his heirs. Rehoboam was no Idolater; but when the people thought\nhim an Oppressor; that Civil pretence carried from him ten Tribes to\nJeroboam an Idolater. And generally through the whole History of the\nKings, as well of Judah, as of Israel, there were Prophets that alwaies\ncontrolled the Kings, for transgressing the Religion; and sometimes also\nfor Errours of State; (2 Chro. 19. 2.) as Jehosaphat was reproved by\nthe Prophet Jehu, for aiding the King of Israel against the Syrians;\nand Hezekiah, by Isaiah, for shewing his treasures to the Ambassadors of\nBabylon. By all which it appeareth, that though the power both of State\nand Religion were in the Kings; yet none of them were uncontrolled\nin the use of it, but such as were gracious for their own naturall\nabilities, or felicities. So that from the practise of those times,\nthere can no argument be drawn, that the right of Supremacy in Religion\nwas not in the Kings, unlesse we place it in the Prophets; and conclude,\nthat because Hezekiah praying to the Lord before the Cherubins, was not\nanswered from thence, nor then, but afterwards by the Prophet Isaiah,\ntherefore Isaiah was supreme Head of the Church; or because Josiah\nconsulted Hulda the Prophetesse, concerning the Book of the Law, that\ntherefore neither he, nor the High Priest, but Hulda the Prophetesse had\nthe Supreme authority in matter of Religion; which I thinke is not the\nopinion of any Doctor.\n\n\n\n\nAfter The Captivity The Jews Had No Setled Common-wealth\n\nDuring the Captivity, the Jews had no Common-wealth at all\n\nAnd after their return, though they renewed their Covenant with God, yet\nthere was no promise made of obedience, neither to Esdras, nor to any\nother; And presently after they became subjects to the Greeks (from\nwhose Customes, and Daemonology, and from the doctrine of the Cabalists,\ntheir Religion became much corrupted): In such sort as nothing can be\ngathered from their confusion, both in State and Religion, concerning\nthe Supremacy in either. And therefore so far forth as concerneth the\nOld Testament, we may conclude, that whosoever had the Soveraignty\nof the Common-wealth amongst the Jews, the same had also the Supreme\nAuthority in matter of Gods externall worship; and represented Gods\nPerson; that is the person of God the Father; though he were not called\nby the name of Father, till such time as he sent into the world his Son\nJesus Christ, to redeem mankind from their sins, and bring them into his\nEverlasting Kingdome, to be saved for evermore. Of which we are to speak\nin the Chapter following.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLI. OF THE OFFICE OF OUR BLESSED SAVIOUR\n\n\n\n\nThree Parts Of The Office Of Christ\n\nWe find in Holy Scripture three parts of the Office of the Messiah: the\nfirst of a Redeemer, or Saviour: The second of a Pastor, Counsellour,\nor Teacher, that is, of a Prophet sent from God, to convert such as God\nhath elected to Salvation; The third of a King, and Eternall King, but\nunder his Father, as Moses and the High Priests were in their severall\ntimes. And to these three parts are corespondent three times. For our\nRedemption he wrought at his first coming, by the Sacrifice, wherein\nhe offered up himself for our sinnes upon the Crosse: our conversion\nhe wrought partly then in his own Person; and partly worketh now by his\nMinisters; and will continue to work till his coming again. And after\nhis coming again, shall begin that his glorious Reign over his elect,\nwhich is to last eternally.\n\n\n\n\nHis Office As A Redeemer\n\nTo the Office of a Redeemer, that is, of one that payeth the Ransome of\nSin, (which Ransome is Death,) it appertaineth, that he was Sacrificed,\nand thereby bare upon his own head, and carryed away from us our\niniquities, in such sort as God had required. Not that the death of one\nman, though without sinne, can satisfie for the offences of all men,\nin the rigour of Justice, but in the Mercy of God, that ordained such\nSacrifices for sin, as he was pleased in his mercy to accept. In the old\nLaw (as we may read, Leviticus the 16.) the Lord required, that there\nshould every year once, bee made an Atonement for the Sins of all\nIsrael, both Priests, and others; for the doing whereof, Aaron alone was\nto sacrifice for himself and the Priests a young Bullock; and for the\nrest of the people, he was to receive from them two young Goates, of\nwhich he was to Sacrifice one; but as for the other, which was the Scape\nGoat, he was to lay his hands on the head thereof, and by a confession\nof the iniquities of the people, to lay them all on that head, and then\nby some opportune man, to cause the Goat to be led into the wildernesse,\nand there to Escape, and carry away with him the iniquities of the\npeople. As the Sacrifice of the one Goat was a sufficient (because an\nacceptable) price for the Ransome of all Israel; so the death of the\nMessiah, is a sufficient price, for the Sins of all mankind, because\nthere was no more required. Our Saviour Christs sufferings seem to be\nhere figured, as cleerly, as in the oblation of Isaac, or in any other\ntype of him in the Old Testament: He was both the sacrificed Goat, and\nthe Scape Goat; \"Hee was oppressed, and he was afflicted (Isa. 53.7.);\nhe opened not his mouth; he brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a\nsheep is dumbe before the shearer, so opened he not his mouth:\" Here he\nis the Sacrificed Goat. \"He hath born our Griefs, (ver.4.) and carried\nour sorrows;\" And again, (ver. 6.) \"the Lord hath laid upon him the\niniquities of us all:\" And so he is the Scape Goat. \"He was cut off from\nthe land of the living (ver. 8.) for the transgression of my People:\"\nThere again he is the Sacrificed Goat. And again (ver. 11.) \"he shall\nbear their sins:\" Hee is the Scape Goat. Thus is the Lamb of God\nequivalent to both those Goates; sacrificed, in that he dyed; and\nescaping, in his Resurrection; being raised opportunely by his Father,\nand removed from the habitation of men in his Ascension.\n\n\n\n\nChrists Kingdome Not Of This World\n\nFor as much therefore, as he that Redeemeth, hath no title to the Thing\nRedeemed, before the Redemption, and Ransome paid; and this Ransome was\nthe Death of the Redeemer; it is manifest, that our Saviour (as man) was\nnot King of those that he Redeemed, before hee suffered death; that is,\nduring that time hee conversed bodily on the Earth. I say, he was not\nthen King in present, by vertue of the Pact, which the faithfull make\nwith him in Baptisme; Neverthelesse, by the renewing of their Pact with\nGod in Baptisme, they were obliged to obey him for King, (under his\nFather) whensoever he should be pleased to take the Kingdome upon him.\nAccording whereunto, our Saviour himself expressely saith, (John 18.36.)\n\"My Kingdome is not of this world.\" Now seeing the Scripture maketh\nmention but of two worlds; this that is now, and shall remain to the day\nof Judgment, (which is therefore also called, The Last Day;) and that\nwhich shall bee a new Heaven, and a new Earth; the Kingdome of Christ\nis not to begin till the general Resurrection. And that is it which our\nSaviour saith, (Mat. 16.27.) \"The Son of man shall come in the glory\nof his Father, with his Angels; and then he shall reward every man\naccording to his works.\" To reward every man according to his works, is\nto execute the Office of a King; and this is not to be till he come in\nthe glory of his Father, with his Angells. When our Saviour saith,\n(Mat. 23.2.) \"The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat; All therefore\nwhatsoever they bid you doe, that observe and doe;\" hee declareth\nplainly, that hee ascribeth Kingly Power, for that time, not to\nhimselfe, but to them. And so hee hath also, where he saith, (Luke\n12.14.) \"Who made mee a Judge, or Divider over you?\" And (John 12.47.)\n\"I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.\" And yet our\nSaviour came into this world that hee might bee a King, and a Judge in\nthe world to come: For hee was the Messiah, that is, the Christ, that\nis, the Anointed Priest, and the Soveraign Prophet of God; that is to\nsay, he was to have all the power that was in Moses the Prophet, in the\nHigh Priests that succeeded Moses, and in the Kings that succeeded the\nPriests. And St. John saies expressely (chap. 5. ver. 22.) \"The Father\njudgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son.\" And this is\nnot repugnant to that other place, \"I came not to judge the world:\" for\nthis is spoken of the world present, the other of the world to come; as\nalso where it is said, that at the second coming of Christ, (Mat. 19.\n28.) \"Yee that have followed me in the Regeneration, when the Son of\nman shall sit in the throne of his Glory, yee shall also sit on twelve\nthrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.\"\n\n\n\n\nThe End Of Christs Comming Was To Renew The Covenant Of The Kingdome\n\nOf God, And To Perswade The Elect To Imbrace It, Which Was The Second\n\nPart Of His Office\n\nIf then Christ while hee was on Earth, had no Kingdome in this World,\nto what end was his first coming? It was to restore unto God, by a new\nCovenant, the Kingdome, which being his by the Old Covenant, had been\ncut off by the rebellion of the Israelites in the election of Saul.\nWhich to doe, he was to preach unto them, that he was the Messiah, that\nis, the King promised to them by the Prophets; and to offer himselfe in\nsacrifice for the sinnes of them that should by faith submit themselves\nthereto; and in case the nation generally should refuse him, to call\nto his obedience such as should beleeve in him amongst the Gentiles. So\nthat there are two parts of our Saviours Office during his aboad upon\nthe Earth; One to Proclaim himself the Christ; and another by Teaching,\nand by working of Miracles, to perswade, and prepare men to live so, as\nto be worthy of the Immortality Beleevers were to enjoy, at such time as\nhe should come in majesty, to take possession of his Fathers Kingdome.\nAnd therefore it is, that the time of his preaching, is often by himself\ncalled the Regeneration; which is not properly a Kingdome, and thereby\na warrant to deny obedience to the Magistrates that then were, (for\nhee commanded to obey those that sate then in Moses chaire, and to pay\ntribute to Caesar;) but onely an earnest of the Kingdome of God that was\nto come, to those to whom God had given the grace to be his disciples,\nand to beleeve in him; For which cause the Godly are said to bee already\nin the Kingdome of Grace, as naturalized in that heavenly Kingdome.\n\n\n\n\nThe Preaching Of Christ Not Contrary To The Then Law Of The Jews,\n\nNor Of Caesar\n\nHitherto therefore there is nothing done, or taught by Christ, that\ntendeth to the diminution of the Civill Right of the Jewes, or of\nCaesar. For as touching the Common-wealth which then was amongst\nthe Jews, both they that bare rule amongst them, that they that were\ngoverned, did all expect the Messiah, and Kingdome of God; which they\ncould not have done if their Laws had forbidden him (when he came) to\nmanifest, and declare himself. Seeing therefore he did nothing, but by\nPreaching, and Miracles go about to prove himselfe to be that Messiah,\nhee did therein nothing against their laws. The Kingdome hee claimed was\nto bee in another world; He taught all men to obey in the mean time them\nthat sate in Moses seat: he allowed them to give Caesar his tribute, and\nrefused to take upon himselfe to be a Judg. How then could his words,\nor actions bee seditious, or tend to the overthrow of their then Civill\nGovernment? But God having determined his sacrifice, for the reduction\nof his elect to their former covenanted obedience, for the means,\nwhereby he would bring the same to effect, made use of their malice,\nand ingratitude. Nor was it contrary to the laws of Caesar. For though\nPilate himself (to gratifie the Jews) delivered him to be crucified; yet\nbefore he did so, he pronounced openly, that he found no fault in him:\nAnd put for title of his condemnation, not as the Jews required, \"that\nhe pretended to be King;\" but simply, \"That hee was King of the Jews;\"\nand notwithstanding their clamour, refused to alter it; saying, \"What I\nhave written, I have written.\"\n\n\n\n\nThe Third Part Of His Office Was To Be King (Under His Father)\n\nOf The Elect\n\nAs for the third part of his Office, which was to be King, I have\nalready shewn that his Kingdome was not to begin till the Resurrection.\nBut then he shall be King, not onely as God, in which sense he is\nKing already, and ever shall be, of all the Earth, in vertue of his\nomnipotence; but also peculiarly of his own Elect, by vertue of the\npact they make with him in their Baptisme. And therefore it is, that\nour Saviour saith (Mat. 19.28.) that his Apostles should sit upon twelve\nthrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, \"When the Son of man shall\nsit in the throne of his glory;\" whereby he signified that he should\nreign then in his humane nature; and (Mat. 16.27.) \"The Son of man shall\ncome in the glory of his Father, with his Angels, and then he shall\nreward every man according to his works.\" The same we may read, Marke\n13..26. and 14.26. and more expressely for the time, Luke 22.29, 30. \"I\nappoint unto you a Kingdome, as my Father hath appointed to mee, that\nyou may eat and drink at my table in my Kingdome, and sit on thrones\njudging the twelve tribes of Israel.\" By which it is manifest that the\nKingdome of Christ appointed to him by his Father, is not to be before\nthe Son of Man shall come in Glory, and make his Apostles Judges of\nthe twelve tribes of Israel. But a man may here ask, seeing there is\nno marriage in the Kingdome of Heaven, whether men shall then eat, and\ndrink; what eating therefore is meant in this place? This is expounded\nby our Saviour (John 6.27.) where he saith, \"Labour not for the meat\nwhich perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting\nlife, which the Son of man shall give you.\" So that by eating at Christs\ntable, is meant the eating of the Tree of Life; that is to say, the\nenjoying of Immortality, in the Kingdome of the Son of Man. By which\nplaces, and many more, it is evident, that our Saviours Kingdome is to\nbee exercised by him in his humane nature.\n\n\n\n\nChrists Authority In The Kingdome Of God Subordinate To His Father\n\nAgain, he is to be King then, no otherwise than as subordinate, or\nViceregent of God the Father, as Moses was in the wildernesse; and as\nthe High Priests were before the reign of Saul; and as the Kings were\nafter it. For it is one of the Prophecies concerning Christ, that he\nshould be like (in Office) to Moses; \"I will raise them up a Prophet\n(saith the Lord, Deut. 18.18.) from amongst their Brethren like unto\nthee, and will put my words into his mouth,\" and this similitude with\nMoses, is also apparent in the actions of our Saviour himself, whilest\nhe was conversant on Earth. For as Moses chose twelve Princes of the\ntribes, to govern under him; so did our Saviour choose twelve Apostles,\nwho shall sit on twelve thrones, and judge the twelve tribes of Israel;\nAnd as Moses authorized Seventy Elders, to receive the Spirit of God,\nand to Prophecy to the people, that is, (as I have said before,) to\nspeak unto them in the name of God; so our Saviour also ordained seventy\nDisciples, to preach his Kingdome, and Salvation to all Nations. And as\nwhen a complaint was made to Moses, against those of the Seventy that\nprophecyed in the camp of Israel, he justified them in it, as being\nsubservient therein to his government; so also our Saviour, when St.\nJohn complained to him of a certain man that cast out Devills in his\nname, justified him therein, saying, (Luke 9.50.) \"Forbid him not, for\nhee that is not against us, is on our part.\"\n\nAgain, our Saviour resembled Moses in the institution of Sacraments,\nboth of Admission into the Kingdome of God, and of Commemoration of his\ndeliverance of his Elect from their miserable condition. As the Children\nof Israel had for Sacrament of their Reception into the Kingdome of God,\nbefore the time of Moses, the rite of Circumcision, which rite having\nbeen omitted in the Wildernesse, was again restored as soon as they came\ninto the land of Promise; so also the Jews, before the coming of our\nSaviour, had a rite of Baptizing, that is, of washing with water all\nthose that being Gentiles, embraced the God of Israel. This rite St.\nJohn the Baptist used in the reception of all them that gave their names\nto the Christ, whom hee preached to bee already come into the world; and\nour Saviour instituted the same for a Sacrament to be taken by all that\nbeleeved in him. From what cause the rite of Baptisme first proceeded,\nis not expressed formally in the Scripture; but it may be probably\nthought to be an imitation of the law of Moses, concerning Leprousie;\nwherein the Leprous man was commanded to be kept out of the campe of\nIsrael for a certain time; after which time being judged by the Priest\nto be clean, hee was admitted into the campe after a solemne Washing.\nAnd this may therefore bee a type of the Washing in Baptisme; wherein\nsuch men as are cleansed of the Leprousie of Sin by Faith, are received\ninto the Church with the solemnity of Baptisme. There is another\nconjecture drawn from the Ceremonies of the Gentiles, in a certain case\nthat rarely happens; and that is, when a man that was thought dead,\nchanced to recover, other men made scruple to converse with him, as they\nwould doe to converse with a Ghost, unlesse hee were received again into\nthe number of men, by Washing, as Children new born were washed from\nthe uncleannesse of their nativity, which was a kind of new birth. This\nceremony of the Greeks, in the time that Judaea was under the Dominion\nof Alexander, and the Greeks his successors, may probably enough have\ncrept into the Religion of the Jews. But seeing it is not likely our\nSaviour would countenance a Heathen rite, it is most likely it proceeded\nfrom the Legall Ceremony of Washing after Leprosie. And for the other\nSacraments, of eating the Paschall Lambe, it is manifestly imitated in\nthe Sacrament of the Lords Supper; in which the Breaking of the Bread,\nand the pouring out of the Wine, do keep in memory our deliverance from\nthe Misery of Sin, by Christs Passion, as the eating of the Paschall\nLambe, kept in memory the deliverance of the Jewes out of the Bondage of\nEgypt. Seeing therefore the authority of Moses was but subordinate, and\nhee but a Lieutenant to God; it followeth, that Christ, whose authority,\nas man, was to bee like that of Moses, was no more but subordinate to\nthe authority of his Father. The same is more expressely signified, by\nthat that hee teacheth us to pray, \"Our Father, Let thy Kingdome come;\"\nand, \"For thine is the Kingdome, the power and the Glory;\" and by that\nit is said, that \"Hee shall come in the Glory of his Father;\" and by\nthat which St. Paul saith, (1 Cor. 15.24.) \"then commeth the end, when\nhee shall have delivered up the Kingdome to God, even the Father;\" and\nby many other most expresse places.\n\n\n\n\nOne And The Same God Is The Person Represented By Moses, And By Christ\n\nOur Saviour therefore, both in Teaching, and Reigning, representeth (as\nMoses Did) the Person of God; which God from that time forward, but\nnot before, is called the Father; and being still one and the same\nsubstance, is one Person as represented by Moses, and another Person as\nrepresented by his Sonne the Christ. For Person being a relative to a\nRepresenter, it is consequent to plurality of Representers, that there\nbee a plurality of Persons, though of one and the same Substance.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLII. OF POWER ECCLESIASTICALL\n\n\nFor the understanding of POWER ECCLESIASTICALL, what, and in whom it is,\nwe are to distinguish the time from the Ascension of our Saviour, into\ntwo parts; one before the Conversion of Kings, and men endued with\nSoveraign Civill Power; the other after their Conversion. For it was\nlong after the Ascension, before any King, or Civill Soveraign embraced,\nand publiquely allowed the teaching of Christian Religion.\n\n\n\n\nOf The Holy Spirit That Fel On The Apostles\n\nAnd for the time between, it is manifest, that the Power\nEcclesiasticall, was in the Apostles; and after them in such as were by\nthem ordained to Preach the Gospell, and to convert men to Christianity,\nand to direct them that were converted in the way of Salvation; and\nafter these the Power was delivered again to others by these ordained,\nand this was done by Imposition of hands upon such as were ordained; by\nwhich was signified the giving of the Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God, to\nthose whom they ordained Ministers of God, to advance his Kingdome.\nSo that Imposition of hands, was nothing else but the Seal of their\nCommission to Preach Christ, and teach his Doctrine; and the giving of\nthe Holy Ghost by that ceremony of Imposition of hands, was an imitation\nof that which Moses did. For Moses used the same ceremony to his\nMinister Joshua, as wee read Deuteronomy 34. ver. 9. \"And Joshua the son\nof Nun was full of the Spirit of Wisdome; for Moses had laid his\nhands upon him.\" Our Saviour therefore between his Resurrection, and\nAscension, gave his Spirit to the Apostles; first, by \"Breathing on\nthem, and saying,\" (John 20.22.) \"Receive yee the Holy Spirit;\" and after\nhis Ascension (Acts 2.2, 3.) by sending down upon them, a \"mighty wind,\nand Cloven tongues of fire;\" and not by Imposition of hands; as neither\ndid God lay his hands on Moses; and his Apostles afterward, transmitted\nthe same Spirit by Imposition of hands, as Moses did to Joshua. So that\nit is manifest hereby, in whom the Power Ecclesiasticall continually\nremained, in those first times, where there was not any Christian\nCommon-wealth; namely, in them that received the same from the Apostles,\nby successive laying on of hands.\n\n\n\n\nOf The Trinity\n\nHere wee have the Person of God born now the third time. For as Moses,\nand the High Priests, were Gods Representative in the Old Testament;\nand our Saviour himselfe as Man, during his abode on earth: So the Holy\nGhost, that is to say, the Apostles, and their successors, in the Office\nof Preaching, and Teaching, that had received the Holy Spirit, have\nRepresented him ever since. But a Person, (as I have shewn before,\n[chapt. 16.].) is he that is Represented, as often as hee is\nRepresented; and therefore God, who has been Represented (that is,\nPersonated) thrice, may properly enough be said to be three Persons;\nthough neither the word Person, nor Trinity be ascribed to him in the\nBible. St. John indeed (1 Epist. 5.7.) saith, \"There be three that bear\nwitnesse in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these\nThree are One:\" But this disagreeth not, but accordeth fitly with three\nPersons in the proper signification of Persons; which is, that which is\nRepresented by another. For so God the Father, as Represented by Moses,\nis one Person; and as Represented by his Sonne, another Person, and as\nRepresented by the Apostles, and by the Doctors that taught by authority\nfrom them derived, is a third Person; and yet every Person here, is\nthe Person of one and the same God. But a man may here ask, what it was\nwhereof these three bare witnesse. St. John therefore tells us (verse\n11.) that they bear witnesse, that \"God hath given us eternall life\nin his Son.\" Again, if it should be asked, wherein that testimony\nappeareth, the Answer is easie; for he hath testified the same by the\nmiracles he wrought, first by Moses; secondly, by his Son himself; and\nlastly by his Apostles, that had received the Holy Spirit; all which\nin their times Represented the Person of God; and either prophecyed, or\npreached Jesus Christ. And as for the Apostles, it was the character\nof the Apostleship, in the twelve first and great Apostles, to bear\nWitnesse of his Resurrection; as appeareth expressely (Acts 1. ver.\n21,22.) where St Peter, when a new Apostle was to be chosen in the place\nof Judas Iscariot, useth these words, \"Of these men which have companied\nwith us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongst us,\nbeginning at the Baptisme of John, unto that same day that hee was\ntaken up from us, must one bee ordained to be a Witnesse with us of his\nResurrection:\" which words interpret the Bearing of Witnesse, mentioned\nby St. John. There is in the same place mentioned another Trinity of\nWitnesses in Earth. For (ver. 8.) he saith, \"there are three that bear\nWitnesse in Earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Bloud; and these\nthree agree in one:\" that is to say, the graces of Gods Spirit, and the\ntwo Sacraments, Baptisme, and the Lords Supper, which all agree in one\nTestimony, to assure the consciences of beleevers, of eternall life; of\nwhich Testimony he saith (verse 10.) \"He that beleeveth on the Son of\nman hath the Witnesse in himselfe.\" In this Trinity on Earth the Unity\nis not of the thing; for the Spirit, the Water, and the Bloud, are not\nthe same substance, though they give the same testimony: But in the\nTrinity of Heaven, the Persons are the persons of one and the same God,\nthough Represented in three different times and occasions. To conclude,\nthe doctrine of the Trinity, as far as can be gathered directly from\nthe Scripture, is in substance this; that God who is alwaies One and the\nsame, was the Person Represented by Moses; the Person Represented by\nhis Son Incarnate; and the Person Represented by the Apostles. As\nRepresented by the Apostles, the Holy Spirit by which they spake, is\nGod; As Represented by his Son (that was God and Man), the Son is that\nGod; As represented by Moses, and the High Priests, the Father, that is\nto say, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is that God: From whence\nwe may gather the reason why those names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in\nthe signification of the Godhead, are never used in the Old Testament:\nFor they are Persons, that is, they have their names from Representing;\nwhich could not be, till divers men had Represented Gods Person in\nruling, or in directing under him.\n\nThus wee see how the Power Ecclesiasticall was left by our Saviour\nto the Apostles; and how they were (to the end they might the better\nexercise that Power,) endued with the Holy Spirit, which is therefore\ncalled sometime in the New Testament Paracletus which signifieth an\nAssister, or one called to for helpe, though it bee commonly translated\na Comforter. Let us now consider the Power it selfe, what it was, and\nover whom.\n\n\n\n\nThe Power Ecclesiasticall Is But The Power To Teach\n\nCardinall Bellarmine in his third generall Controversie, hath handled a\ngreat many questions concerning the Ecclesiasticall Power of the Pope\nof Rome; and begins with this, Whether it ought to be Monarchicall,\nAristocraticall, or Democraticall. All which sorts of Power, are\nSoveraign, and Coercive. If now it should appear, that there is no\nCoercive Power left them by our Saviour; but onely a Power to proclaim\nthe Kingdom of Christ, and to perswade men to submit themselves\nthereunto; and by precepts and good counsell, to teach them that have\nsubmitted, what they are to do, that they may be received into the\nKingdom of God when it comes; and that the Apostles, and other Ministers\nof the Gospel, are our Schoolemasters, and not our Commanders, and their\nPrecepts not Laws, but wholesome Counsells then were all that dispute in\nvain.\n\n\n\n\nAn Argument Thereof, The Power Of Christ Himself\n\nI have shewn already (in the last Chapter,) that the Kingdome of Christ\nis not of this world: therefore neither can his Ministers (unlesse they\nbe Kings,) require obedience in his name. For if the Supreme King, have\nnot his Regall Power in this world; by what authority can obedience be\nrequired to his Officers? As my Father sent me, (so saith our Saviour)\nI send you. But our Saviour was sent to perswade the Jews to return to,\nand to invite the Gentiles, to receive the Kingdome of his Father, and\nnot to reign in Majesty, no not, as his Fathers Lieutenant, till the day\nof Judgment.\n\n\n\n\nFrom The Name Of Regeneration\n\nThe time between the Ascension, and the generall Resurrection, is\ncalled, not a Reigning, but a Regeneration; that is, a Preparation\nof men for the second and glorious coming of Christ, at the day of\nJudgment; as appeareth by the words of our Saviour, Mat. 19.28. \"You\nthat have followed me in the Regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit\nin the throne of his glory, you shall also sit upon twelve Thrones;\" And\nof St. Paul (Ephes. 6.15.) \"Having your feet shod with the Preparation\nof the Gospell of Peace.\"\n\n\n\n\nFrom The Comparison Of It, With Fishing, Leaven, Seed\n\nAnd is compared by our Saviour, to Fishing; that is, to winning men\nto obedience, not by Coercion, and Punishing; but by Perswasion: and\ntherefore he said not to his Apostles, hee would make them so many\nNimrods, Hunters Of Men; But Fishers Of Men. It is compared also to\nLeaven; to Sowing of Seed, and to the Multiplication of a grain of\nMustard-seed; by all which Compulsion is excluded; and consequently\nthere can in that time be no actual Reigning. The work of Christs\nMinisters, is Evangelization; that is, a Proclamation of Christ, and\na preparation for his second comming; as the Evangelization of John\nBaptist, was a preparation to his first coming.\n\n\n\n\nFrom The Nature Of Faith:\n\nAgain, the Office of Christs Ministers in this world, is to make men\nBeleeve, and have Faith in Christ: But Faith hath no relation to, nor\ndependence at all upon Compulsion, or Commandement; but onely upon\ncertainty, or probability of Arguments drawn from Reason, or from\nsomething men beleeve already. Therefore the Ministers of Christ in this\nworld, have no Power by that title, to Punish any man for not Beleeving,\nor for Contradicting what they say; they have I say no Power by that\ntitle of Christs Ministers, to Punish such: but if they have Soveraign\nCivill Power, by politick institution, then they may indeed lawfully\nPunish any Contradiction to their laws whatsoever: And St. Paul, of\nhimselfe and other then Preachers of the Gospell saith in expresse\nwords, (2 Cor. 1.24.) \"Wee have no Dominion over your Faith, but are\nHelpers of your Joy.\"\n\n\n\n\nFrom The Authority Christ Hath Left To Civill Princes\n\nAnother Argument, that the Ministers of Christ in this present world\nhave no right of Commanding, may be drawn from the lawfull Authority\nwhich Christ hath left to all Princes, as well Christians, as Infidels.\nSt. Paul saith (Col. 3.20.) \"Children obey your Parents in all things;\nfor this is well pleasing to the Lord.\" And ver. 22. \"Servants obey in\nall things your Masters according to the flesh, not with eye-service, as\nmen-pleasers, but in singlenesse of heart, as fearing the Lord;\" This is\nspoken to them whose Masters were Infidells; and yet they are bidden\nto obey them In All Things. And again, concerning obedience to Princes.\n(Rom. 13. the first 6. verses) exhorting to \"be subject to the Higher\nPowers,\" he saith, \"that all Power is ordained of God;\" and \"that we\nought to be subject to them, not onely for\" fear of incurring their\n\"wrath, but also for conscience sake.\" And St. Peter, (1 Epist. chap. 2e\nver. 13, 14, 15.) \"Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man, for the\nLords sake, whether it bee to the King, as Supreme, or unto Governours,\nas to them that be sent by him for the punishment of evill doers, and\nfor the praise of them that doe well; for so is the will of God.\"\nAnd again St. Paul (Tit. 3.1.) \"Put men in mind to be subject to\nPrincipalities, and Powers, and to obey Magistrates.\" These Princes, and\nPowers, whereof St. Peter, and St. Paul here speak, were all Infidels;\nmuch more therefore we are to obey those Christians, whom God hath\nordained to have Soveraign Power over us. How then can wee be obliged\nto doe any thing contrary to the Command of the King, or other Soveraign\nRepresentant of the Common-wealth, whereof we are members, and by whom\nwe look to be protected? It is therefore manifest, that Christ hath not\nleft to his Ministers in this world, unlesse they be also endued with\nCivill Authority, any authority to Command other men.\n\n\n\n\nWhat Christians May Do To Avoid Persecution\n\nBut what (may some object) if a King, or a Senate, or other Soveraign\nPerson forbid us to beleeve in Christ? To this I answer, that such\nforbidding is of no effect, because Beleef, and Unbeleef never follow\nmens Commands. Faith is a gift of God, which Man can neither give, nor\ntake away by promise of rewards, or menaces of torture. And if it be\nfurther asked, What if wee bee commanded by our lawfull Prince, to say\nwith our tongue, wee beleeve not; must we obey such command? Profession\nwith the tongue is but an externall thing, and no more then any other\ngesture whereby we signifie our obedience; and wherein a Christian,\nholding firmely in his heart the Faith of Christ, hath the same liberty\nwhich the Prophet Elisha allowed to Naaman the Syrian. Naaman was\nconverted in his heart to the God of Israel; For hee saith (2 Kings\n5.17.) \"Thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering, nor\nsacrifice unto other Gods but unto the Lord. In this thing the Lord\npardon thy servant, that when my Master goeth into the house of Rimmon\nto worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow my selfe in the\nhouse of Rimmon; when I bow my selfe in the house of Rimmon, the Lord\npardon thy servant in this thing.\" This the Prophet approved, and bid\nhim \"Goe in peace.\" Here Naaman beleeved in his heart; but by bowing\nbefore the Idol Rimmon, he denyed the true God in effect, as much as\nif he had done it with his lips. But then what shall we answer to our\nSaviours saying, \"Whosoever denyeth me before men, I will deny him\nbefore my Father which is in Heaven?\" This we may say, that whatsoever\na Subject, as Naaman was, is compelled to in obedience to his Soveraign,\nand doth it not in order to his own mind, but in order to the laws of\nhis country, that action is not his, but his Soveraigns; nor is it he\nthat in this case denyeth Christ before men, but his Governour, and the\nlaw of his countrey. If any man shall accuse this doctrine, as repugnant\nto true, and unfeigned Christianity; I ask him, in case there should be\na subject in any Christian Common-wealth, that should be inwardly in his\nheart of the Mahometan Religion, whether if his Soveraign Command him to\nbee present at the divine service of the Christian Church, and that on\npain of death, he think that Mamometan obliged in conscience to suffer\ndeath for that cause, rather than to obey that command of his lawful\nPrince. If he say, he ought rather to suffer death, then he authorizeth\nall private men, to disobey their Princes, in maintenance of their\nReligion, true, or false; if he say, he ought to bee obedient, then he\nalloweth to himself, that which hee denyeth to another, contrary to the\nwords of our Saviour, \"Whatsoever you would that men should doe unto\nyou, that doe yee unto them;\" and contrary to the Law of Nature, (which\nis the indubitable everlasting Law of God) \"Do not to another, that\nwhich thou wouldest not he should doe unto thee.\"\n\n\n\n\nOf Martyrs\n\nBut what then shall we say of all those Martyrs we read of in the\nHistory of the Church, that they have needlessely cast away their lives?\nFor answer hereunto, we are to distinguish the persons that have been\nfor that cause put to death; whereof some have received a Calling to\npreach, and professe the Kingdome of Christ openly; others have had no\nsuch Calling, nor more has been required of them than their owne faith.\nThe former sort, if they have been put to death, for bearing witnesse to\nthis point, that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, were true Martyrs;\nFor a Martyr is, (to give the true definition of the word) a Witnesse of\nthe Resurrection of Jesus the Messiah; which none can be but those\nthat conversed with him on earth, and saw him after he was risen: For a\nWitnesse must have seen what he testifieth, or else his testimony is not\ngood. And that none but such, can properly be called Martyrs of Christ,\nis manifest out of the words of St. Peter, Act. 1.21, 22. \"Wherefore of\nthese men which have companyed with us all the time that the Lord Jesus\nwent in and out amongst us, beginning from the Baptisme of John unto\nthat same day hee was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a\nMartyr (that is a Witnesse) with us of his Resurrection:\" Where we\nmay observe, that he which is to bee a Witnesse of the truth of\nthe Resurrection of Christ, that is to say, of the truth of this\nfundamentall article of Christian Religion, that Jesus was the Christ,\nmust be some Disciple that conversed with him, and saw him before, and\nafter his Resurrection; and consequently must be one of his originall\nDisciples: whereas they which were not so, can Witnesse no more, but\nthat their antecessors said it, and are therefore but Witnesses of\nother mens testimony; and are but second Martyrs, or Martyrs of Christs\nWitnesses.\n\nHe, that to maintain every doctrine which he himself draweth out of\nthe History of our Saviours life, and of the Acts, or Epistles of the\nApostles; or which he beleeveth upon the authority of a private man,\nwil oppose the Laws and Authority of the Civill State, is very far from\nbeing a Martyr of Christ, or a Martyr of his Martyrs. 'Tis one Article\nonely, which to die for, meriteth so honorable a name; and that Article\nis this, that Jesus Is The Christ; that is to say, He that hath redeemed\nus, and shall come again to give us salvation, and eternall life in his\nglorious Kingdome. To die for every tenet that serveth the ambition,\nor profit of the Clergy, is not required; nor is it the Death of the\nWitnesse, but the Testimony it self that makes the Martyr: for the word\nsignifieth nothing else, but the man that beareth Witnesse, whether he\nbe put to death for his testimony, or not.\n\nAlso he that is not sent to preach this fundamentall article, but taketh\nit upon him of his private authority, though he be a Witnesse, and\nconsequently a Martyr, either primary of Christ, or secondary of his\nApostles, Disciples, or their Successors; yet is he not obliged to\nsuffer death for that cause; because being not called thereto, tis\nnot required at his hands; nor ought hee to complain, if he loseth\nthe reward he expecteth from those that never set him on work. None\ntherefore can be a Martyr, neither of the first, nor second degree, that\nhave not a warrant to preach Christ come in the flesh; that is to say,\nnone, but such as are sent to the conversion of Infidels. For no man\nis a Witnesse to him that already beleeveth, and therefore needs no\nWitnesse; but to them that deny, or doubt, or have not heard it. Christ\nsent his Apostles, and his Seventy Disciples, with authority to preach;\nhe sent not all that beleeved: And he sent them to unbeleevers; \"I send\nyou (saith he) as sheep amongst wolves;\" not as sheep to other sheep.\n\n\n\n\nArgument From The Points Of Their Commission\n\nLastly the points of their Commission, as they are expressely set down\nin the Gospel, contain none of them any authority over the Congregation.\n\n\n\n\nTo Preach\n\nWe have first (Mat. 10.) that the twelve Apostles were sent \"to the\nlost sheep of the house of Israel,\" and commanded to Preach, \"that the\nKingdome of God was at hand.\" Now Preaching in the originall, is that\nact, which a Crier, Herald, or other Officer useth to doe publiquely in\nProclaiming of a King. But a Crier hath not right to Command any man.\nAnd (Luke 10.2.) the seventy Disciples are sent out, \"as Labourers,\nnot as Lords of the Harvest;\" and are bidden (verse 9.) to say, \"The\nKingdome of God is come nigh unto you;\" and by Kingdome here is meant,\nnot the Kingdome of Grace, but the Kingdome of Glory; for they are\nbidden to denounce it (ver. 11.) to those Cities which shall not receive\nthem, as a threatning, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for\nSodome, than for such a City. And (Mat. 20.28.) our Saviour telleth his\nDisciples, that sought Priority of place, their Office was to minister,\neven as the Son of man came, not to be ministred unto, but to minister.\nPreachers therefore have not Magisteriall, but Ministeriall power: \"Bee\nnot called Masters, (saith our Saviour, Mat. 23.10) for one is your\nMaster, even Christ.\"\n\n\n\n\nAnd Teach\n\nAnother point of their Commission, is, to Teach All Nations; as it is in\nMat. 28.19. or as in St. Mark 16.15 \"Goe into all the world, and Preach\nthe Gospel to every creature.\" Teaching therefore, and Preaching is the\nsame thing. For they that Proclaim the comming of a King, must withall\nmake known by what right he commeth, if they mean men shall submit\nthemselves unto him: As St. Paul did to the Jews of Thessalonica,\nwhen \"three Sabbath days he reasoned with them out of the Scriptures,\nopening, and alledging that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen\nagain from the dead, and that this Jesus is Christ.\" But to teach out\nof the Old Testament that Jesus was Christ, (that is to say, King,)\nand risen from the dead, is not to say, that men are bound after they\nbeleeve it, to obey those that tell them so, against the laws, and\ncommands of their Soveraigns; but that they shall doe wisely, to expect\nthe coming of Christ hereafter, in Patience, and Faith, with Obedience\nto their present Magistrates.\n\n\n\n\nTo Baptize;\n\nAnother point of their Commission, is to Baptize, \"in the name of\nthe Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.\" What is Baptisme?\nDipping into water. But what is it to Dip a man into the water in the\nname of any thing? The meaning of these words of Baptisme is this. He\nthat is Baptized, is Dipped or Washed, as a sign of becomming a new man,\nand a loyall subject to that God, whose Person was represented in old\ntime by Moses, and the High Priests, when he reigned over the Jews; and\nto Jesus Christ, his Sonne, God, and Man, that hath redeemed us, and\nshall in his humane nature Represent his Fathers Person in his eternall\nKingdome after the Resurrection; and to acknowledge the Doctrine of the\nApostles, who assisted by the Spirit of the Father, and of the Son, were\nleft for guides to bring us into that Kingdome, to be the onely, and\nassured way thereunto. This, being our promise in Baptisme; and the\nAuthority of Earthly Soveraigns being not to be put down till the day of\nJudgment; (for that is expressely affirmed by S. Paul 1 Cor. 15. 22, 23,\n24. where he saith, \"As in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be\nmade alive. But every man in his owne order, Christ the first fruits,\nafterward they that are Christs, at his comming; Then Commeth the end,\nwhen he shall have delivered up the Kingdome of God, even the Father,\nwhen he shall have put down all Rule, and all Authority and Power\")\nit is manifest, that we do not in Baptisme constitute over us another\nauthority, by which our externall actions are to be governed in this\nlife; but promise to take the doctrine of the Apostles for our direction\nin the way to life eternall.\n\n\n\n\nAnd To Forgive, And Retain Sinnes\n\nThe Power of Remission, And Retention Of Sinnes, called also the Power\nof Loosing, and Binding, and sometimes the Keyes Of The Kingdome Of\nHeaven, is a consequence of the Authority to Baptize, or refuse to\nBaptize. For Baptisme is the Sacrament of Allegeance, of them that are\nto be received into the Kingdome of God; that is to say, into Eternall\nlife; that is to say, to Remission of Sin: For as Eternall life was lost\nby the Committing, so it is recovered by the Remitting of mens Sins. The\nend of Baptisme is Remission of Sins: and therefore St. Peter, when they\nthat were converted by his Sermon on the day of Pentecost, asked what\nthey were to doe, advised them to \"repent, and be Baptized in the name\nof Jesus, for the Remission of Sins.\" And therefore seeing to Baptize\nis to declare the Reception of men into Gods Kingdome; and to refuse to\nBaptize is to declare their Exclusion; it followeth, that the Power\nto declare them Cast out, or Retained in it, was given to the same\nApostles, and their Substitutes, and Successors. And therefore after our\nSaviour had breathed upon them, saying, (John 20.22.) \"Receive the Holy\nGhost,\" hee addeth in the next verse, \"Whose soever Sins ye Remit,\nthey are Remitted unto them; and whose soever Sins ye Retain, they are\nRetained.\" By which words, is not granted an Authority to Forgive, or\nRetain Sins, simply and absolutely, as God Forgiveth or Retaineth them,\nwho knoweth the Heart of man, and truth of his Penitence and Conversion;\nbut conditionally, to the Penitent: And this Forgivenesse, or\nAbsolution, in case the absolved have but a feigned Repentance, is\nthereby without other act, or sentence of the Absolvent, made void,\nand hath no effect at all to Salvation, but on the contrary, to the\nAggravation of his Sin. Therefore the Apostles, and their Successors,\nare to follow but the outward marks of Repentance; which appearing, they\nhave no Authority to deny Absolution; and if they appeare not, they have\nno authority to Absolve. The same also is to be observed in Baptisme:\nfor to a converted Jew, or Gentile, the Apostles had not the Power to\ndeny Baptisme; nor to grant it to the Un-penitent. But seeing no man is\nable to discern the truth of another mans Repentance, further than by\nexternall marks, taken from his words, and actions, which are subject to\nhypocrisie; another question will arise, Who it is that is constituted\nJudge of those marks. And this question is decided by our Saviour\nhimself; (Mat. 18. 15, 16, 17.) \"If thy Brother (saith he) shall\ntrespasse against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee, and him\nalone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy Brother. But if he\nwill not hear thee, then take with thee one, or two more. And if he\nshall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church, let him be unto\nthee as an Heathen man, and a Publican.\" By which it is manifest, that\nthe Judgment concerning the truth of Repentance, belonged not to any one\nMan, but to the Church, that is, to the Assembly of the Faithfull, or\nto them that have authority to bee their Representant. But besides the\nJudgment, there is necessary also the pronouncing of Sentence: And\nthis belonged alwaies to the Apostle, or some Pastor of the Church,\nas Prolocutor; and of this our Saviour speaketh in the 18 verse,\n\"Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and\nwhatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.\" And\ncomformable hereunto was the practise of St. Paul (1 Cor. 5.3, 4, & 5.)\nwhere he saith, \"For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit,\nhave determined already, as though I were present, concerning him that\nhath so done this deed; In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye\nare gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus\nChrist, To deliver such a one to Satan;\" that is to say, to cast him\nout of the Church, as a man whose Sins are not Forgiven. Paul here\npronounceth the Sentence; but the Assembly was first to hear the Cause,\n(for St. Paul was absent;) and by consequence to condemn him. But in\nthe same chapter (ver. 11, 12.) the Judgment in such a case is more\nexpressely attributed to the Assembly: \"But now I have written unto\nyou, not to keep company, if any man that is called a Brother be a\nFornicator, &c. with such a one no not to eat. For what have I to do to\njudg them that are without? Do not ye judg them that are within?\"\nThe Sentence therefore by which a man was put out of the Church, was\npronounced by the Apostle, or Pastor; but the Judgment concerning the\nmerit of the cause, was in the Church; that is to say, (as the times\nwere before the conversion of Kings, and men that had Soveraign\nAuthority in the Common-wealth,) the Assembly of the Christians dwelling\nin the same City; as in Corinth, in the Assembly of the Christians of\nCorinth.\n\n\n\n\nOf Excommunication\n\nThis part of the Power of the Keyes, by which men were thrust out from\nthe Kingdome of God, is that which is called Excommunication; and to\nexcommunicate, is in the Originall, Aposunagogon Poiein, To Cast Out Of\nThe Synagogue; that is, out of the place of Divine service; a word drawn\nfrom the custom of the Jews, to cast out of their Synagogues, such as\nthey thought in manners, or doctrine, contagious, as Lepers were by the\nLaw of Moses separated from the congregation of Israel, till such time\nas they should be by the Priest pronounced clean.\n\n\n\n\nThe Use Of Excommunication Without Civill Power.\n\nThe Use and Effect of Excommunication, whilest it was not yet\nstrengthened with the Civill Power, was no more, than that they, who\nwere not Excommunicate, were to avoid the company of them that were.\nIt was not enough to repute them as Heathen, that never had been\nChristians; for with such they might eate, and drink; which with\nExcommunicate persons they might not do; as appeareth by the words of\nSt. Paul, (1 Cor. 5. ver. 9, 10, &c.) where he telleth them, he had\nformerly forbidden them to \"company with Fornicators;\" but (because that\ncould not bee without going out of the world,) he restraineth it to such\nFornicators, and otherwise vicious persons, as were of the brethren;\n\"with such a one\" (he saith) they ought not to keep company, \"no, not to\neat.\" And this is no more than our Saviour saith (Mat. 18.17.) \"Let\nhim be to thee as a Heathen, and as a Publican.\" For Publicans (which\nsignifieth Farmers, and Receivers of the revenue of the Common-wealth)\nwere so hated, and detested by the Jews that were to pay for it, as\nthat Publican and Sinner were taken amongst them for the same thing:\nInsomuch, as when our Saviour accepted the invitation of Zacchaeus a\nPublican; though it were to Convert him, yet it was objected to him as\na Crime. And therefore, when our Saviour, to Heathen, added Publican, he\ndid forbid them to eat with a man Excommunicate.\n\nAs for keeping them out of their Synagogues, or places of Assembly, they\nhad no Power to do it, but that of the owner of the place, whether he\nwere Christian, or Heathen. And because all places are by right, in the\nDominion of the Common-wealth; as well hee that was Excommunicated, as\nhee that never was Baptized, might enter into them by Commission from\nthe Civill Magistrate; as Paul before his conversion entred into their\nSynagogues at Damascus, (Acts 9.2.) to apprehend Christians, men and\nwomen, and to carry them bound to Jerusalem, by Commission from the High\nPriest.\n\n\n\n\nOf No Effect Upon An Apostate\n\nBy which it appears, that upon a Christian, that should become an\nApostate, in a place where the Civill Power did persecute, or not assist\nthe Church, the effect of Excommunication had nothing in it, neither of\ndammage in this world, nor of terrour: Not of terrour, because of their\nunbeleef; nor of dammage, because they returned thereby into the favour\nof the world; and in the world to come, were to be in no worse estate,\nthen they which never had beleeved. The dammage redounded rather to the\nChurch, by provocation of them they cast out, to a freer execution of\ntheir malice.\n\n\n\n\nBut Upon The Faithfull Only\n\nExcommunication therefore had its effect onely upon those, that beleeved\nthat Jesus Christ was to come again in Glory, to reign over, and to\njudge both the quick, and the dead, and should therefore refuse entrance\ninto his Kingdom, to those whose Sins were Retained; that is, to those\nthat were Excommunicated by the Church. And thence it is that St. Paul\ncalleth Excommunication, a delivery of the Excommunicate person to\nSatan. For without the Kingdom of Christ, all other Kingdomes after\nJudgment, are comprehended in the Kingdome of Satan. This is it that the\nfaithfull stood in fear of, as long as they stood Excommunicate, that is\nto say, in an estate wherein their sins were not Forgiven. Whereby wee\nmay understand, that Excommunication in the time that Christian Religion\nwas not authorized by the Civill Power, was used onely for a correction\nof manners, not of errours in opinion: for it is a punishment, whereof\nnone could be sensible but such as beleeved, and expected the coming\nagain of our Saviour to judge the world; and they who so beleeved,\nneeded no other opinion, but onely uprightnesse of life, to be saved.\n\n\n\n\nFor What Fault Lyeth Excommunication\n\nThere Lyeth Excommunication for Injustice; as (Mat. 18.) If thy Brother\noffend thee, tell it him privately; then with Witnesses; lastly, tell\nthe Church; and then if he obey not, \"Let him be to thee as an Heathen\nman, and a Publican.\" And there lyeth Excommunication for a Scandalous\nLife, as (1 Cor. 5. 11.) \"If any man that is called a Brother, be\na Fornicator, or Covetous, or an Idolater, or a Drunkard, or an\nExtortioner, with such a one yee are not to eat.\" But to Excommunicate a\nman that held this foundation, that Jesus Was The Christ, for difference\nof opinion in other points, by which that Foundation was not destroyed,\nthere appeareth no authority in the Scripture, nor example in the\nApostles. There is indeed in St. Paul (Titus 3.10.) a text that seemeth\nto be to the contrary. \"A man that is an Haeretique, after the first\nand second admonition, reject.\" For an Haeretique, is he, that being a\nmember of the Church, teacheth neverthelesse some private opinion, which\nthe Church has forbidden: and such a one, S. Paul adviseth Titus, after\nthe first, and second admonition, to Reject. But to Reject (in this\nplace) is not to Excommunicate the Man; But to Give Over Admonishing\nHim, To Let Him Alone, To Set By Disputing With Him, as one that is to\nbe convinced onely by himselfe. The same Apostle saith (2 Tim. 2.23.)\n\"Foolish and unlearned questions avoid;\" The word Avoid in this place,\nand Reject in the former, is the same in the Originall, paraitou: but\nFoolish questions may bee set by without Excommunication. And again,\n(Tit. 3.93) \"Avoid Foolish questions,\" where the Originall, periistaso,\n(set them by) is equivalent to the former word Reject. There is no\nother place that can so much as colourably be drawn, to countenance\nthe Casting out of the Church faithfull men, such as beleeved the\nfoundation, onely for a singular superstructure of their own, proceeding\nperhaps from a good & pious conscience. But on the contrary, all such\nplaces as command avoiding such disputes, are written for a Lesson to\nPastors, (such as Timothy and Titus were) not to make new Articles of\nFaith, by determining every small controversie, which oblige men to a\nneedlesse burthen of Conscience, or provoke them to break the union of\nthe Church. Which Lesson the Apostles themselves observed well. S. Peter\nand S. Paul, though their controversie were great, (as we may read\nin Gal. 2.11.) yet they did not cast one another out of the Church.\nNeverthelesse, during the Apostles time, there were other Pastors that\nobserved it not; As Diotrephes (3 John 9. &c.) who cast out of the\nChurch, such as S. John himself thought fit to be received into it, out\nof a pride he took in Praeeminence; so early it was, that Vainglory, and\nAmbition had found entrance into the Church of Christ.\n\n\n\n\nOf Persons Liable To Excommunication\n\nThat a man be liable to Excommunication, there be many conditions\nrequisite; as First, that he be a member of some Commonalty, that is to\nsay, of some lawfull Assembly, that is to say, of some Christian\nChurch, that hath power to judge of the cause for which hee is to\nbee Excommunicated. For where there is no community, there can bee no\nExcommunication; nor where there is no power to Judge, can there bee any\npower to give Sentence. From hence it followeth, that one Church cannot\nbe Excommunicated by another: For either they have equall power\nto Excommunicate each other, in which case Excommunication is not\nDiscipline, nor an act of Authority, but Schisme, and Dissolution of\ncharity; or one is so subordinate to the other, as that they both\nhave but one voice, and then they be but one Church; and the part\nExcommunicated, is no more a Church, but a dissolute number of\nindividuall persons.\n\nAnd because the sentence of Excommunication, importeth an advice, not to\nkeep company, nor so much as to eat with him that is Excommunicate, if\na Soveraign Prince, or Assembly bee Excommunicate, the sentence is of no\neffect. For all Subjects are bound to be in the company and presence of\ntheir own Soveraign (when he requireth it) by the law of Nature; nor\ncan they lawfully either expell him from any place of his own Dominion,\nwhether profane or holy; nor go out of his Dominion, without his leave;\nmuch lesse (if he call them to that honour,) refuse to eat with him. And\nas to other Princes and States, because they are not parts of one and\nthe same congregation, they need not any other sentence to keep\nthem from keeping company with the State Excommunicate: for the\nvery Institution, as it uniteth many men into one Community; so it\ndissociateth one Community from another: so that Excommunication is\nnot needfull for keeping Kings and States asunder; nor has any further\neffect then is in the nature of Policy it selfe; unlesse it be to\ninstigate Princes to warre upon one another.\n\nNor is the Excommunication of a Christian Subject, that obeyeth the laws\nof his own Soveraign, whether Christian, or Heathen, of any effect. For\nif he beleeve that \"Jesus is the Christ, he hath the Spirit of God\" (1\nJoh. 4.1.) \"and God dwelleth in him, and he in God,\" (1 Joh. 4.15.) But\nhee that hath the Spirit of God; hee that dwelleth in God; hee in\nwhom God dwelleth, can receive no harm by the Excommunication of men.\nTherefore, he that beleeveth Jesus to be the Christ, is free from all\nthe dangers threatned to persons Excommunicate. He that beleeveth it\nnot, is no Christian. Therefore a true and unfeigned Christian is not\nliable to Excommunication; Nor he also that is a professed Christian,\ntill his Hypocrisy appear in his Manners, that is, till his behaviour\nbee contrary to the law of his Soveraign, which is the rule of Manners,\nand which Christ and his Apostles have commanded us to be subject to.\nFor the Church cannot judge of Manners but by externall Actions, which\nActions can never bee unlawfull, but when they are against the Law of\nthe Common-wealth.\n\nIf a mans Father, or Mother, or Master bee Excommunicate, yet are not\nthe Children forbidden to keep them Company, nor to Eat with them; for\nthat were (for the most part) to oblige them not to eat at all, for want\nof means to get food; and to authorise them to disobey their Parents,\nand Masters, contrary to the Precept of the Apostles.\n\nIn summe, the Power of Excommunication cannot be extended further than\nto the end for which the Apostles and Pastors of the Church have\ntheir Commission from our Saviour; which is not to rule by Command and\nCoaction, but by Teaching and Direction of men in the way of Salvation\nin the world to come. And as a Master in any Science, may abandon his\nScholar, when hee obstinately neglecteth the practise of his rules; but\nnot accuse him of Injustice, because he was never bound to obey him:\nso a Teacher of Christian doctrine may abandon his Disciples that\nobstinately continue in an unchristian life; but he cannot say, they doe\nhim wrong, because they are not obliged to obey him: For to a Teacher\nthat shall so complain, may be applyed the Answer of God to Samuel in\nthe like place, (1 Sam. 8.) \"They have not rejected thee, but mee.\"\nExcommunication therefore when it wanteth the assistance of the Civill\nPower, as it doth, when a Christian State, or Prince is Excommunicate\nby a forain Authority, is without effect; and consequently ought to\nbe without terrour. The name of Fulmen Excommunicationis (that is, the\nThunderbolt Of Excommunication) proceeded from an imagination of the\nBishop of Rome, which first used it, that he was King of Kings, as the\nHeathen made Jupiter King of the Gods; and assigned him in their Poems,\nand Pictures, a Thunderbolt, wherewith to subdue, and punish the Giants,\nthat should dare to deny his power: Which imagination was grounded on\ntwo errours; one, that the Kingdome of Christ is of this world, contrary\nto our Saviours owne words, \"My Kingdome is not of this world;\" the\nother, that hee is Christs Vicar, not onely over his owne Subjects,\nbut over all the Christians of the World; whereof there is no ground in\nScripture, and the contrary shall bee proved in its due place.\n\n\n\n\nOf The Interpreter Of The Scriptures Before Civill Soveraigns\n\nBecame Christians\n\nSt. Paul coming to Thessalonica, where was a Synagogue of the Jews,\n(Acts 17.2, 3.) \"As his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath\ndayes reasoned with them out of the Scriptures, Opening and alledging,\nthat Christ must needs have suffered and risen again from the dead; and\nthat this Jesus whom he preached was the Christ.\" The Scriptures here\nmentioned were the Scriptures of the Jews, that is, the Old Testament.\nThe men, to whom he was to prove that Jesus was the Christ, and risen\nagain from the dead, were also Jews, and did beleeve already, that\nthey were the Word of God. Hereupon (as it is verse 4.) some of them\nbeleeved, and (as it is in the 5. ver.) some beleeved not. What was\nthe reason, when they all beleeved the Scripture, that they did not\nall beleeve alike; but that some approved, others disapproved the\nInterpretation of St. Paul that cited them; and every one Interpreted\nthem to himself? It was this; S. Paul came to them without any Legall\nCommission, and in the manner of one that would not Command, but\nPerswade; which he must needs do, either by Miracles, as Moses did\nto the Israelites in Egypt, that they might see his Authority in Gods\nworks; or by Reasoning from the already received Scripture, that\nthey might see the truth of his doctrine in Gods Word. But whosoever\nperswadeth by reasoning from principles written, maketh him to whom hee\nspeaketh Judge, both of the meaning of those principles, and also of the\nforce of his inferences upon them. If these Jews of Thessalonica were\nnot, who else was the Judge of what S. Paul alledged out of Scripture?\nIf S. Paul, what needed he to quote any places to prove his doctrine? It\nhad been enough to have said, I find it so in Scripture, that is to\nsay, in your Laws, of which I am Interpreter, as sent by Christ. The\nInterpreter therefore of the Scripture, to whose Interpretation the\nJews of Thessalonica were bound to stand, could be none: every one might\nbeleeve, or not beleeve, according as the Allegations seemed to himselfe\nto be agreeable, or not agreeable to the meaning of the places alledged.\nAnd generally in all cases of the world, hee that pretendeth any proofe,\nmaketh Judge of his proofe him to whom he addresseth his speech. And as\nto the case of the Jews in particular, they were bound by expresse words\n(Deut. 17.) to receive the determination of all hard questions, from\nthe Priests and Judges of Israel for the time being. But this is to bee\nunderstood of the Jews that were yet unconverted.\n\nFor the Conversion of the Gentiles, there was no use of alledging the\nScriptures, which they beleeved not. The Apostles therefore laboured by\nReason to confute their Idolatry; and that done, to perswade them to the\nfaith of Christ, by their testimony of his Life, and Resurrection. So\nthat there could not yet bee any controversie concerning the authority\nto Interpret Scripture; seeing no man was obliged during his infidelity,\nto follow any mans Interpretation of any Scripture, except his\nSoveraigns Interpretation of the Laws of his countrey.\n\nLet us now consider the Conversion it self, and see what there was\ntherein, that could be cause of such an obligation. Men were converted\nto no other thing then to the Beleef of that which the Apostles\npreached: And the Apostles preached nothing, but that Jesus was the\nChrist, that is to say, the King that was to save them, and reign over\nthem eternally in the world to come; and consequently that hee was not\ndead, but risen again from the dead, and gone up into Heaven, and should\ncome again one day to judg the world, (which also should rise again to\nbe judged,) and reward every man according to his works. None of them\npreached that himselfe, or any other Apostle was such an Interpreter\nof the Scripture, as all that became Christians, ought to take their\nInterpretation for Law. For to Interpret the Laws, is part of the\nAdministration of a present Kingdome; which the Apostles had not. They\nprayed then, and all other Pastors ever since, \"Let thy Kingdome come;\"\nand exhorted their Converts to obey their then Ethnique Princes. The New\nTestament was not yet published in one Body. Every of the Evangelists\nwas Interpreter of his own Gospel; and every Apostle of his own Epistle;\nAnd of the Old Testament, our Saviour himselfe saith to the Jews (John\n5. 39.) \"Search the Scriptures; for in them yee thinke to have eternall\nlife, and they are they that testifie of me.\" If hee had not meant they\nshould Interpret them, hee would not have bidden them take thence the\nproof of his being the Christ; he would either have Interpreted them\nhimselfe, or referred them to the Interpretation of the Priests.\n\nWhen a difficulty arose, the Apostles and Elders of the Church assembled\nthemselves together, and determined what should bee preached, and\ntaught, and how they should Interpret the Scriptures to the People;\nbut took not from the People the liberty to read, and Interpret them to\nthemselves. The Apostles sent divers Letters to the Churches, and other\nWritings for their instruction; which had been in vain, if they had not\nallowed them to Interpret, that is, to consider the meaning of them.\nAnd as it was in the Apostles time, it must be till such time as\nthere should be Pastors, that could authorise an Interpreter, whose\nInterpretation should generally be stood to: But that could not be till\nKings were Pastors, or Pastors Kings.\n\n\n\n\nOf The Power To Make Scripture Law\n\nThere be two senses, wherein a Writing may be said to be Canonicall;\nfor Canon, signifieth a Rule; and a Rule is a Precept, by which a man\nis guided, and directed in any action whatsoever. Such Precepts, though\ngiven by a Teacher to his Disciple, or a Counsellor to his friend,\nwithout power to Compell him to observe them, are neverthelesse Canons;\nbecause they are Rules: But when they are given by one, whom he that\nreceiveth them is bound to obey, then are those Canons, not onely Rules,\nbut Laws: The question therefore here, is of the Power to make the\nScriptures (which are the Rules of Christian Faith) Laws.\n\n\n\n\nOf The Ten Commandements\n\nThat part of the Scripture, which was first Law, was the Ten\nCommandements, written in two Tables of Stone, and delivered by God\nhimselfe to Moses; and by Moses made known to the people. Before that\ntime there was no written Law of God, who as yet having not chosen any\npeople to bee his peculiar Kingdome, had given no Law to men, but the\nLaw of Nature, that is to say, the Precepts of Naturall Reason, written\nin every mans own heart. Of these two Tables, the first containeth the\nlaw of Soveraignty; 1. That they should not obey, nor honour the Gods of\nother Nations, in these words, \"Non habebis Deos alienos coram me,\" that\nis, \"Thou shalt not have for Gods, the Gods that other Nations worship;\nbut onely me:\" whereby they were forbidden to obey, or honor, as their\nKing and Governour, any other God, than him that spake unto them then by\nMoses, and afterwards by the High Priest. 2. That they \"should not make\nany Image to represent him;\" that is to say, they were not to choose to\nthemselves, neither in heaven, nor in earth, any Representative of their\nown fancying, but obey Moses and Aaron, whom he had appointed to that\noffice. 3. That \"they should not take the Name of God in vain;\" that is,\nthey should not speak rashly of their King, nor dispute his Right,\nnor the commissions of Moses and Aaron, his Lieutenants. 4. That \"they\nshould every Seventh day abstain from their ordinary labour,\" and employ\nthat time in doing him Publique Honor. The second Table containeth the\nDuty of one man towards another, as \"To honor Parents; Not to kill;\nNot to Commit Adultery; Not to steale; Not to corrupt Judgment by false\nwitnesse;\" and finally, \"Not so much as to designe in their heart the\ndoing of any injury one to another.\" The question now is, Who it was\nthat gave to these written Tables the obligatory force of Lawes. There\nis no doubt but that they were made Laws by God himselfe: But because a\nLaw obliges not, nor is Law to any, but to them that acknowledge it to\nbe the act of the Soveraign, how could the people of Israel that were\nforbidden to approach the Mountain to hear what God said to Moses, be\nobliged to obedience to all those laws which Moses propounded to them?\nSome of them were indeed the Laws of Nature, as all the Second Table;\nand therefore to be acknowledged for Gods Laws; not to the Israelites\nalone, but to all people: But of those that were peculiar to the\nIsraelites, as those of the first Table, the question remains; saving\nthat they had obliged themselves, presently after the propounding of\nthem, to obey Moses, in these words (Exod. 20.19.) \"Speak them thou to\nus, and we will hear thee; but let not God speak to us, lest we die.\" It\nwas therefore onely Moses then, and after him the High Priest, whom (by\nMoses) God declared should administer this his peculiar Kingdome, that\nhad on Earth, the power to make this short Scripture of the Decalogue\nto bee Law in the Common-wealth of Israel. But Moses, and Aaron, and the\nsucceeding High Priests were the Civill Soveraigns. Therefore hitherto,\nthe Canonizing, or making of the Scripture Law, belonged to the Civill\nSoveraigne.\n\n\n\n\nOf The Judicial, And Leviticall Law\n\nThe Judiciall Law, that is to say, the Laws that God prescribed to the\nMagistrates of Israel, for the rule of their administration of Justice,\nand of the Sentences, or Judgments they should pronounce, in Pleas\nbetween man and man; and the Leviticall Law, that is to say, the rule\nthat God prescribed touching the Rites and Ceremonies of the Priests and\nLevites, were all delivered to them by Moses onely; and therefore also\nbecame Lawes, by vertue of the same promise of obedience to Moses.\nWhether these laws were then written, or not written, but dictated to\nthe People by Moses (after his forty dayes being with God in the Mount)\nby word of mouth, is not expressed in the Text; but they were all\npositive Laws, and equivalent to holy Scripture, and made Canonicall by\nMoses the Civill Soveraign.\n\n\n\n\nThe Second Law\n\nAfter the Israelites were come into the Plains of Moab over against\nJericho, and ready to enter into the land of Promise, Moses to the\nformer Laws added divers others; which therefore are called Deuteronomy:\nthat is, Second Laws. And are (as it is written, Deut. 29.1.) \"The words\nof a Covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Children\nof Israel, besides the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb.\" For\nhaving explained those former Laws, in the beginning of the Book of\nDeuteronomy, he addeth others, that begin at the 12. Cha. and continue\nto the end of the 26. of the same Book. This Law (Deut. 27.1.) they were\ncommanded to write upon great stones playstered over, at their passing\nover Jordan: This Law also was written by Moses himself in a Book; and\ndelivered into the hands of the \"Priests, and to the Elders of Israel,\"\n(Deut. 31.9.) and commanded (ve. 26.) \"to be put in the side of the\nArke;\" for in the Ark it selfe was nothing but the Ten Commandements.\nThis was the Law, which Moses (Deuteronomy 17.18.) commanded the Kings\nof Israel should keep a copie of: And this is the Law, which having been\nlong time lost, was found again in the Temple in the time of Josiah,\nand by his authority received for the Law of God. But both Moses at the\nwriting, and Josiah at the recovery thereof, had both of them the\nCivill Soveraignty. Hitherto therefore the Power of making Scripture\nCanonicall, was in the Civill Soveraign.\n\nBesides this Book of the Law, there was no other Book, from the time of\nMoses, till after the Captivity, received amongst the Jews for the\nLaw of God. For the Prophets (except a few) lived in the time of the\nCaptivity it selfe; and the rest lived but a little before it; and were\nso far from having their Prophecies generally received for Laws, as that\ntheir persons were persecuted, partly by false Prophets, and partly by\nthe Kings which were seduced by them. And this Book it self, which was\nconfirmed by Josiah for the Law of God, and with it all the History of\nthe Works of God, was lost in the Captivity, and sack of the City of\nJerusalem, as appears by that of 2 Esdras 14.21. \"Thy Law is burnt;\ntherefor no man knoweth the things that are done of thee, of the works\nthat shall begin.\" And before the Captivity, between the time when the\nLaw was lost, (which is not mentioned in the Scripture, but may probably\nbe thought to be the time of Rehoboam, when Shishak King of Egypt took\nthe spoils of the Temple,(1 Kings 14.26.)) and the time of Josiah,\nwhen it was found againe, they had no written Word of God, but ruled\naccording to their own discretion, or by the direction of such, as each\nof them esteemed Prophets.\n\n\n\n\nThe Old Testament, When Made Canonicall\n\nFrom whence we may inferre, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament,\nwhich we have at this day, were not Canonicall, nor a Law unto the Jews,\ntill the renovation of their Covenant with God at their return from the\nCaptivity, and restauration of their Common-wealth under Esdras. But\nfrom that time forward they were accounted the Law of the Jews, and for\nsuch translated into Greek by Seventy Elders of Judaea, and put into the\nLibrary of Ptolemy at Alexandria, and approved for the Word of God. Now\nseeing Esdras was the High Priest, and the High Priest was their Civill\nSoveraigne, it is manifest, that the Scriptures were never made Laws,\nbut by the Soveraign Civill Power.\n\nThe New Testament Began To Be Canonicall Under Christian Soveraigns By\nthe Writings of the Fathers that lived in the time before that Christian\nReligion was received, and authorised by Constantine the Emperour, we\nmay find, that the Books wee now have of the New Testament, were held by\nthe Christians of that time (except a few, in respect of whose paucity\nthe rest were called the Catholique Church, and others Haeretiques) for\nthe dictates of the Holy Ghost; and consequently for the Canon, or Rule\nof Faith: such was the reverence and opinion they had of their Teachers;\nas generally the reverence that the Disciples bear to their first\nMasters, in all manner of doctrine they receive from them, is not small.\nTherefore there is no doubt, but when S. Paul wrote to the Churches he\nhad converted; or any other Apostle, or Disciple of Christ, to those\nwhich had then embraced Christ, they received those their Writings for\nthe true Christian Doctrine. But in that time, when not the Power and\nAuthority of the Teacher, but the Faith of the Hearer caused them\nto receive it, it was not the Apostles that made their own Writings\nCanonicall, but every Convert made them so to himself.\n\nBut the question here, is not what any Christian made a Law, or Canon\nto himself, (which he might again reject, by the same right he received\nit;) but what was so made a Canon to them, as without injustice they\ncould not doe any thing contrary thereunto. That the New Testament\nshould in this sense be Canonicall, that is to say, a Law in any place\nwhere the Law of the Common-wealth had not made it so, is contrary to\nthe nature of a Law. For a Law, (as hath been already shewn) is the\nCommandement of that Man, or Assembly, to whom we have given Soveraign\nAuthority, to make such Rules for the direction of our actions, as hee\nshall think fit; and to punish us, when we doe any thing contrary to the\nsame. When therefore any other man shall offer unto us any other Rules,\nwhich the Soveraign Ruler hath not prescribed, they are but Counsell,\nand Advice; which, whether good, or bad, hee that is counselled, may\nwithout injustice refuse to observe, and when contrary to the Laws\nalready established, without injustice cannot observe, how good soever\nhe conceiveth it to be. I say, he cannot in this case observe the same\nin his actions, nor in his discourse with other men; though he may\nwithout blame beleeve the his private Teachers, and wish he had the\nliberty to practise their advice; and that it were publiquely received\nfor Law. For internall faith is in its own nature invisible, and\nconsequently exempted from all humane jurisdiction; whereas the words,\nand actions that proceed from it, as breaches of our Civil obedience,\nare injustice both before God and Man. Seeing then our Saviour hath\ndenyed his Kingdome to be in this world, seeing he hath said, he came\nnot to judge, but to save the world, he hath not subjected us to other\nLaws than those of the Common-wealth; that is, the Jews to the Law\nof Moses, (which he saith (Mat. 5.) he came not to destroy, but to\nfulfill,) and other Nations to the Laws of their severall Soveraigns,\nand all men to the Laws of Nature; the observing whereof, both he\nhimselfe, and his Apostles have in their teaching recommended to us, as\na necessary condition of being admitted by him in the last day into his\neternall Kingdome, wherein shall be Protection, and Life everlasting.\nSeeing then our Saviour, and his Apostles, left not new Laws to oblige\nus in this world, but new Doctrine to prepare us for the next; the Books\nof the New Testament, which containe that Doctrine, untill obedience to\nthem was commanded, by them that God hath given power to on earth to be\nLegislators, were not obligatory Canons, that is, Laws, but onely good,\nand safe advice, for the direction of sinners in the way to salvation,\nwhich every man might take, and refuse at his owne perill, without\ninjustice.\n\nAgain, our Saviour Christs Commission to his Apostles, and Disciples,\nwas to Proclaim his Kingdome (not present, but) to come; and to Teach\nall Nations; and to Baptize them that should beleeve; and to enter into\nthe houses of them that should receive them; and where they were not\nreceived, to shake off the dust of their feet against them; but not\nto call for fire from heaven to destroy them, nor to compell them to\nobedience by the Sword. In all which there is nothing of Power, but of\nPerswasion. He sent them out as Sheep unto Wolves, not as Kings to their\nSubjects. They had not in Commission to make Laws; but to obey, and\nteach obedience to Laws made; and consequently they could not make their\nWritings obligatory Canons, without the help of the Soveraign Civill\nPower. And therefore the Scripture of the New Testament is there only\nLaw, where the lawfull Civill Power hath made it so. And there also the\nKing, or Soveraign, maketh it a Law to himself; by which he subjecteth\nhimselfe, not to the Doctor, or Apostle, that converted him, but to God\nhimself, and his Son Jesus Christ, as immediately as did the Apostles\nthemselves.\n\n\n\n\nOf The Power Of Councells To Make The Scripture Law\n\nThat which may seem to give the New Testament, in respect of those that\nhave embraced Christian Doctrine, the force of Laws, in the times, and\nplaces of persecution, is the decrees they made amongst themselves in\ntheir Synods. For we read (Acts 15.28.) the stile of the Councell of the\nApostles, the Elders, and the whole Church, in this manner, \"It seemed\ngood to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burthen\nthan these necessary things, &C.\" which is a stile that signifieth a\nPower to lay a burthen on them that had received their Doctrine. Now\n\"to lay a burthen on another,\" seemeth the same that \"to oblige;\" and\ntherefore the Acts of that Councell were Laws to the then Christians.\nNeverthelesse, they were no more Laws than are these other Precepts,\n\"Repent, Be Baptized; Keep the Commandements; Beleeve the Gospel; Come\nunto me; Sell all that thou hast; Give it to the poor;\" and \"Follow\nme;\" which are not Commands, but Invitations, and Callings of men to\nChristianity, like that of Esay 55.1. \"Ho, every man that thirsteth,\ncome yee to the waters, come, and buy wine and milke without money.\"\nFor first, the Apostles power was no other than that of our Saviour,\nto invite men to embrace the Kingdome of God; which they themselves\nacknowledged for a Kingdome (not present, but) to come; and they that\nhave no Kingdome, can make no Laws. And secondly, if their Acts of\nCouncell, were Laws, they could not without sin be disobeyed. But we\nread not any where, that they who received not the Doctrine of Christ,\ndid therein sin; but that they died in their sins; that is, that their\nsins against the Laws to which they owed obedience, were not pardoned.\nAnd those Laws were the Laws of Nature, and the Civill Laws of the\nState, whereto every Christian man had by pact submitted himself. And\ntherefore by the Burthen, which the Apostles might lay on such as they\nhad converted, are not to be understood Laws, but Conditions, proposed\nto those that sought Salvation; which they might accept, or refuse at\ntheir own perill, without a new sin, though not without the hazard of\nbeing condemned, and excluded out of the Kingdome of God for their sins\npast. And therefore of Infidels, S. John saith not, the wrath of God\nshall \"come\" upon them, but \"the wrath of God remaineth upon them;\"\nand not that they shall be condemned; but that \"they are condemned\nalready.\"(John 3.36, 3.18) Nor can it be conceived, that the benefit\nof Faith, \"is Remission of sins\" unlesse we conceive withall, that the\ndammage of Infidelity, is \"the Retention of the same sins.\"\n\nBut to what end is it (may some man aske), that the Apostles, and other\nPastors of the Church, after their time, should meet together, to agree\nupon what Doctrine should be taught, both for Faith and Manners, if no\nman were obliged to observe their Decrees? To this may be answered, that\nthe Apostles, and Elders of that Councell, were obliged even by their\nentrance into it, to teach the Doctrine therein concluded, and decreed\nto be taught, so far forth, as no precedent Law, to which they were\nobliged to yeeld obedience, was to the contrary; but not that all other\nChristians should be obliged to observe, what they taught. For though\nthey might deliberate what each of them should teach; yet they could\nnot deliberate what others should do, unless their Assembly had had\na Legislative Power; which none could have but Civill Soveraigns. For\nthough God be the Soveraign of all the world, we are not bound to take\nfor his Law, whatsoever is propounded by every man in his name; nor any\nthing contrary to the Civill Law, which God hath expressely commanded us\nto obey.\n\nSeeing then the Acts of Councell of the Apostles, were then no Laws,\nbut Councells; much lesse are Laws the Acts of any other Doctors,\nor Councells since, if assembled without the Authority of the Civill\nSoveraign. And consequently, the Books of the New Testament, though most\nperfect Rules of Christian Doctrine, could not be made Laws by any other\nauthority then that of Kings, or Soveraign Assemblies.\n\nThe first Councell, that made the Scriptures we now have, Canon, is not\nextant: For that Collection the first Bishop of Rome after S. Peter, is\nsubject to question: For though the Canonicall books bee there reckoned\nup; yet these words, \"Sint vobis omnibus Clericis & Laicis Libris\nvenerandi, &c.\" containe a distinction of Clergy, and Laity, that was\nnot in use so neer St. Peters time. The first Councell for setling the\nCanonicall Scripture, that is extant, is that of Laodicea, Can. 59.\nwhich forbids the reading of other Books then those in the Churches;\nwhich is a Mandate that is not addressed to every Christian, but to\nthose onely that had authority to read any publiquely in the Church;\nthat is, to Ecclesiastiques onely.\n\n\n\n\nOf The Right Of Constituting Ecclesiasticall Officers In The Time\n\nOf The Apostles\n\nOf Ecclesiastical Officers in the time of the Apostles, some were\nMagisteriall, some Ministeriall. Magisteriall were the Offices\nof preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to Infidels; of\nadministring the Sacraments, and Divine Service; and of teaching the\nRules of Faith and Manners to those that were converted. Ministeriall\nwas the Office of Deacons, that is, of them that were appointed to the\nadministration of the secular necessities of the Church, at such time\nas they lived upon a common stock of mony, raised out of the voluntary\ncontributions of the faithfull.\n\nAmongst the Officers Magisteriall, the first, and principall were the\nApostles; whereof there were at first but twelve; and these were chosen\nand constituted by our Saviour himselfe; and their Office was not onely\nto Preach, Teach, and Baptize, but also to be Martyrs, (Witnesses of\nour Saviours Resurrection.) This Testimony, was the specificall, and\nessentiall mark; whereby the Apostleship was distinguished from other\nMagistracy Ecclesiasticall; as being necessary for an Apostle, either to\nhave seen our Saviour after his Resurrection, or to have conversed with\nhim before, and seen his works, and other arguments of his Divinity,\nwhereby they might be taken for sufficient Witnesses. And therefore at\nthe election of a new Apostle in the place of Judas Iscariot, S. Peter\nsaith (Acts 1.21,22.) \"Of these men that have companyed with us, all the\ntime that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the\nBaptisme of John unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must\none be ordained to be a Witnesse with us of his Resurrection:\" where, by\nthis word Must, is implyed a necessary property of an Apostle, to have\ncompanyed with the first and prime Apostles in the time that our Saviour\nmanifested himself in the flesh.\n\n\n\n\nMatthias Made Apostle By The Congregation.\n\nThe first Apostle, of those which were not constituted by Christ in the\ntime he was upon the Earth, was Matthias, chosen in this manner: There\nwere assembled together in Jerusalem about 120 Christians (Acts 1.15.)\nThese appointed two, Joseph the Just, and Matthias (ver. 23.) and caused\nlots to be drawn; \"and (ver. 26.) the Lot fell on Matthias and he was\nnumbred with the Apostles.\" So that here we see the ordination of this\nApostle, was the act of the Congregation, and not of St. Peter, nor of\nthe eleven, otherwise then as Members of the Assembly.\n\n\n\n\nPaul And Barnabas Made Apostles By The Church Of Antioch\n\nAfter him there was never any other Apostle ordained, but Paul and\nBarnabas, which was done (as we read Acts 13.1,2,3.) in this manner.\n\"There were in the Church that was at Antioch, certaine Prophets, and\nTeachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of\nCyrene, and Manaen; which had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch,\nand Saul. As they ministred unto the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost\nsaid, 'Separate mee Barnabas, and Saul for the worke whereunto I have\ncalled them.' And when they had fasted, and prayed, and laid their hands\non them, they sent them away.\"\n\nBy which it is manifest, that though they were called by the Holy Ghost,\ntheir Calling was declared unto them, and their Mission authorized by\nthe particular Church of Antioch. And that this their calling was to\nthe Apostleship, is apparent by that, that they are both called (Acts\n14.14.) Apostles: And that it was by vertue of this act of the Church of\nAntioch, that they were Apostles, S. Paul declareth plainly (Rom. 1.1.)\nin that hee useth the word, which the Holy Ghost used at his calling:\nFor he stileth himself, \"An Apostle separated unto the Gospel of God;\"\nalluding to the words of the Holy Ghost, \"Separate me Barnabas and Saul,\n&c.\" But seeing the work of an Apostle, was to be a Witnesse of\nthe Resurrection of Christ, and man may here aske, how S. Paul that\nconversed not with our Saviour before his passion, could know he was\nrisen. To which it is easily answered, that our Saviour himself appeared\nto him in the way to Damascus, from Heaven, after his Ascension; \"and\nchose him for a vessell to bear his name before the Gentiles, and Kings,\nand Children of Israel;\" and consequently (having seen the Lord after\nhis passion) was a competent Witnesse of his Resurrection: And as for\nBarnabas, he was a Disciple before the Passion. It is therefore evident\nthat Paul, and Barnabas were Apostles; and yet chosen, and authorized\n(not by the first Apostles alone, but) by the Church of Antioch; as\nMatthias was chosen, and authorized by the Church of Jerusalem.\n\n\n\n\nWhat Offices In The Church Are Magisteriall\n\nBishop, a word formed in our language, out of the Greek Episcopus,\nsignifieth an overseer, or Superintendent of any businesse, and\nparticularly a Pastor or Shepherd; and thence by metaphor was taken, not\nonly amongst the Jews that were originally Shepherds, but also amongst\nthe Heathen, to signifie the Office of a King, or any other Ruler,\nor Guide of People, whether he ruled by Laws, or Doctrine. And so\nthe Apostles were the first Christian Bishops, instituted by Christ\nhimselfe: in which sense the Apostleship of Judas is called (Acts 1.20.)\nhis Bishoprick. And afterwards, when there were constituted Elders in\nthe Christian Churches, with charge to guide Christs flock by their\ndoctrine, and advice; these Elders were also called Bishops. Timothy was\nan Elder (which word Elder, in the New Testament is a name of Office, as\nwell as of Age;) yet he was also a Bishop. And Bishops were then content\nwith the Title of Elders. Nay S. John himselfe, the Apostle beloved of\nour Lord, beginneth his Second Epistle with these words, \"The Elder to\nthe Elect Lady.\" By which it is evident, that Bishop, Pastor, Elder,\nDoctor, that is to say, Teacher, were but so many divers names of\nthe same Office in the time of the Apostles. For there was then no\ngovernment by Coercion, but only by Doctrine, and Perswading. The\nKingdome of God was yet to come, in a new world; so that there could\nbe no authority to compell in any Church, till the Common-wealth\nhad embraced the Christian Faith; and consequently no diversity of\nAuthority, though there were diversity of Employments.\n\nBesides these Magisteriall employments in the Church, namely Apostles,\nBishops, Elders, Pastors, and Doctors, whose calling was to proclaim\nChrist to the Jews, and Infidels, and to direct, and teach those that\nbeleeved we read in the New Testament of no other. For by the names\nof Evangelists and Prophets, is not signified any Office, but severall\nGifts, by which severall men were profitable to the Church: as\nEvangelists, by writing the life and acts of our Saviour; such as were\nS. Matthew and S. John Apostles, and S. Marke and S. Luke Disciples, and\nwhosoever else wrote of that subject, (as S. Thomas, and S. Barnabas are\nsaid to have done, though the Church have not received the Books\nthat have gone under their names:) and as Prophets, by the gift of\ninterpreting the Old Testament; and sometimes by declaring their\nspeciall Revelations to the Church. For neither these gifts, nor the\ngifts of Languages, nor the gift of Casting out Devils, or of Curing\nother diseases, nor any thing else did make an Officer in the Church,\nsave onely the due calling and election to the charge of Teaching.\n\n\n\n\nOrdination Of Teachers\n\nAs the Apostles, Matthias, Paul, and Barnabas, were not made by our\nSaviour himself, but were elected by the Church, that is, by the\nAssembly of Christians; namely, Matthias by the Church of Jerusalem,\nand Paul, and Barnabas by the Church of Antioch; so were also the\nPresbyters, and Pastors in other Cities, elected by the Churches of\nthose Cities. For proof whereof, let us consider, first, how S. Paul\nproceeded in the Ordination of Presbyters, in the Cities where he had\nconverted men to the Christian Faith, immediately after he and Barnabas\nhad received their Apostleship. We read (Acts 14.23.) that \"they\nordained Elders in every Church;\" which at first sight may be taken for\nan Argument, that they themselves chose, and gave them their authority:\nBut if we consider the Originall text, it will be manifest, that they\nwere authorized, and chosen by the Assembly of the Christians of each\nCity. For the words there are, \"cheirotonesantes autoispresbuterous kat\nekklesian,\" that is, \"When they had Ordained them Elders by the Holding\nup of Hands in every Congregation.\" Now it is well enough known, that in\nall those Cities, the manner of choosing Magistrates, and Officers,\nwas by plurality of suffrages; and (because the ordinary way of\ndistinguishing the Affirmative Votes from the Negatives, was by Holding\nup of Hands) to ordain an Officer in any of the Cities, was no more\nbut to bring the people together, to elect them by plurality of Votes,\nwhether it were by plurality of elevated hands, or by plurality of\nvoices, or plurality of balls, or beans, or small stones, of which every\nman cast in one, into a vessell marked for the Affirmative, or Negative;\nfor divers Cities had divers customes in that point. It was therefore\nthe Assembly that elected their own Elders: the Apostles were onely\nPresidents of the Assembly to call them together for such Election, and\nto pronounce them Elected, and to give them the benediction, which now\nis called Consecration. And for this cause they that were Presidents\nof the Assemblies, as (in the absence of the Apostles) the Elders were,\nwere called proestotes, and in Latin Antistities; which words signifie\nthe Principall Person of the Assembly, whose office was to number the\nVotes, and to declare thereby who was chosen; and where the Votes were\nequall, to decide the matter in question, by adding his own; which is\nthe Office of a President in Councell. And (because all the Churches\nhad their Presbyters ordained in the same manner,) where the word is\nConstitute, (as Titus 1.5.) \"ina katasteses kata polin presbuterous,\"\n\"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest constitute\nElders in every City,\" we are to understand the same thing; namely, that\nhee should call the faithfull together, and ordain them Presbyters by\nplurality of suffrages. It had been a strange thing, if in a Town, where\nmen perhaps had never seen any Magistrate otherwise chosen then by an\nAssembly, those of the Town becomming Christians, should so much as have\nthought on any other way of Election of their Teachers, and Guides, that\nis to say, of their Presbyters, (otherwise called Bishops,) then this of\nplurality of suffrages, intimated by S. Paul (Acts 14.23.) in the word\nCheirotonesantes: Nor was there ever any choosing of Bishops, (before\nthe Emperors found it necessary to regulate them in order to the keeping\nof the peace amongst them,) but by the Assemblies of the Christians in\nevery severall Town.\n\nThe same is also confirmed by the continuall practise even to this day,\nin the Election of the Bishops of Rome. For if the Bishop of any place,\nhad the right of choosing another, to the succession of the Pastorall\nOffice, in any City, at such time as he went from thence, to plant the\nsame in another place; much more had he had the Right, to appoint his\nsuccessour in that place, in which he last resided and dyed: And we find\nnot, that ever any Bishop of Rome appointed his successor. For they were\na long time chosen by the People, as we may see by the sedition raised\nabout the Election, between Damascus, and Ursinicus; which Ammianus\nMarcellinus saith was so great, that Juventius the Praefect, unable to\nkeep the peace between them, was forced to goe out of the City; and that\nthere were above an hundred men found dead upon that occasion in the\nChurch it self. And though they afterwards were chosen, first, by the\nwhole Clergy of Rome, and afterwards by the Cardinalls; yet never any\nwas appointed to the succession by his predecessor. If therefore they\npretended no right to appoint their successors, I think I may reasonably\nconclude, they had no right to appoint the new power; which none could\ntake from the Church to bestow on them, but such as had a lawfull\nauthority, not onely to Teach, but to Command the Church; which none\ncould doe, but the Civill Soveraign.\n\n\n\n\nMinisters Of The Church What\n\nThe word Minister in the Originall Diakonos signifieth one that\nvoluntarily doth the businesse of another man; and differeth from a\nServant onely in this, that Servants are obliged by their condition,\nto what is commanded them; whereas Ministers are obliged onely by\ntheir undertaking, and bound therefore to no more than that they have\nundertaken: So that both they that teach the Word of God, and they that\nadminister the secular affairs of the Church, are both Ministers, but\nthey are Ministers of different Persons. For the Pastors of the Church,\ncalled (Acts 6.4.) \"The Ministers of the Word,\" are Ministers of Christ,\nwhose Word it is: But the Ministery of a Deacon, which is called (verse\n2. of the same Chapter) \"Serving of Tables,\" is a service done to the\nChurch, or Congregation: So that neither any one man, nor the whole\nChurch, could ever of their Pastor say, he was their Minister; but of\na Deacon, whether the charge he undertook were to serve tables, or\ndistribute maintenance to the Christians, when they lived in each City\non a common stock, or upon collections, as in the first times, or to\ntake a care of the House of Prayer, or of the Revenue, or other worldly\nbusinesse of the Church, the whole Congregation might properly call him\ntheir Minister.\n\nFor their employment, as Deacons, was to serve the Congregation; though\nupon occasion they omitted not to preach the Gospel, and maintain the\nDoctrine of Christ, every one according to his gifts, as S. Steven did;\nand both to Preach, and Baptize, as Philip did: For that Philip, which\n(Act. 8. 5.) Preached the Gospel at Samaria, and (verse 38.) Baptized\nthe Eunuch, was Philip the Deacon, not Philip the Apostle. For it is\nmanifest (verse 1.) that when Philip preached in Samaria, the Apostles\nwere at Jerusalem, and (verse 14.) \"When they heard that Samaria had\nreceived the Word of God, sent Peter and John to them;\" by imposition of\nwhose hands, they that were Baptized (verse 15.) received (which before\nby the Baptisme of Philip they had not received) the Holy Ghost. For it\nwas necessary for the conferring of the Holy Ghost, that their Baptisme\nshould be administred, or confirmed by a Minister of the Word, not by a\nMinister of the Church. And therefore to confirm the Baptisme of those\nthat Philip the Deacon had Baptized, the Apostles sent out of their own\nnumber from Jerusalem to Samaria, Peter, and John; who conferred on them\nthat before were but Baptized, those graces that were signs of the Holy\nSpirit, which at that time did accompany all true Beleevers; which what\nthey were may be understood by that which S. Marke saith (chap. 16.17.)\n\"These signs follow them that beleeve in my Name; they shall cast out\nDevills; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up Serpents,\nand if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; They shall\nlay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.\" This to doe, was it that\nPhilip could not give; but the Apostles could, and (as appears by this\nplace) effectually did to every man that truly beleeved, and was by\na Minister of Christ himself Baptized: which power either Christs\nMinisters in this age cannot conferre, or else there are very few true\nBeleevers, or Christ hath very few Ministers.\n\n\n\n\nAnd How Chosen What\n\nThat the first Deacons were chosen, not by the Apostles, but by a\nCongregation of the Disciples; that is, of Christian men of all sorts,\nis manifest out of Acts 6. where we read that the Twelve, after the\nnumber of Disciples was multiplyed, called them together, and having\ntold them, that it was not fit that the Apostles should leave the Word\nof God, and serve tables, said unto them (verse 3.) \"Brethren looke you\nout among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost, and of\nWisdome, whom we may appoint over this businesse.\" Here it is manifest,\nthat though the Apostles declared them elected; yet the Congregation\nchose them; which also, (verse the fift) is more expressely said, where\nit is written, that \"the saying pleased the multitude, and they chose\nseven, &c.\"\n\n\n\n\nOf Ecclesiasticall Revenue, Under The Law Of Moses\n\nUnder the Old Testament, the Tribe of Levi were onely capable of the\nPriesthood, and other inferiour Offices of the Church. The land\nwas divided amongst the other Tribes (Levi excepted,) which by the\nsubdivision of the Tribe of Joseph, into Ephraim and Manasses, were\nstill twelve. To the Tribe of Levi were assigned certain Cities for\ntheir habitation, with the suburbs for their cattell: but for their\nportion, they were to have the tenth of the fruits of the land of their\nBrethren. Again, the Priests for their maintenance had the tenth of that\ntenth, together with part of the oblations, and sacrifices. For God had\nsaid to Aaron (Numb. 18. 20.) \"Thou shalt have no inheritance in their\nland, neither shalt thou have any part amongst them, I am thy part, and\nthine inheritance amongst the Children of Israel.\" For God being then\nKing, and having constituted the Tribe of Levi to be his Publique\nMinisters, he allowed them for their maintenance, the Publique revenue,\nthat is to say, the part that God had reserved to himself; which were\nTythes, and Offerings: and that it is which is meant, where God saith, I\nam thine inheritance. And therefore to the Levites might not unfitly\nbe attributed the name of Clergy from Kleros, which signifieth Lot, or\nInheritance; not that they were heirs of the Kingdome of God, more than\nother; but that Gods inheritance, was their maintenance. Now seeing\nin this time God himself was their King, and Moses, Aaron, and the\nsucceeding High Priests were his Lieutenants; it is manifest, that the\nRight of Tythes, and Offerings was constituted by the Civill Power.\n\nAfter their rejection of God in the demand of a King, they enjoyed still\nthe same revenue; but the Right thereof was derived from that, that the\nKings did never take it from them: for the Publique Revenue was at\nthe disposing of him that was the Publique Person; and that (till the\nCaptivity) was the King. And again, after the return from the Captivity,\nthey paid their Tythes as before to the Priest. Hitherto therefore\nChurch Livings were determined by the Civill Soveraign.\n\n\n\n\nIn Our Saviours Time, And After\n\nOf the maintenance of our Saviour, and his Apostles, we read onely they\nhad a Purse, (which was carried by Judas Iscariot;) and, that of the\nApostles, such as were Fisher-men, did sometimes use their trade; and\nthat when our Saviour sent the Twelve Apostles to Preach, he forbad them\n\"to carry Gold, and Silver, and Brasse in their purses, for that\nthe workman is worthy of his hire:\" (Mat. 10. 9,10.) By which it\nis probable, their ordinary maintenance was not unsuitable to their\nemployment; for their employment was (ver. 8.) \"freely to give, because\nthey had freely received;\" and their maintenance was the Free Gift of\nthose that beleeved the good tyding they carryed about of the coming\nof the Messiah their Saviour. To which we may adde, that which was\ncontributed out of gratitude, by such as our Saviour had healed of\ndiseases; of which are mentioned \"Certain women (Luke 8. 2,3.) which had\nbeen healed of evill spirits and infirmities; Mary Magdalen, out of whom\nwent seven Devills; and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herods Steward; and\nSusanna, and many others, which ministred unto him of their substance.\n\nAfter our Saviours Ascension, the Christians of every City lived in\nCommon, (Acts 4. 34.) upon the mony which was made of the sale of their\nlands and possessions, and laid down at the feet of the Apostles, of\ngood will, not of duty; for \"whilest the Land remained (saith S. Peter\nto Ananias Acts 5.4.) was it not thine? and after it was sold, was it\nnot in thy power?\" which sheweth he needed not to have saved his land,\nnor his money by lying, as not being bound to contribute any thing at\nall, unlesse he had pleased. And as in the time of the Apostles, so also\nall the time downward, till after Constantine the Great, we shall\nfind, that the maintenance of the Bishops, and Pastors of the Christian\nChurch, was nothing but the voluntary contribution of them that had\nembraced their Doctrine. There was yet no mention of Tythes: but\nsuch was in the time of Constantine, and his Sons, the affection of\nChristians to their Pastors, as Ammianus Marcellinus saith (describing\nthe sedition of Damasus and Ursinicus about the Bishopricke,) that it\nwas worth their contention, in that the Bishops of those times by the\nliberality of their flock, and especially of Matrons, lived splendidly,\nwere carryed in Coaches, and sumptuous in their fare and apparell.\n\nThe Ministers Of The Gospel Lived On The Benevolence Of Their Flocks\nBut here may some ask, whether the Pastor were then bound to live upon\nvoluntary contribution, as upon almes, \"For who (saith S. Paul 1 Cor. 9.\n7.) goeth to war at his own charges? or who feedeth a flock, and eatheth\nnot of the milke of the flock?\" And again, (1 Cor. 9. 13.) \"Doe ye not\nknow that they which minister about holy things, live of the things of\nthe Temple; and they which wait at the Altar, partake with the Altar;\"\nthat is to say, have part of that which is offered at the Altar for\ntheir maintenance? And then he concludeth, \"Even so hath the Lord\nappointed, that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.\nFrom which place may be inferred indeed, that the Pastors of the Church\nought to be maintained by their flocks; but not that the Pastors were to\ndetermine, either the quantity, or the kind of their own allowance, and\nbe (as it were) their own Carvers. Their allowance must needs therefore\nbe determined, either by the gratitude, and liberality of every\nparticular man of their flock, or by the whole Congregation. By the\nwhole Congregation it could not be, because their Acts were then no\nLaws: Therefore the maintenance of Pastors, before Emperours and Civill\nSoveraigns had made Laws to settle it, was nothing but Benevolence. They\nthat served at the Altar lived on what was offered. In what court should\nthey sue for it, who had no Tribunalls? Or if they had Arbitrators\namongst themselves, who should execute their Judgments, when they had no\npower to arme their Officers? It remaineth therefore, that there could\nbe no certaine maintenance assigned to any Pastors of the Church, but by\nthe whole Congregation; and then onely, when their Decrees should have\nthe force (not onely of Canons, but also) of Laws; which Laws could not\nbe made, but by Emperours, Kings, or other Civill Soveraignes. The Right\nof Tythes in Moses Law, could not be applyed to the then Ministers\nof the Gospell; because Moses and the High Priests were the Civill\nSoveraigns of the people under God, whose Kingdom amongst the Jews was\npresent; whereas the Kingdome of God by Christ is yet to come.\n\nHitherto hath been shewn what the Pastors of the Church are; what are\nthe points of their Commission (as that they were to Preach, to Teach,\nto Baptize, to be Presidents in their severall Congregations;) what is\nEcclesiasticall Censure, viz. Excommunication, that is to say, in those\nplaces where Christianity was forbidden by the Civill Laws, a putting\nof themselves out of the company of the Excommunicate, and where\nChristianity was by the Civill Law commanded, a putting the\nExcommunicate out of the Congregations of Christians; who elected the\nPastors and Ministers of the Church, (that it was, the Congregation);\nwho consecrated and blessed them, (that it was the Pastor); what was\ntheir due revenue, (that it was none but their own possessions,\nand their own labour, and the voluntary contributions of devout and\ngratefull Christians). We are to consider now, what Office those persons\nhave, who being Civill Soveraignes, have embraced also the Christian\nFaith.\n\n\n\n\nThe Civill Soveraign Being A Christian Hath The Right Of Appointing\n\nPastors\n\nAnd first, we are to remember, that the Right of Judging what\nDoctrines are fit for Peace, and to be taught the Subjects, is in all\nCommon-wealths inseparably annexed (as hath been already proved cha.\n18.) to the Soveraign Power Civill, whether it be in one Man, or in one\nAssembly of men. For it is evident to the meanest capacity, that mens\nactions are derived from the opinions they have of the Good, or Evill,\nwhich from those actions redound unto themselves; and consequently,\nmen that are once possessed of an opinion, that their obedience to\nthe Soveraign Power, will bee more hurtfull to them, than their\ndisobedience, will disobey the Laws, and thereby overthrow the\nCommon-wealth, and introduce confusion, and Civill war; for the avoiding\nwhereof, all Civill Government was ordained. And therefore in all\nCommon-wealths of the Heathen, the Soveraigns have had the name of\nPastors of the People, because there was no Subject that could lawfully\nTeach the people, but by their permission and authority.\n\nThis Right of the Heathen Kings, cannot bee thought taken from them by\ntheir conversion to the Faith of Christ; who never ordained, that Kings\nfor beleeving in him, should be deposed, that is, subjected to any but\nhimself, or (which is all one) be deprived of the power necessary for\nthe conservation of Peace amongst their Subjects, and for their defence\nagainst foraign Enemies. And therefore Christian Kings are still the\nSupreme Pastors of their people, and have power to ordain what Pastors\nthey please, to teach the Church, that is, to teach the People committed\nto their charge.\n\nAgain, let the right of choosing them be (as before the conversion\nof Kings) in the Church, for so it was in the time of the Apostles\nthemselves (as hath been shewn already in this chapter); even so also\nthe Right will be in the Civill Soveraign, Christian. For in that he is\na Christian, he allowes the Teaching; and in that he is the Soveraign\n(which is as much as to say, the Church by Representation,) the\nTeachers hee elects, are elected by the Church. And when an Assembly of\nChristians choose their Pastor in a Christian Common-wealth, it is the\nSoveraign that electeth him, because tis done by his Authority; In the\nsame manner, as when a Town choose their Maior, it is the act of him\nthat hath the Soveraign Power: For every act done, is the act of him,\nwithout whose consent it is invalid. And therefore whatsoever examples\nmay be drawn out of History, concerning the Election of Pastors, by the\nPeople, or by the Clergy, they are no arguments against the Right of\nany Civill Soveraign, because they that elected them did it by his\nAuthority.\n\nSeeing then in every Christian Common-wealth, the Civill Soveraign is\nthe Supreme Pastor, to whose charge the whole flock of his Subjects is\ncommitted, and consequently that it is by his authority, that all\nother Pastors are made, and have power to teach, and performe all\nother Pastorall offices; it followeth also, that it is from the Civill\nSoveraign, that all other Pastors derive their right of Teaching,\nPreaching, and other functions pertaining to that Office; and that they\nare but his Ministers; in the same manner as the Magistrates of Towns,\nJudges in Courts of Justice, and Commanders of Armies, are all but\nMinisters of him that is the Magistrate of the whole Common-wealth,\nJudge of all Causes, and Commander of the whole Militia, which is\nalwayes the Civill Soveraign. And the reason hereof, is not because they\nthat Teach, but because they that are to Learn, are his Subjects.\nFor let it be supposed, that a Christian King commit the Authority of\nOrdaining Pastors in his Dominions to another King, (as divers Christian\nKings allow that power to the Pope;) he doth not thereby constitute a\nPastor over himself, nor a Soveraign Pastor over his People; for that\nwere to deprive himself of the Civill Power; which depending on the\nopinion men have of their Duty to him, and the fear they have of\nPunishment in another world, would depend also on the skill, and loyalty\nof Doctors, who are no lesse subject, not only to Ambition, but also\nto Ignorance, than any other sort of men. So that where a stranger hath\nauthority to appoint Teachers, it is given him by the Soveraign in\nwhose Dominions he teacheth. Christian Doctors are our Schoolmasters\nto Christianity; But Kings are Fathers of Families, and may receive\nSchoolmasters for their Subjects from the recommendation of a stranger,\nbut not from the command; especially when the ill teaching them shall\nredound to the great and manifest profit of him that recommends them:\nnor can they be obliged to retain them, longer than it is for the\nPublique good; the care of which they stand so long charged withall, as\nthey retain any other essentiall Right of the Soveraignty.\n\n\n\n\nThe Pastorall Authority Of Soveraigns Only Is De Jure Divino,\n\nThat Of Other Pastors Is Jure Civili\n\nIf a man therefore should ask a Pastor, in the execution of his Office,\nas the chief Priests and Elders of the people (Mat. 21.23.) asked our\nSaviour, \"By what authority dost thou these things, and who gave thee\nthis authority:\" he can make no other just Answer, but that he doth\nit by the Authority of the Common-wealth, given him by the King, or\nAssembly that representeth it. All Pastors, except the Supreme, execute\ntheir charges in the Right, that is by the Authority of the Civill\nSoveraign, that is, Jure Civili. But the King, and every other Soveraign\nexecuteth his Office of Supreme Pastor, by immediate Authority from God,\nthat is to say, In Gods Right, or Jure Divino. And therefore none but\nKings can put into their Titles (a mark of their submission to God onely\n) Dei Gratia Rex, &c. Bishops ought to say in the beginning of their\nMandates, \"By the favour of the Kings Majesty, Bishop of such a\nDiocesse;\" or as Civill Ministers, \"In his Majesties Name.\" For in\nsaying, Divina Providentia, which is the same with Dei Gratia, though\ndisguised, they deny to have received their authority from the Civill\nState; and sliely slip off the Collar of their Civill Subjection,\ncontrary to the unity and defence of the Common-wealth.\n\n\n\n\nChristian Kings Have Power To Execute All Manner Of Pastoral Function\n\nBut if every Christian Soveraign be the Supreme Pastor of his own\nSubjects, it seemeth that he hath also the Authority, not only to Preach\n(which perhaps no man will deny;) but also to Baptize, and to Administer\nthe Sacrament of the Lords Supper; and to Consecrate both Temples, and\nPastors to Gods service; which most men deny; partly because they use\nnot to do it; and partly because the Administration of Sacraments,\nand Consecration of Persons, and Places to holy uses, requireth the\nImposition of such mens hands, as by the like Imposition successively\nfrom the time of the Apostles have been ordained to the like Ministery.\nFor proof therefore that Christian Kings have power to Baptize, and to\nConsecrate, I am to render a reason, both why they use not to doe it,\nand how, without the ordinary ceremony of Imposition of hands, they are\nmade capable of doing it, when they will.\n\nThere is no doubt but any King, in case he were skilfull in the\nSciences, might by the same Right of his Office, read Lectures of\nthem himself, by which he authorizeth others to read them in the\nUniversities. Neverthelesse, because the care of the summe of the\nbusinesse of the Common-wealth taketh up his whole time, it were not\nconvenient for him to apply himself in Person to that particular. A King\nmay also if he please, sit in Judgment, to hear and determine all manner\nof Causes, as well as give others authority to doe it in his name; but\nthat the charge that lyeth upon him of Command and Government, constrain\nhim to bee continually at the Helm, and to commit the Ministeriall\nOffices to others under him. In the like manner our Saviour (who surely\nhad power to Baptize) Baptized none himselfe, but sent his Apostles and\nDisciples to Baptize. (John 4.2.) So also S. Paul, by the necessity of\nPreaching in divers and far distant places, Baptized few: Amongst all\nthe Corinthians he Baptized only Crispus, Cajus, and Stephanus; (1\nCor.1.14,16.) and the reason was, because his principall Charge was to\nPreach. (1 Cor. 1.17.) Whereby it is manifest, that the greater Charge,\n(such as is the Government of the Church,) is a dispensation for the\nlesse. The reason therefore why Christian Kings use not to Baptize, is\nevident, and the same, for which at this day there are few Baptized by\nBishops, and by the Pope fewer.\n\nAnd as concerning Imposition of Hands, whether it be needfull, for the\nauthorizing of a King to Baptize, and Consecrate, we may consider thus.\n\nImposition of Hands, was a most ancient publique ceremony amongst the\nJews, by which was designed, and made certain, the person, or other\nthing intended in a mans prayer, blessing, sacrifice, consecration,\ncondemnation, or other speech. So Jacob in blessing the children of\nJoseph (Gen. 48.14.) \"Laid his right Hand on Ephraim the younger, and\nhis left Hand on Manasseh the first born;\" and this he did Wittingly\n(though they were so presented to him by Joseph, as he was forced in\ndoing it to stretch out his arms acrosse) to design to whom he intended\nthe greater blessing. So also in the sacrificing of the Burnt offering,\nAaron is commanded (Exod. 29.10.) \"to Lay his Hands on the head of the\nbullock;\" and (ver. 15.) \"to Lay his Hand on the head of the ramme.\"\nThe same is also said again, Levit. 1.4. & 8.14. Likewise Moses when he\nordained Joshua to be Captain of the Israelites, that is, consecrated\nhim to Gods service, (Numb. 27.23.) \"Laid his hands upon him, and gave\nhim his Charge,\" designing and rendring certain, who it was they were\nto obey in war. And in the consecration of the Levites (Numb. 8.10.) God\ncommanded that \"the Children of Israel should Put their Hands upon the\nLevites.\" And in the condemnation of him that had blasphemed the Lord\n(Levit. 24.14.) God commanded that \"all that heard him should Lay their\nHands on his head, and that all the Congregation should stone him.\" And\nwhy should they only that heard him, Lay their Hands upon him, and not\nrather a Priest, Levite, or other Minister of Justice, but that\nnone else were able to design, and demonstrate to the eyes of the\nCongregation, who it was that had blasphemed, and ought to die? And\nto design a man, or any other thing, by the Hand to the Eye is lesse\nsubject to mistake, than when it is done to the Eare by a Name.\n\nAnd so much was this ceremony observed, that in blessing the whole\nCongregation at once, which cannot be done by Laying on of Hands, yet\n\"Aaron (Levit. 9.22.) did lift up his Hand towards the people when he\nblessed them.\" And we read also of the like ceremony of Consecration of\nTemples amongst the Heathen, as that the Priest laid his Hands on\nsome post of the Temple, all the while he was uttering the words of\nConsecration. So naturall it is to design any individuall thing, rather\nby the Hand, to assure the Eyes, than by Words to inform the Eare in\nmatters of Gods Publique service.\n\nThis ceremony was not therefore new in our Saviours time. For Jairus\n(Mark 5.23.) whose daughter was sick, besought our Saviour (not to heal\nher, but) \"to Lay his Hands upon her, that shee might bee healed.\" And\n(Matth. 19.13.) \"they brought unto him little children, that hee should\nPut his Hands on them, and Pray.\"\n\nAccording to this ancient Rite, the Apostles, and Presbyters, and the\nPresbytery it self, Laid Hands on them whom they ordained Pastors, and\nwithall prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost; and that\nnot only once, but sometimes oftner, when a new occasion was presented:\nbut the end was still the same, namely a punctuall, and religious\ndesignation of the person, ordained either to the Pastorall Charge\nin general, or to a particular Mission: so (Act. 6.6.) \"The Apostles\nPrayed, and Laid their Hands\" on the seven Deacons; which was done,\nnot to give them the Holy Ghost, (for they were full of the Holy Ghost\nbefore thy were chosen, as appeareth immediately before, verse 3.) but\nto design them to that Office. And after Philip the Deacon had converted\ncertain persons in Samaria, Peter and John went down (Act. 8.17.)\" and\nlaid their Hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.\" And not\nonly an Apostle, but a Presbyter had this power: For S. Paul adviseth\nTimothy (1 Tim. 5.22.) \"Lay Hands suddenly on no man;\" that is, designe\nno man rashly to the Office of a Pastor. The whole Presbytery Laid their\nHands on Timothy, as we read 1 Tim. 4.14. but this is to be understood,\nas that some did it by the appointment of the Presbytery, and most\nlikely their Proestos, or Prolocutor, which it may be was St. Paul\nhimself. For in his 2 Epist. to Tim. ver. 6. he saith to him, \"Stirre up\nthe gift of God which is in thee, by the Laying on of my Hands:\" where\nnote by the way, that by the Holy ghost, is not meant the third Person\nin the Trinity, but the Gifts necessary to the Pastorall Office. We read\nalso, that St. Paul had Imposition of Hands twice; once from Ananias at\nDamascus (Acts 9.17,18.) at the time of his Baptisme; and again (Acts\n13.3.) at Antioch, when he was first sent out to Preach. The use then of\nthis ceremony considered in the Ordination of Pastors, was to design\nthe Person to whom they gave such Power. But if there had been then any\nChristian, that had had the Power of Teaching before; the Baptizing of\nhim, that is the making of him a Christian, had given him no new Power,\nbut had onely caused him to preach true Doctrine, that is, to use\nhis Power aright; and therefore the Imposition of Hands had been\nunnecessary; Baptisme it selfe had been sufficient. But every Soveraign,\nbefore Christianity, had the power of Teaching, and Ordaining Teachers;\nand therefore Christianity gave them no new Right, but only directed\nthem in the way of teaching truth; and consequently they needed\nno Imposition of Hands (besides that which is done in Baptisme) to\nauthorize them to exercise any part of the Pastorall Function, as\nnamely, to Baptize, and Consecrate. And in the Old Testament, though\nthe Priest only had right to Consecrate, during the time that the\nSoveraignty was in the High Priest; yet it was not so when the\nSoveraignty was in the King: For we read (1 Kings 8.) That Solomon\nBlessed the People, Consecrated the Temple, and pronounced that Publique\nPrayer, which is the pattern now for Consecration of all Christian\nChurches, and Chappels: whereby it appears, he had not only the right\nof Ecclesiasticall Government; but also of exercising Ecclesiasticall\nFunctions.\n\n\n\n\nThe Civill Soveraigne If A Christian, Is Head Of The Church\n\nIn His Own Dominions\n\nFrom this consolidation of the Right Politique, and Ecclesiastique in\nChristian Soveraigns, it is evident, they have all manner of Power over\ntheir Subjects, that can be given to man, for the government of mens\nexternall actions, both in Policy, and Religion; and may make such\nLaws, as themselves shall judge fittest, for the government of their\nown Subjects, both as they are the Common-wealth, and as they are the\nChurch: for both State, and Church are the same men.\n\nIf they please therefore, they may (as many Christian Kings now doe)\ncommit the government of their Subjects in matters of Religion to\nthe Pope; but then the Pope is in that point Subordinate to them, and\nexerciseth that Charge in anothers Dominion Jure Civili, in the Right of\nthe Civill Soveraign; not Jure Divino, in Gods Right; and may therefore\nbe discharged of that Office, when the Soveraign for the good of his\nSubjects shall think it necessary. They may also if they please,\ncommit the care of Religion to one Supreme Pastor, or to an Assembly of\nPastors; and give them what power over the Church, or one over another,\nthey think most convenient; and what titles of honor, as of Bishops,\nArchbishops, Priests, or Presbyters, they will; and make such Laws for\ntheir maintenance, either by Tithes, or otherwise, as they please,\nso they doe it out of a sincere conscience, of which God onely is\nthe Judge. It is the Civill Soveraign, that is to appoint Judges, and\nInterpreters of the Canonicall Scriptures; for it is he that maketh them\nLaws. It is he also that giveth strength to Excommunications; which but\nfor such Laws and Punishments, as may humble obstinate Libertines, and\nreduce them to union with the rest of the Church, would bee\ncontemned. In summe, he hath the Supreme Power in all causes, as well\nEcclesiasticall, as Civill, as far as concerneth actions, and words, for\nthese onely are known, and may be accused; and of that which cannot be\naccused, there is no Judg at all, but God, that knoweth the heart.\nAnd these Rights are incident to all Soveraigns, whether Monarchs, or\nAssemblies: for they that are the Representants of a Christian People,\nare Representants of the Church: for a Church, and a Common-wealth of\nChristian People, are the same thing.\n\n\n\n\nCardinal Bellarmines Books De Summo Pontifice Considered\n\nThough this that I have here said, and in other places of this Book,\nseem cleer enough for the asserting of the Supreme Ecclesiasticall Power\nto Christian Soveraigns; yet because the Pope of Romes challenge to that\nPower universally, hath been maintained chiefly, and I think as strongly\nas is possible, by Cardinall Bellarmine, in his Controversie De Summo\nPontifice; I have thought it necessary, as briefly as I can, to examine\nthe grounds, and strength of his Discourse.\n\n\n\n\nThe First Book\n\nOf five Books he hath written of this subject, the first containeth\nthree Questions: One, Which is simply the best government, Monarchy,\nAristocracy, or Democracy; and concludeth for neither, but for a\ngovernment mixt of all there: Another, which of these is the best\nGovernment of the Church; and concludeth for the mixt, but which should\nmost participate of Monarchy: the third, whether in this mixt Monarchy,\nSt. Peter had the place of Monarch. Concerning his first Conclusion, I\nhave already sufficiently proved (chapt. 18.) that all Governments which\nmen are bound to obey, are Simple, and Absolute. In Monarchy there is\nbut One Man Supreme; and all other men that have any kind of Power in\nthe State, have it by his Commission, during his pleasure; and execute\nit in his name: And in Aristocracy, and Democracy, but One Supreme\nAssembly, with the same Power that in Monarchy belongeth to the Monarch,\nwhich is not a Mixt, but an Absolute Soveraignty. And of the three\nsorts, which is the best, is not to be disputed, where any one of them\nis already established; but the present ought alwaies to be preferred,\nmaintained, and accounted best; because it is against both the Law of\nNature, and the Divine positive Law, to doe any thing tending to the\nsubversion thereof. Besides, it maketh nothing to the Power of\nany Pastor, (unlesse he have the Civill Soveraignty,) what kind of\nGovernment is the best; because their Calling is not to govern men by\nCommandement, but to teach them, and perswade them by Arguments, and\nleave it to them to consider, whether they shall embrace, or reject the\nDoctrine taught. For Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy, do mark out\nunto us three sorts of Soveraigns, not of Pastors; or, as we may say,\nthree sorts of Masters of Families, not three sorts of Schoolmasters for\ntheir children.\n\nAnd therefore the second Conclusion, concerning the best form of\nGovernment of the Church, is nothing to the question of the Popes Power\nwithout his own Dominions: For in all other Common-wealths his Power (if\nhee have any at all) is that of the Schoolmaster onely, and not of the\nMaster of the Family.\n\nFor the third Conclusion, which is, that St. Peter was Monarch of the\nChurch, he bringeth for his chiefe argument the place of S. Matth.\n(chap. 16.18, 19.) \"Thou art Peter, And upon this rock I will build my\nChurch, &c. And I will give thee the keyes of Heaven; whatsoever thou\nshalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt\nloose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven.\" Which place well considered,\nproveth no more, but that the Church of Christ hath for foundation one\nonely Article; namely, that which Peter in the name of all the Apostles\nprofessing, gave occasion to our Saviour to speak the words here cited;\nwhich that wee may cleerly understand, we are to consider, that our\nSaviour preached by himself, by John Baptist, and by his Apostles,\nnothing but this Article of Faith, \"that he was the Christ;\" all other\nArticles requiring faith no otherwise, than as founded on that. John\nbegan first, (Mat. 3.2.) preaching only this, \"The Kingdome of God is at\nhand.\" Then our Saviour himself (Mat. 4.17.) preached the same: And to\nhis Twelve Apostles, when he gave them their Commission (Mat. 10.7.)\nthere is no mention of preaching any other Article but that. This was\nthe fundamentall Article, that is the Foundation of the Churches Faith.\nAfterwards the Apostles being returned to him, he asketh them all, (Mat.\n16.13) not Peter onely, \"Who men said he was;\" and they answered, that\n\"some said he was John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias,\nor one of the Prophets:\" Then (ver. 15.) he asked them all again, (not\nPeter onely) \"Whom say yee that I am?\" Therefore Peter answered (for\nthem all) \"Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God;\" which I said is\nthe Foundation of the Faith of the whole Church; from which our Saviour\ntakes the occasion of saying, \"Upon this stone I will build my Church;\"\nBy which it is manifest, that by the Foundation-Stone of the Church, was\nmeant the Fundamentall Article of the Churches Faith. But why then (will\nsome object) doth our Saviour interpose these words, \"Thou art Peter\"?\nIf the originall of this text had been rigidly translated, the reason\nwould easily have appeared: We are therefore to consider, that the\nApostle Simon, was surnamed Stone, (which is the signification of\nthe Syriacke word Cephas, and of the Greek word Petrus). Our Saviour\ntherefore after the confession of that Fundamentall Article, alluding\nto his name, said (as if it were in English) thus, Thou art \"Stone,\" and\nupon this Stone I will build my Church: which is as much as to say, this\nArticle, that \"I am the Christ,\" is the Foundation of all the Faith I\nrequire in those that are to bee members of my Church: Neither is this\nallusion to a name, an unusuall thing in common speech: But it had been\na strange, and obscure speech, if our Saviour intending to build his\nChurch on the Person of St. Peter, had said, \"thou art a Stone, and\nupon this Stone I will build my Church,\" when it was so obvious without\nambiguity to have said, \"I will build my Church on thee; and yet there\nhad been still the same allusion to his name.\n\nAnd for the following words, \"I will give thee the Keyes of Heaven, &c.\"\nit is no more than what our Saviour gave also to all the rest of his\nDisciples (Matth. 18.18.) \"Whatsoever yee shall bind on Earth, shall be\nbound in Heaven. And whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth, shall be loosed\nin Heaven.\" But howsoever this be interpreted, there is no doubt but\nthe Power here granted belongs to all Supreme Pastors; such as are all\nChristian Civill Soveraignes in their own Dominions. In so much, as if\nSt. Peter, or our Saviour himself had converted any of them to beleeve\nhim, and to acknowledge his Kingdome; yet because his Kingdome is not of\nthis world, he had left the supreme care of converting his subjects to\nnone but him; or else hee must have deprived him of the Soveraignty,\nto which the Right of Teaching is inseparably annexed. And thus much in\nrefutation of his first Book, wherein hee would prove St. Peter to have\nbeen the Monarch Universall of the Church, that is to say, of all the\nChristians in the world.\n\n\n\n\nThe Second Book\n\nThe second Book hath two Conclusions: One, that S. Peter was Bishop\nof Rome, and there dyed: The other, that the Popes of Rome are his\nSuccessors. Both which have been disputed by others. But supposing them\nto be true; yet if by Bishop of Rome bee understood either the\nMonarch of the Church, or the Supreme Pastor of it; not Silvester, but\nConstantine (who was the first Christian Emperour) was that Bishop; and\nas Constantine, so all other Christian Emperors were of Right supreme\nBishops of the Roman Empire; I say of the Roman Empire, not of all\nChristendome: For other Christian Soveraigns had the same Right in their\nseverall Territories, as to an Office essentially adhaerent to their\nSoveraignty. Which shall serve for answer to his second Book.\n\n\n\n\nThe Third Book\n\nIn the third Book, he handleth the question whether the Pope be\nAntichrist. For my part, I see no argument that proves he is so, in that\nsense that Scripture useth the name: nor will I take any argument from\nthe quality of Antichrist, to contradict the Authority he exerciseth,\nor hath heretofore exercised in the Dominions of any other Prince, or\nState.\n\nIt is evident that the Prophets of the Old Testament foretold, and the\nJews expected a Messiah, that is, a Christ, that should re-establish\namongst them the kingdom of God, which had been rejected by them in\nthe time of Samuel, when they required a King after the manner of\nother Nations. This expectation of theirs, made them obnoxious to the\nImposture of all such, as had both the ambition to attempt the attaining\nof the Kingdome, and the art to deceive the People by counterfeit\nmiracles, by hypocriticall life, or by orations and doctrine plausible.\nOur Saviour therefore, and his Apostles forewarned men of False\nProphets, and of False Christs. False Christs, are such as pretend to\nbe the Christ, but are not, and are called properly Antichrists, in such\nsense, as when there happeneth a Schisme in the Church by the election\nof two Popes, the one calleth the other Antipapa, or the false Pope.\nAnd therefore Antichrist in the proper signification hath two essentiall\nmarks; One, that he denyeth Jesus to be Christ; and another that he\nprofesseth himselfe to bee Christ. The first Mark is set down by S. John\nin his 1 Epist. 4. ch. 3. ver. \"Every Spirit that confesseth not that\nJesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God; And this is the Spirit\nof Antichrist.\" The other Mark is expressed in the words of our Saviour,\n(Mat. 24.5.) \"Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ;\" and\nagain, \"If any man shall say unto you, Loe, here is Christ, there is\nChrist beleeve it not.\" And therefore Antichrist must be a False Christ,\nthat is, some one of them that shall pretend themselves to be Christ.\nAnd out of these two Marks, \"to deny Jesus to be the Christ,\" and to\n\"affirm himselfe to be the Christ,\" it followeth, that he must also be\nan \"Adversary of the true Christ,\" which is another usuall signification\nof the word Antichrist. But of these many Antichrists, there is one\nspeciall one, O Antichristos, The Antichrist, or Antichrist definitely,\nas one certaine person; not indefinitely An Antichrist. Now seeing the\nPope of Rome, neither pretendeth himself, nor denyeth Jesus to be the\nChrist, I perceive not how he can be called Antichrist; by which word\nis not meant, one that falsely pretendeth to be His Lieutenant, or Vicar\nGenerall, but to be Hee. There is also some Mark of the time of this\nspeciall Antichrist, as (Mat. 24.15.) when that abominable Destroyer,\nspoken of by Daniel, (Dan. 9. 27.) shall stand in the Holy place, and\nsuch tribulation as was not since the beginning of the world, nor ever\nshall be again, insomuch as if it were to last long, (ver. 22.) \"no\nflesh could be saved; but for the elects sake those days shall be\nshortened\" (made fewer). But that tribulation is not yet come; for it\nis to be followed immediately (ver. 29.) by a darkening of the Sun\nand Moon, a falling of the Stars, a concussion of the Heavens, and the\nglorious coming again of our Saviour, in the cloudes. And therefore The\nAntichrist is not yet come; whereas, many Popes are both come and gone.\nIt is true, the Pope in taking upon him to give Laws to all Christian\nKings, and Nations, usurpeth a Kingdome in this world, which Christ took\nnot on him: but he doth it not As Christ, but as For Christ, wherein\nthere is nothing of the Antichrist.\n\n\n\n\nThe Fourth Book\n\nIn the fourth Book, to prove the Pope to be the supreme Judg in all\nquestions of Faith and Manners, (which is as much as to be the absolute\nMonarch of all Christians in the world,) be bringeth three Propositions:\nThe first, that his Judgments are Infallible: The second, that he can\nmake very Laws, and punish those that observe them not: The third, that\nour Saviour conferred all Jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall on the Pope of\nRome.\n\n\n\n\nTexts For The Infallibility Of The Popes Judgement In Points Of Faith\n\nFor the Infallibility of his Judgments, he alledgeth the Scriptures: and\nfirst, that of Luke 22.31. \"Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired you that\nhee may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith\nfaile not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy Brethren.\" This,\naccording to Bellarmines exposition, is, that Christ gave here to Simon\nPeter two priviledges: one, that neither his Faith should fail, neither\nhe, nor any of his successors should ever define any point concerning\nFaith, or Manners erroneously, or contrary to the definition of a former\nPope: Which is a strange, and very much strained interpretation. But he\nthat with attention readeth that chapter, shall find there is no place\nin the whole Scripture, that maketh more against the Popes Authority,\nthan this very place. The Priests and Scribes seeking to kill our\nSaviour at the Passeover, and Judas possessed with a resolution to\nbetray him, and the day of killing the Passeover being come, our Saviour\ncelebrated the same with his Apostles, which he said, till the Kingdome\nof God was come hee would doe no more; and withall told them, that one\nof them was to betray him: Hereupon they questioned, which of them it\nshould be; and withall (seeing the next Passeover their Master would\ncelebrate should be when he was King) entred into a contention, who\nshould then be the greater man. Our Saviour therefore told them, that\nthe Kings of the Nations had Dominion over their Subjects, and are\ncalled by a name (in Hebrew) that signifies Bountifull; but I cannot\nbe so to you, you must endeavour to serve one another; I ordain you a\nKingdome, but it is such as my Father hath ordained mee; a Kingdome that\nI am now to purchase with my blood, and not to possesse till my second\ncoming; then yee shall eat and drink at my Table, and sit on Thrones,\njudging the twelve Tribes of Israel: And then addressing himself to\nSt. Peter, he saith, Simon, Simon, Satan seeks by suggesting a present\ndomination, to weaken your faith of the future; but I have prayed for\nthee, that thy faith shall not fail; Thou therefore (Note this,) being\nconverted, and understanding my Kingdome as of another world, confirm\nthe same faith in thy Brethren: To which S. Peter answered (as one that\nno more expected any authority in this world) \"Lord I am ready to goe\nwith thee, not onely to Prison, but to Death.\" Whereby it is manifest,\nS. Peter had not onely no jurisdiction given him in this world, but a\ncharge to teach all the other Apostles, that they also should have none.\nAnd for the Infallibility of St. Peters sentence definitive in matter\nof Faith, there is no more to be attributed to it out of this Text, than\nthat Peter should continue in the beleef of this point, namely, that\nChrist should come again, and possesse the Kingdome at the day of\nJudgement; which was not given by the Text to all his Successors; for\nwee see they claim it in the World that now is.\n\nThe second place is that of Matth. 16. \"Thou art Peter, and upon this\nrocke I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail\nagainst it.\" By which (as I have already shewn in this chapter) is\nproved no more, than that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against\nthe confession of Peter, which gave occasion to that speech; namely\nthis, That Jesus Is Christ The Sonne Of God.\n\nThe third text is John 21. ver. 16,17. \"Feed my sheep;\" which contains\nno more but a Commission of Teaching: And if we grant the rest of the\nApostles to be contained in that name of Sheep; then it is the supreme\nPower of Teaching: but it was onely for the time that there were no\nChristian Soveraigns already possessed of that Supremacy. But I have\nalready proved, that Christian Soveraignes are in their owne Dominions\nthe supreme Pastors, and instituted thereto, by vertue of their being\nBaptized, though without other Imposition of Hands. For such imposition\nbeing a Ceremony of designing the person, is needlesse, when hee is\nalready designed to the Power of Teaching what Doctrine he will, by his\ninstitution to an Absolute Power over his Subjects. For as I have proved\nbefore, Soveraigns are supreme Teachers (in generall) by their Office\nand therefore oblige themselves (by their Baptisme) to teach the\nDoctrine of Christ: And when they suffer others to teach their people,\nthey doe it at the perill of their own souls; for it is at the hands\nof the Heads of Families that God will require the account of the\ninstruction of his Children and Servants. It is of Abraham himself,\nnot of a hireling, that God saith (Gen. 18.19) \"I know him that he will\ncommand his Children, and his houshold after him, that they keep the way\nof the Lord, and do justice and judgement.\n\nThe fourth place is that of Exod. 28.30. \"Thou shalt put in the\nBreastplate of Judgment, the Urim and the Thummin:\" which hee saith is\ninterpreted by the Septuagint, delosin kai aletheian, that is, Evidence\nand Truth: And thence concludeth, God had given Evidence, and Truth,\n(which is almost infallibility,) to the High Priest. But be it Evidence\nand Truth it selfe that was given; or be it but Admonition to the Priest\nto endeavour to inform himself cleerly, and give judgment uprightly;\nyet in that it was given to the High Priest, it was given to the Civill\nSoveraign: For next under God was the High Priest in the Common-wealth\nof Israel; and is an argument for Evidence and Truth, that is, for the\nEcclesiasticall Supremacy of Civill Soveraigns over their own Subjects,\nagainst the pretended Power of the Pope. These are all the Texts hee\nbringeth for the Infallibility of the Judgement of the Pope, in point of\nFaith.\n\n\n\n\nTexts For The Same In Point Of Manners\n\nFor the Infallibility of his Judgment concerning Manners, hee bringeth\none Text, which is that of John 16.13. \"When the Spirit of truth is\ncome, hee will lead you into all truth\" where (saith he) by All Truth,\nis meant, at least, All Truth Necessary To Salvation. But with this\nmitigation, he attributeth no more Infallibility to the Pope, than to\nany man that professeth Christianity, and is not to be damned: For\nif any man erre in any point, wherein not to erre is necessary to\nSalvation, it is impossible he should be saved; for that onely is\nnecessary to Salvation, without which to be saved is impossible. What\npoints these are, I shall declare out of the Scripture in the Chapter\nfollowing. In this place I say no more, but that though it were granted,\nthe Pope could not possibly teach any error at all, yet doth not this\nentitle him to any Jurisdiction in the Dominions of another Prince,\nunlesse we shall also say, a man is obliged in conscience to set on\nwork upon all occasions the best workman, even then also when he hath\nformerly promised his work to another.\n\nBesides the Text, he argueth from Reason, thus, If the Pope could erre\nin necessaries, then Christ hath not sufficiently provided for the\nChurches Salvation; because he hath commanded her to follow the Popes\ndirections. But this Reason is invalid, unlesse he shew when, and where\nChrist commanded that, or took at all any notice of a Pope: Nay granting\nwhatsoever was given to S. Peter was given to the Pope; yet seeing there\nis in the Scripture no command to any man to obey St. Peter, no man can\nbee just, that obeyeth him, when his commands are contrary to those of\nhis lawfull Soveraign.\n\nLastly, it hath not been declared by the Church, nor by the Pope\nhimselfe, that he is the Civill Soveraign of all the Christians in the\nworld; and therefore all Christians are not bound to acknowledge his\nJurisdiction in point of Manners. For the Civill Soveraignty, and\nsupreme Judicature in controversies of Manners, are the same thing: And\nthe Makers of Civill Laws, are not onely Declarers, but also Makers\nof the justice, and injustice of actions; there being nothing in mens\nManners that makes them righteous, or unrighteous, but their conformity\nwith the Law of the Soveraign. And therefore when the Pope challengeth\nSupremacy in controversies of Manners, hee teacheth men to disobey the\nCivill Soveraign; which is an erroneous Doctrine, contrary to the\nmany precepts of our Saviour and his Apostles, delivered to us in the\nScripture.\n\nTo prove the Pope has Power to make Laws, he alledgeth many places; as\nfirst, Deut. 17.12. \"The man that will doe presumptuously, and will not\nhearken unto the Priest, (that standeth to Minister there before the\nLord thy God, or unto the Judge,) even that man shall die, and thou\nshalt put away the evill from Israel.\" For answer whereunto, we are to\nremember that the High Priest (next and immediately under God) was the\nCivill Soveraign; and all Judges were to be constituted by him. The\nwords alledged sound therefore thus. \"The man that will presume to\ndisobey the Civill Soveraign for the time being, or any of his Officers\nin the execution of their places, that man shall die, &c.\" which is\ncleerly for the Civill Soveraignty, against the Universall power of the\nPope.\n\nSecondly, he alledgeth that of Matth. 16. \"Whatsoever yee shall bind,\n&c.\" and interpreteth it for such Binding as is attributed (Matth.\n23.4.) to the Scribes and Pharisees, \"They bind heavy burthens, and\ngrievous to be born, and lay them on mens shoulders;\" by which is meant\n(he sayes) Making of Laws; and concludes thence, the Pope can make\nLaws. But this also maketh onely for the Legislative power of Civill\nSoveraigns: For the Scribes, and Pharisees sat in Moses Chaire,\nbut Moses next under God was Soveraign of the People of Israel: and\ntherefore our Saviour commanded them to doe all that they should say,\nbut not all that they should do. That is, to obey their Laws, but not\nfollow their Example.\n\nThe third place, is John 21.16. \"Feed my sheep;\" which is not a Power\nto make Laws, but a command to Teach. Making Laws belongs to the Lord of\nthe Family; who by his owne discretion chooseth his Chaplain, as also a\nSchoolmaster to Teach his children.\n\nThe fourth place John 20.21. is against him. The words are, \"As my\nFather sent me, so send I you.\" But our Saviour was sent to Redeem (by\nhis Death) such as should Beleeve; and by his own, and his Apostles\npreaching to prepare them for their entrance into his Kingdome; which he\nhimself saith, is not of this world, and hath taught us to pray for the\ncoming of it hereafter, though hee refused (Acts 1.6,7.) to tell his\nApostles when it should come; and in which, when it comes, the twelve\nApostles shall sit on twelve Thrones (every one perhaps as high as that\nof St. Peter) to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Seeing then God the\nFather sent not our Saviour to make Laws in this present world, wee may\nconclude from the Text, that neither did our Saviour send S. Peter to\nmake Laws here, but to perswade men to expect his second comming with\na stedfast faith; and in the mean time, if Subjects, to obey their\nPrinces; and if Princes, both to beleeve it themselves, and to do their\nbest to make their Subjects doe the same; which is the Office of a\nBishop. Therefore this place maketh most strongly for the joining of the\nEcclesiasticall Supremacy to the Civill Soveraignty, contrary to that\nwhich Cardinall Bellarmine alledgeth it for.\n\nThe fift place is Acts 15.28. \"It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit,\nand to us, to lay upon you no greater burden, than these necessary\nthings, that yee abstaine from meats offered to Idols, and from bloud,\nand from things strangled, and from fornication.\" Here hee notes the\nword Laying Of Burdens for the Legislative Power. But who is there,\nthat reading this Text, can say, this stile of the Apostles may not as\nproperly be used in giving Counsell, as in making Laws? The stile of a\nLaw is, We Command: But, We Think Good, is the ordinary stile of them,\nthat but give Advice; and they lay a Burthen that give Advice, though\nit bee conditionall, that is, if they to whom they give it, will\nattain their ends: And such is the Burthen, of abstaining from things\nstrangled, and from bloud; not absolute, but in case they will not\nerre. I have shewn before (chap. 25.) that Law, is distinguished from\nCounsell, in this, that the reason of a Law, is taken from the designe,\nand benefit of him that prescribeth it; but the reason of a Counsell,\nfrom the designe, and benefit of him, to whom the Counsell is given. But\nhere, the Apostles aime onely at the benefit of the converted Gentiles,\nnamely their Salvation; not at their own benefit; for having done their\nendeavour, they shall have their reward, whether they be obeyed, or not.\nAnd therefore the Acts of this Councell, were not Laws, but Counsells.\n\nThe sixt place is that of Rom. 13. \"Let every Soul be subject to the\nHigher Powers, for there is no Power but of God;\" which is meant, he\nsaith not onely of Secular, but also of Ecclesiasticall Princes. To\nwhich I answer, first, that there are no Ecclesiasticall Princes but\nthose that are also Civill Soveraignes; and their Principalities exceed\nnot the compasse of their Civill Soveraignty; without those bounds\nthough they may be received for Doctors, they cannot be acknowledged for\nPrinces. For if the Apostle had meant, we should be subject both to our\nown Princes, and also to the Pope, he had taught us a doctrine, which\nChrist himself hath told us is impossible, namely, \"to serve two\nMasters.\" And though the Apostle say in another place, \"I write these\nthings being absent, lest being present I should use sharpnesse,\naccording to the Power which the Lord hath given me;\" it is not, that\nhe challenged a Power either to put to death, imprison, banish, whip,\nor fine any of them, which are Punishments; but onely to Excommunicate,\nwhich (without the Civill Power) is no more but a leaving of their\ncompany, and having no more to doe with them, than with a Heathen man,\nor a Publican; which in many occasions might be a greater pain to the\nExcommunicant, than to the Excommunicate.\n\nThe seventh place is 1 Cor. 4.21. \"Shall I come unto you with a Rod, or\nin love, and the spirit of lenity?\" But here again, it is not the Power\nof a Magistrate to punish offenders, that is meant by a Rod; but\nonely the Power of Excommunication, which is not in its owne nature\na Punishment, but onely a Denouncing of punishment, that Christ shall\ninflict, when he shall be in possession of his Kingdome, at the day of\nJudgment. Nor then also shall it bee properly a Punishment, as upon a\nSubject that hath broken the Law; but a Revenge, as upon an Enemy, or\nRevolter, that denyeth the Right of our Saviour to the Kingdome: And\ntherefore this proveth not the Legislative Power of any Bishop, that has\nnot also the Civill Power.\n\nThe eighth place is, Timothy 3.2. \"A Bishop must be the husband but of\none wife, vigilant, sober, &c.\" which he saith was a Law. I thought that\nnone could make a Law in the Church, but the Monarch of the Church, St.\nPeter. But suppose this Precept made by the authority of St. Peter;\nyet I see no reason why to call it a Law, rather than an Advice, seeing\nTimothy was not a Subject, but a Disciple of St. Paul; nor the flock\nunder the charge of Timothy, his Subjects in the Kingdome, but his\nScholars in the Schoole of Christ: If all the Precepts he giveth\nTimothy, be Laws, why is not this also a Law, \"Drink no longer water,\nbut use a little wine for thy healths sake\"? And why are not also\nthe Precepts of good Physitians, so many Laws? but that it is not the\nImperative manner of speaking, but an absolute Subjection to a Person,\nthat maketh his Precept Laws.\n\nIn like manner, the ninth place, 1 Tim. 5. 19. \"Against an Elder\nreceive not an accusation, but before two or three Witnesses,\" is a wise\nPrecept, but not a Law.\n\nThe tenth place is, Luke 10.16. \"He that heareth you, heareth mee; and\nhe that despiseth you, despiseth me.\" And there is no doubt, but he that\ndespiseth the Counsell of those that are sent by Christ, despiseth\nthe Counsell of Christ himself. But who are those now that are sent by\nChrist, but such as are ordained Pastors by lawfull Authority? and who\nare lawfully ordained, that are not ordained by the Soveraign\nPastor? and who is ordained by the Soveraign Pastor in a Christian\nCommon-wealth, that is not ordained by the authority of the Soveraign\nthereof? Out of this place therefore it followeth, that he which heareth\nhis Soveraign being a Christian, heareth Christ; and hee that despiseth\nthe Doctrine which his King being a Christian, authorizeth, despiseth\nthe Doctrine of Christ (which is not that which Bellarmine intendeth\nhere to prove, but the contrary). But all this is nothing to a Law. Nay\nmore, a Christian King, as a Pastor, and Teacher of his Subjects, makes\nnot thereby his Doctrines Laws. He cannot oblige men to beleeve; though\nas a Civill Soveraign he may make Laws suitable to his Doctrine, which\nmay oblige men to certain actions, and sometimes to such as they would\nnot otherwise do, and which he ought not to command; and yet when\nthey are commanded, they are Laws; and the externall actions done in\nobedience to them, without the inward approbation, are the actions of\nthe Soveraign, and not of the Subject, which is in that case but as\nan instrument, without any motion of his owne at all; because God hath\ncommanded to obey them.\n\nThe eleventh, is every place, where the Apostle for Counsell, putteth\nsome word, by which men use to signifie Command; or calleth the\nfollowing of his Counsell, by the name of Obedience. And therefore they\nare alledged out of 1 Cor. 11.2. \"I commend you for keeping my Precepts\nas I delivered them to you.\" The Greek is, \"I commend you for keeping\nthose things I delivered to you, as I delivered them.\" Which is far from\nsignifying that they were Laws, or any thing else, but good Counsell.\nAnd that of 1 Thess. 4.2. \"You know what commandements we gave you:\"\nwhere the Greek word is paraggelias edokamen, equivalent to paredokamen,\nwhat wee delivered to you, as in the place next before alledged, which\ndoes not prove the Traditions of the Apostles, to be any more than\nCounsells; though as is said in the 8th verse, \"he that despiseth them,\ndespiseth not man, but God\": For our Saviour himself came not to Judge,\nthat is, to be King in this world; but to Sacrifice himself for Sinners,\nand leave Doctors in his Church, to lead, not to drive men to Christ,\nwho never accepteth forced actions, (which is all the Law produceth,)\nbut the inward conversion of the heart; which is not the work of Laws,\nbut of Counsell, and Doctrine.\n\nAnd that of 2 Thess. 3.14. \"If any man Obey not our word by this\nEpistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may bee\nashamed\": where from the word Obey, he would inferre, that this Epistle\nwas a Law to the Thessalonians. The Epistles of the Emperours were\nindeed Laws. If therefore the Epistle of S. Paul were also a Law, they\nwere to obey two Masters. But the word Obey, as it is in the Greek\nupakouei, signifieth Hearkening To, or Putting In Practice, not onely\nthat which is Commanded by him that has right to punish, but also that\nwhich is delivered in a way of Counsell for our good; and therefore St.\nPaul does not bid kill him that disobeys, nor beat, nor imprison, nor\namerce him, which Legislators may all do; but avoid his company, that\nhe may bee ashamed: whereby it is evident, it was not the Empire of an\nApostle, but his Reputation amongst the Faithfull, which the Christians\nstood in awe of.\n\nThe last place is that of Heb. 13.17. \"Obey your Leaders, and submit\nyour selves to them, for they watch for your souls, as they that must\ngive account:\" And here also is intended by Obedience, a following of\ntheir Counsell: For the reason of our Obedience, is not drawn from the\nwill and command of our Pastors, but from our own benefit, as being the\nSalvation of our Souls they watch for, and not for the Exaltation of\ntheir own Power, and Authority. If it were meant here, that all they\nteach were Laws, then not onely the Pope, but every Pastor in his Parish\nshould have Legislative Power. Again, they that are bound to obey, their\nPastors, have no power to examine their commands. What then shall wee\nsay to St. John who bids us (1 Epist. chap. 4. ver. 1.) \"Not to beleeve\nevery Spirit, but to try the Spirits whether they are of God, because\nmany false Prophets are gone out into the world\"? It is therefore\nmanifest, that wee may dispute the Doctrine of our Pastors; but no man\ncan dispute a Law. The Commands of Civill Soveraigns are on all sides\ngranted to be Laws: if any else can make a Law besides himselfe, all\nCommon-wealth, and consequently all Peace, and Justice must cease; which\nis contrary to all Laws, both Divine and Humane. Nothing therefore can\nbe drawn from these, or any other places of Scripture, to prove the\nDecrees of the Pope, where he has not also the Civill Soveraignty, to be\nLaws.\n\nThe Question Of Superiority Between The Pope And Other Bishops The last\npoint hee would prove, is this, \"That our Saviour Christ has committed\nEcclesiasticall Jurisdiction immediately to none but the Pope.\" Wherein\nhe handleth not the Question of Supremacy between the Pope and Christian\nKings, but between the Pope and other Bishops. And first, he sayes it is\nagreed, that the Jurisdiction of Bishops, is at least in the generall\nDe Jure Divino, that is, in the Right of God; for which he alledges S.\nPaul, Ephes. 4.11. where hee sayes, that Christ after his Ascension\ninto heaven, \"gave gifts to men, some Apostles, some Prophets, and some\nEvangelists, and some Pastors, and some Teachers:\" And thence inferres,\nthey have indeed their Jurisdiction in Gods Right; but will not grant\nthey have it immediately from God, but derived through the Pope. But if\na man may be said to have his Jurisdiction De Jure Divino, and yet not\nimmediately; what lawfull Jurisdiction, though but Civill, is there in a\nChristian Common-wealth, that is not also De Jure Divino? For Christian\nKings have their Civill Power from God immediately; and the Magistrates\nunder him exercise their severall charges in vertue of his Commission;\nwherein that which they doe, is no lesse De Jure Divino Mediato, than\nthat which the Bishops doe, in vertue of the Popes Ordination. All\nlawfull Power is of God, immediately in the Supreme Governour, and\nmediately in those that have Authority under him: So that either hee\nmust grant every Constable in the State, to hold his Office in the Right\nof God; or he must not hold that any Bishop holds his so, besides the\nPope himselfe.\n\nBut this whole Dispute, whether Christ left the Jurisdiction to the Pope\nonely, or to other Bishops also, if considered out of these places where\nthe Pope has the Civill Soveraignty, is a contention De Lana Caprina:\nFor none of them (where they are not Soveraigns) has any Jurisdiction\nat all. For Jurisdiction is the Power of hearing and determining Causes\nbetween man and man; and can belong to none, but him that hath the Power\nto prescribe the Rules of Right and Wrong; that is, to make Laws;\nand with the Sword of Justice to compell men to obey his Decisions,\npronounced either by himself, or by the Judges he ordaineth thereunto;\nwhich none can lawfully do, but the Civill Soveraign.\n\nTherefore when he alledgeth out of the 6 of Luke, that our Saviour\ncalled his Disciples together, and chose twelve of them which he named\nApostles, he proveth that he Elected them (all, except Matthias, Paul\nand Barnabas,) and gave them Power and Command to Preach, but not\nto Judge of Causes between man and man: for that is a Power which\nhe refused to take upon himselfe, saying, \"Who made me a Judge, or a\nDivider, amongst you?\" and in another place, \"My Kingdome is not of this\nworld.\" But hee that hath not the Power to hear, and determine Causes\nbetween man and man, cannot be said to have any Jurisdiction at all. And\nyet this hinders not, but that our Saviour gave them Power to Preach and\nBaptize in all parts of the world, supposing they were not by their own\nlawfull Soveraign forbidden: For to our own Soveraigns Christ himself,\nand his Apostles have in sundry places expressely commanded us in all\nthings to be obedient.\n\nThe arguments by which he would prove, that Bishops receive their\nJurisdiction from the Pope (seeing the Pope in the Dominions of other\nPrinces hath no Jurisdiction himself,) are all in vain. Yet because they\nprove, on the contrary, that all Bishops receive Jurisdiction when they\nhave it from their Civill Soveraigns, I will not omit the recitall of\nthem.\n\nThe first, is from Numbers 11. where Moses not being able alone to\nundergoe the whole burthen of administring the affairs of the People of\nIsrael, God commanded him to choose Seventy Elders, and took part of\nthe spirit of Moses, to put it upon those Seventy Elders: by which it is\nunderstood, not that God weakened the spirit of Moses, for that had not\neased him at all; but that they had all of them their authority from\nhim; wherein he doth truly, and ingenuously interpret that place. But\nseeing Moses had the entire Soveraignty in the Common-wealth of the\nJews, it is manifest, that it is thereby signified, that they had their\nAuthority from the Civill Soveraign: and therefore that place proveth,\nthat Bishops in every Christian Common-wealth have their Authority from\nthe Civill Soveraign; and from the Pope in his own Territories only, and\nnot in the Territories of any other State.\n\nThe second argument, is from the nature of Monarchy; wherein all\nAuthority is in one Man, and in others by derivation from him: But the\nGovernment of the Church, he says, is Monarchicall. This also makes for\nChristian Monarchs. For they are really Monarchs of their own people;\nthat is, of their own Church (for the Church is the same thing with a\nChristian people;) whereas the Power of the Pope, though hee were\nS. Peter, is neither Monarchy, nor hath any thing of Archicall, nor\nCraticall, but onely of Didacticall; For God accepteth not a forced, but\na willing obedience.\n\nThe third, is, from that the Sea of S. Peter is called by S. Cyprian,\nthe Head, the Source, the Roote, the Sun, from whence the Authority\nof Bishops is derived. But by the Law of Nature (which is a better\nPrinciple of Right and Wrong, than the word of any Doctor that is but\na man) the Civill Soveraign in every Common-wealth, is the Head, the\nSource, the Root, and the Sun, from which all Jurisdiction is derived.\nAnd therefore, the Jurisdiction of Bishops, is derived from the Civill\nSoveraign.\n\nThe fourth, is taken from the Inequality of their Jurisdictions: For\nif God (saith he) had given it them immediately, he had given aswell\nEquality of Jurisdiction, as of Order: But wee see, some are Bishops but\nof own Town, some of a hundred Towns, and some of many whole Provinces;\nwhich differences were not determined by the command of God; their\nJurisdiction therefore is not of God, but of Man; and one has a\ngreater, another a lesse, as it pleaseth the Prince of the Church. Which\nargument, if he had proved before, that the Pope had had an Universall\nJurisdiction over all Christians, had been for his purpose. But seeing\nthat hath not been proved, and that it is notoriously known, the large\nJurisdiction of the Pope was given him by those that had it, that is,\nby the Emperours of Rome, (for the Patriarch of Constantinople, upon the\nsame title, namely, of being Bishop of the Capitall City of the Empire,\nand Seat of the Emperour, claimed to be equal to him,) it followeth,\nthat all other Bishops have their Jurisdiction from the Soveraigns of\nthe place wherein they exercise the same: And as for that cause they\nhave not their Authority De Jure Divino; so neither hath the Pope his De\nJure Divino, except onely where hee is also the Civill Soveraign.\n\nHis fift argument is this, \"If Bishops have their Jurisdiction\nimmediately from God, the Pope could not take it from them, for he can\ndoe nothing contrary to Gods ordination;\" And this consequence is good,\nand well proved. \"But, (saith he) the Pope can do this, and has done\nit.\" This also is granted, so he doe it in his own Dominions, or in the\nDominions of any other Prince that hath given him that Power; but not\nuniversally, in Right of the Popedome: For that power belongeth to\nevery Christian Soveraign, within the bounds of his owne Empire, and is\ninseparable from the Soveraignty. Before the People of Israel had (by\nthe commandment of God to Samuel) set over themselves a King, after the\nmanner of other Nations, the High Priest had the Civill Government; and\nnone but he could make, nor depose an inferiour Priest: But that Power\nwas afterwards in the King, as may be proved by this same argument of\nBellarmine; For if the Priest (be he the High Priest or any other) had\nhis Jurisdiction immediately from God, then the King could not take it\nfrom him; \"for he could do nothing contrary to Gods ordinance: But it\nis certain, that King Solomon (1 Kings 2.26.) deprived Abiathar the High\nPriest of his office, and placed Zadok (verse 35.) in his room. Kings\ntherefore may in the like manner Ordaine, and Deprive Bishops, as they\nshall thinke fit, for the well governing of their Subjects.\n\nHis sixth argument is this, If Bishops have their Jurisdiction De Jure\nDivino (that is, immediately from God,) they that maintaine it, should\nbring some Word of God to prove it: But they can bring none. The\nargument is good; I have therefore nothing to say against it. But it\nis an argument no lesse good, to prove the Pope himself to have no\nJurisdiction in the Dominion of any other Prince.\n\nLastly, hee bringeth for argument, the testimony of two Popes, Innocent,\nand Leo; and I doubt not but hee might have alledged, with as good\nreason, the testimonies of all the Popes almost since S. Peter: For\nconsidering the love of Power naturally implanted in mankind, whosoever\nwere made Pope, he would be tempted to uphold the same opinion.\nNeverthelesse, they should therein but doe, as Innocent, and Leo did,\nbear witnesse of themselves, and therefore their witness should not be\ngood.\n\n\n\n\nOf The Popes Temporall Power\n\nIn the fift Book he hath four Conclusions. The first is, \"That the Pope\nin not Lord of all the world:\" the second, \"that the Pope is not Lord\nof all the Christian world:\" The third, \"That the Pope (without his owne\nTerritory) has not any Temporall Jurisdiction DIRECTLY:\" These three\nConclusions are easily granted. The fourth is, \"That the Pope has (in\nthe Dominions of other Princes) the Supreme Temporall Power INDIRECTLY:\"\nwhich is denyed; unlesse he mean by Indirectly, that he has gotten it by\nIndirect means; then is that also granted. But I understand, that\nwhen he saith he hath it Indirectly, he means, that such Temporall\nJurisdiction belongeth to him of Right, but that this Right is but a\nConsequence of his Pastorall Authority, the which he could not exercise,\nunlesse he have the other with it: And therefore to the Pastorall Power\n(which he calls Spirituall) the Supreme Power Civill is necessarily\nannexed; and that thereby hee hath a Right to change Kingdomes, giving\nthem to one, and taking them from another, when he shall think it\nconduces to the Salvation of Souls.\n\nBefore I come to consider the Arguments by which hee would prove this\ndoctrine, it will not bee amisse to lay open the Consequences of it;\nthat Princes, and States, that have the Civill Soveraignty in their\nseverall Common-wealths, may bethink themselves, whether it bee\nconvenient for them, and conducing to the good of their Subjects, of\nwhom they are to give an account at the day of Judgment, to admit the\nsame.\n\nWhen it is said, the Pope hath not (in the Territories of other States)\nthe Supreme Civill Power Directly; we are to understand, he doth\nnot challenge it, as other Civill Soveraigns doe, from the originall\nsubmission thereto of those that are to be governed. For it is evident,\nand has already been sufficiently in this Treatise demonstrated, that\nthe Right of all Soveraigns, is derived originally from the consent of\nevery one of those that are to bee governed; whether they that choose\nhim, doe it for their common defence against an Enemy, as when they\nagree amongst themselves to appoint a Man, or an Assembly of men to\nprotect them; or whether they doe it, to save their lives, by submission\nto a conquering Enemy. The Pope therefore, when he disclaimeth the\nSupreme Civill Power over other States Directly, denyeth no more, but\nthat his Right cometh to him by that way; He ceaseth not for all that,\nto claime it another way; and that is, (without the consent of them\nthat are to be governed) by a Right given him by God, (which hee calleth\nIndirectly,) in his Assumption to the Papacy. But by what way soever he\npretend, the Power is the same; and he may (if it bee granted to be his\nRight) depose Princes and States, as often as it is for the Salvation\nof Soules, that is, as often as he will; for he claimeth also the Sole\nPower to Judge, whether it be to the salvation of mens Souls, or not.\nAnd this is the Doctrine, not onely that Bellarmine here, and many other\nDoctors teach in their Sermons and Books, but also that some\nCouncells have decreed, and the Popes have decreed, and the Popes have\naccordingly, when the occasion hath served them, put in practise. For\nthe fourth Councell of Lateran held under Pope Innocent the third, (in\nthe third Chap. De Haereticis,) hath this Canon. \"If a King at the\nPopes admonition, doe not purge his Kingdome of Haeretiques, and being\nExcommunicate for the same, make not satisfaction within a year, his\nsubjects are absolved of their Obedience.\" And the practise hereof hath\nbeen seen on divers occasions; as in the Deposing of Chilperique, King\nof France; in the Translation of the Roman Empire to Charlemaine; in\nthe Oppression of John King of England; in Transferring the Kingdome\nof Navarre; and of late years, in the League against Henry the third of\nFrance, and in many more occurrences. I think there be few Princes that\nconsider not this as Injust, and Inconvenient; but I wish they would\nall resolve to be Kings, or Subjects. Men cannot serve two Masters: They\nought therefore to ease them, either by holding the Reins of Government\nwholly in their own hands; or by wholly delivering them into the\nhands of the Pope; that such men as are willing to be obedient, may be\nprotected in their obedience. For this distinction of Temporall, and\nSpirituall Power is but words. Power is as really divided, and as\ndangerously to all purposes, by sharing with another Indirect Power, as\nwith a Direct one. But to come now to his Arguments.\n\nThe first is this, \"The Civill Power is subject to the Spirituall:\nTherefore he that hath the Supreme Power Spirituall, hath right to\ncommand Temporall Princes, and dispose of their Temporalls in order to\nthe Spirituall. As for the distinction of Temporall, and Spirituall,\nlet us consider in what sense it may be said intelligibly, that the\nTemporall, or Civill Power is subject to the Spirituall. There be but\ntwo ways that those words can be made sense. For when wee say, one Power\nis subject to another Power, the meaning either is, that he which hath\nthe one, is subject to him that hath the other; or that the one Power is\nto the other, as the means to the end. For wee cannot understand, that\none Power hath Power over another Power; and that one Power can have\nRight or Command over another: For Subjection, Command, Right, and\nPower are accidents, not of Powers, but of Persons: One Power may be\nsubordinate to another, as the art of a Sadler, to the art of a Rider.\nIf then it be granted, that the Civill Government be ordained as a means\nto bring us to a Spirituall felicity; yet it does not follow, that if a\nKing have the Civill Power, and the Pope the Spirituall, that therefore\nthe King is bound to obey the Pope, more then every Sadler is bound to\nobey every Rider. Therefore as from Subordination of an Art, cannot be\ninferred the Subjection of the Professor; so from the Subordination of\na Government, cannot be inferred the Subjection of the Governor. When\ntherefore he saith, the Civill Power is Subject to the Spirituall, his\nmeaning is, that the Civill Soveraign, is Subject to the Spirituall\nSoveraign. And the Argument stands thus, \"The Civil Soveraign, is\nsubject to the Spirituall; Therefore the Spirituall Prince may\ncommand Temporall Princes.\" Where the conclusion is the same, with the\nAntecedent he should have proved. But to prove it, he alledgeth\nfirst, this reason, \"Kings and Popes, Clergy and Laity make but one\nCommon-wealth; that is to say, but one Church: And in all Bodies the\nMembers depend one upon another: But things Spirituall depend not\nof things Temporall: Therefore, Temporall depend on Spirituall. And\ntherefore are Subject to them.\" In which Argumentation there be two\ngrosse errours: one is, that all Christian Kings, Popes, Clergy, and all\nother Christian men, make but one Common-wealth: For it is evident that\nFrance is one Common-wealth, Spain another, and Venice a third, &c. And\nthese consist of Christians; and therefore also are severall Bodies\nof Christians; that is to say, severall Churches: And their severall\nSoveraigns Represent them, whereby they are capable of commanding and\nobeying, of doing and suffering, as a natural man; which no Generall or\nUniversall Church is, till it have a Representant; which it hath not on\nEarth: for if it had, there is no doubt but that all Christendome were\none Common-wealth, whose Soveraign were that Representant, both in\nthings Spirituall and Temporall: And the Pope, to make himself this\nRepresentant, wanteth three things that our Saviour hath not given\nhim, to Command, and to Judge, and to Punish, otherwise than (by\nExcommunication) to run from those that will not Learn of him: For\nthough the Pope were Christs onely Vicar, yet he cannot exercise his\ngovernment, till our Saviours second coming: And then also it is not the\nPope, but St. Peter himselfe, with the other Apostles, that are to be\nJudges of the world.\n\nThe other errour in this his first Argument is, that he sayes, the\nMembers of every Common-wealth, as of a naturall Body, depend one of\nanother: It is true, they cohaere together; but they depend onely on the\nSoveraign, which is the Soul of the Common-wealth; which failing, the\nCommon-wealth is dissolved into a Civill war, no one man so much\nas cohaering to another, for want of a common Dependance on a known\nSoveraign; Just as the Members of the naturall Body dissolve into Earth,\nfor want of a Soul to hold them together. Therefore there is nothing in\nthis similitude, from whence to inferre a dependance of the Laity on the\nClergy, or of the Temporall Officers on the Spirituall; but of both on\nthe Civill Soveraign; which ought indeed to direct his Civill commands\nto the Salvation of Souls; but is not therefore subject to any but God\nhimselfe. And thus you see the laboured fallacy of the first Argument,\nto deceive such men as distinguish not between the Subordination of\nActions in the way to the End; and the Subjection of Persons one to\nanother in the administration of the Means. For to every End, the Means\nare determined by Nature, or by God himselfe supernaturally: but the\nPower to make men use the Means, is in every nation resigned (by the\nLaw of Nature, which forbiddeth men to violate their Faith given) to the\nCivill Soveraign.\n\nHis second Argument is this, \"Every Common-wealth, (because it is\nsupposed to be perfect and sufficient in it self,) may command any\nother Common-wealth, not subject to it, and force it to change the\nadministration of the Government, nay depose the Prince, and set another\nin his room, if it cannot otherwise defend it selfe against the injuries\nhe goes about to doe them: much more may a Spirituall Common-wealth\ncommand a Temporall one to change the administration of their\nGovernment, and may depose Princes, and institute others, when they\ncannot otherwise defend the Spirituall Good.\"\n\nThat a Common-wealth, to defend it selfe against injuries, may lawfully\ndoe all that he hath here said, is very true; and hath already in that\nwhich hath gone before been sufficiently demonstrated. And if it were\nalso true, that there is now in this world a Spirituall Common-wealth,\ndistinct from a Civill Common-wealth, then might the Prince thereof,\nupon injury done him, or upon want of caution that injury be not done\nhim in time to come, repaire, and secure himself by Warre; which is in\nsumme, deposing, killing, or subduing, or doing any act of Hostility.\nBut by the same reason, it would be no lesse lawfull for a Civill\nSoveraign, upon the like injuries done, or feared, to make warre\nupon the Spirituall Soveraign; which I beleeve is more than Cardinall\nBellarmine would have inferred from his own proposition.\n\nBut Spirituall Common-wealth there is none in this world: for it is the\nsame thing with the Kingdome of Christ; which he himselfe saith, is not\nof this world; but shall be in the next world, at the Resurrection, when\nthey that have lived justly, and beleeved that he was the Christ, shall\n(though they died Naturall bodies) rise Spirituall bodies; and then it\nis, that our Saviour shall judge the world, and conquer his Adversaries,\nand make a Spirituall Common-wealth. In the mean time, seeing there are\nno men on earth, whose bodies are Spirituall; there can be no Spirituall\nCommon-wealth amongst men that are yet in the flesh; unlesse wee call\nPreachers, that have Commission to Teach, and prepare men for\ntheir reception into the Kingdome of Christ at the Resurrection, a\nCommon-wealth; which I have proved to bee none.\n\nThe third Argument is this; \"It is not lawfull for Christians to\ntolerate an Infidel, or Haereticall King, in case he endeavour to draw\nthem to his Haeresie, or Infidelity. But to judge whether a King draw\nhis subjects to Haeresie, or not, belongeth to the Pope. Therefore hath\nthe Pope Right, to determine whether the Prince be to be deposed, or not\ndeposed.\"\n\nTo this I answer, that both these assertions are false. For Christians,\n(or men of what Religion soever,) if they tolerate not their King,\nwhatsoever law hee maketh, though it bee concerning Religion, doe\nviolate their faith, contrary to the Divine Law, both Naturall and\nPositive: Nor is there any Judge of Haeresie amongst Subjects, but\ntheir own Civill Soveraign; for \"Haeresie is nothing else, but a private\nopinion, obstinately maintained, contrary to the opinion which the\nPublique Person (that is to say, the Representant of the Common-wealth)\nhath commanded to bee taught.\" By which it is manifest, that an\nopinion publiquely appointed to bee taught, cannot be Haeresie; nor the\nSoveraign Princes that authorize them, Haeretiques. For Haeretiques are\nnone but private men, that stubbornly defend some Doctrine, prohibited\nby their lawful Soveraigns.\n\nBut to prove that Christians are not to tolerate Infidell, or\nHaereticall Kings, he alledgeth a place in Deut. 17. where God\nforbiddeth the Jews, when they shall set a King over themselves, to\nchoose a stranger; And from thence inferreth, that it is unlawfull for\na Christian, to choose a King, that is not a Christian. And 'tis true,\nthat he that is a Christian, that is, hee that hath already obliged\nhimself to receive our Saviour when he shall come, for his King, shal\ntempt God too much in choosing for King in this world, one that hee\nknoweth will endeavour, both by terrour, and perswasion to make him\nviolate his faith. But, it is (saith hee) the same danger, to choose one\nthat is not a Christian, for King, and not to depose him, when hee\nis chosen. To this I say, the question is not of the danger of not\ndeposing; but of the Justice of deposing him. To choose him, may in some\ncases bee unjust; but to depose him, when he is chosen, is in no case\nJust. For it is alwaies violation of faith, and consequently against the\nLaw of Nature, which is the eternal Law of God. Nor doe wee read, that\nany such Doctrine was accounted Christian in the time of the Apostles;\nnor in the time of the Romane Emperours, till the Popes had the Civill\nSoveraignty of Rome. But to this he hath replyed, that the Christians of\nold, deposed not Nero, nor Diocletian, nor Julian, nor Valens an Arrian,\nfor this cause onely, that they wanted Temporall forces. Perhaps so. But\ndid our Saviour, who for calling for, might have had twelve Legions\nof immortall, invulnerable Angels to assist him, want forces to depose\nCaesar, or at least Pilate, that unjustly, without finding fault in him,\ndelivered him to the Jews to bee crucified? Or if the Apostles wanted\nTemporall forces to depose Nero, was it therefore necessary for them in\ntheir Epistles to the new made Christians, to teach them, (as they did)\nto obey the Powers constituted over them, (whereof Nero in that time was\none,) and that they ought to obey them, not for fear of their wrath,\nbut for conscience sake? Shall we say they did not onely obey, but also\nteach what they meant not, for want of strength? It is not therefore\nfor want of strength, but for conscience sake, that Christians are to\ntolerate their Heathen Princes, or Princes (for I cannot call any one\nwhose Doctrine is the Publique Doctrine, an Haeretique) that authorize\nthe teaching of an Errour. And whereas for the Temporall Power of the\nPope, he alledgeth further, that St. Paul (1 Cor. 6.) appointed Judges\nunder the Heathen Princes of those times, such as were not ordained by\nthose Princes; it is not true. For St. Paul does but advise them,\nto take some of their Brethren to compound their differences, as\nArbitrators, rather than to goe to law one with another before the\nHeathen Judges; which is a wholsome Precept, and full of Charity, fit\nto bee practised also in the Best Christian Common-wealths. And for\nthe danger that may arise to Religion, by the Subjects tolerating of an\nHeathen, or an Erring Prince, it is a point, of which a Subject is no\ncompetent Judge; or if hee bee, the Popes Temporall Subjects may judge\nalso of the Popes Doctrine. For every Christian Prince, as I have\nformerly proved, is no lesse Supreme Pastor of his own Subjects, than\nthe Pope of his.\n\nThe fourth Argument, is taken from the Baptisme of Kings; wherein, that\nthey may be made Christians they submit their Scepters to Christ; and\npromise to keep, and defend the Christian Faith. This is true; for\nChristian Kings are no more but Christs Subjects: but they may, for all\nthat, bee the Popes Fellowes; for they are Supreme Pastors of their own\nSubjects; and the Pope is no more but King, and Pastor, even in Rome it\nselfe.\n\nThe fifth Argument, is drawn from the words spoken by our Saviour, Feed\nMy Sheep; by which was give all Power necessary for a Pastor; as the\nPower to chase away Wolves, such as are Haeretiques; the Power to shut\nup Rammes, if they be mad, or push at the other Sheep with their Hornes,\nsuch as are Evill (though Christian) Kings; and Power to give the Flock\nconvenient food: From whence hee inferreth, that St. Peter had these\nthree Powers given him by Christ. To which I answer, that the last of\nthese Powers, is no more than the Power, or rather Command to Teach.\nFor the first, which is to chase away Wolves, that is, Haeretiques, the\nplace hee quoteth is (Matth. 7.15.) \"Beware of false Prophets which\ncome to you in Sheeps clothing, but inwardly are ravening Wolves.\"\nBut neither are Haeretiques false Prophets, or at all Prophets: nor\n(admitting Haeretiques for the Wolves there meant,) were the Apostles\ncommanded to kill them, or if they were Kings, to depose them; but to\nbeware of, fly, and avoid them: nor was it to St. Peter, nor to any of\nthe Apostles, but to the multitude of the Jews that followed him into\nthe mountain, men for the most part not yet converted, that hee gave\nthis Counsell, to Beware of false Prophets: which therefore if it\nconferre a Power of chasing away Kings, was given, not onely to private\nmen; but to men that were not at all Christians. And as to the Power\nof Separating, and Shutting up of furious Rammes, (by which hee meaneth\nChristian Kings that refuse to submit themselves to the Roman Pastor,)\nour Saviour refused to take upon him that Power in this world himself,\nbut advised to let the Corn and Tares grow up together till the day of\nJudgment: much lesse did hee give it to St. Peter, or can S. Peter give\nit to the Popes. St. Peter, and all other Pastors, are bidden to esteem\nthose Christians that disobey the Church, that is, (that disobey the\nChristian Soveraigne) as Heathen men, and as Publicans. Seeing then men\nchallenge to the Pope no authority over Heathen Princes, they ought to\nchallenge none over those that are to bee esteemed as Heathen.\n\nBut from the Power to Teach onely, hee inferreth also a Coercive Power\nin the Pope, over Kings. The Pastor (saith he) must give his flock\nconvenient food: Therefore the Pope may, and ought to compell Kings to\ndoe their duty. Out of which it followeth, that the Pope, as Pastor of\nChristian men, is King of Kings: which all Christian Kings ought indeed\neither to Confesse, or else they ought to take upon themselves the\nSupreme Pastorall Charge, every one in his own Dominion.\n\nHis sixth, and last Argument, is from Examples. To which I answer,\nfirst, that Examples prove nothing; Secondly, that the Examples he\nalledgeth make not so much as a probability of Right. The fact of\nJehoiada, in Killing Athaliah (2 Kings 11.) was either by the Authority\nof King Joash, or it was a horrible Crime in the High Priest, which\n(ever after the election of King Saul) was a mere Subject. The fact of\nSt. Ambrose, in Excommunicating Theodosius the Emperour, (if it were\ntrue hee did so,) was a Capitall Crime. And for the Popes, Gregory 1.\nGreg. 2. Zachary, and Leo 3. their Judgments are void, as given in their\nown Cause; and the Acts done by them conformably to this Doctrine, are\nthe greatest Crimes (especially that of Zachary) that are incident to\nHumane Nature. And thus much of Power Ecclesiasticall; wherein I had\nbeen more briefe, forbearing to examine these Arguments of Bellarmine,\nif they had been his, as a Private man, and not as the Champion of the\nPapacy, against all other Christian Princes, and States.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLIII. OF WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR A MANS RECEPTION INTO THE\nKINGDOME OF HEAVEN.\n\n\n\n\nThe Difficulty Of Obeying God And Man Both At Once\n\nThe most frequent praetext of Sedition, and Civill Warre, in Christian\nCommon-wealths hath a long time proceeded from a difficulty, not yet\nsufficiently resolved, of obeying at once, both God, and Man, then\nwhen their Commandements are one contrary to the other. It is manifest\nenough, that when a man receiveth two contrary Commands, and knows that\none of them is Gods, he ought to obey that, and not the other, though\nit be the command even of his lawfull Soveraign (whether a Monarch, or\na Soveraign Assembly,) or the command of his Father. The difficulty\ntherefore consisteth in this, that men when they are commanded in the\nname of God, know not in divers Cases, whether the command be from God,\nor whether he that commandeth, doe but abuse Gods name for some private\nends of his own. For as there ware in the Church of the Jews, many false\nProphets, that sought reputation with the people, by feigned Dreams, and\nVisions; so there have been in all times in the Church of Christ, false\nTeachers, that seek reputation with the people, by phantasticall and\nfalse Doctrines; and by such reputation (as is the nature of Ambition,)\nto govern them for their private benefit.\n\n\n\n\nIs None To Them That Distinguish Between What Is, And What Is Not\n\nNecessary To Salvation\n\nBut this difficulty of obeying both God, and the Civill Soveraign on\nearth, to those that can distinguish between what is Necessary, and what\nis not Necessary for their Reception into the Kingdome of God, is of no\nmoment. For if the command of the Civill Soveraign bee such, as that it\nmay be obeyed, without the forfeiture of life Eternall; not to obey it\nis unjust; and the precept of the Apostle takes place; \"Servants obey\nyour Masters in all things;\" and, \"Children obey your Parents in all\nthings;\" and the precept of our Saviour, \"The Scribes and Pharisees sit\nin Moses Chaire, All therefore they shall say, that observe, and doe.\"\nBut if the command be such, as cannot be obeyed, without being damned\nto Eternall Death, then it were madnesse to obey it, and the Counsell\nof our Saviour takes place, (Mat. 10. 28.) \"Fear not those that kill the\nbody, but cannot kill the soule.\" All men therefore that would avoid,\nboth the punishments that are to be in this world inflicted, for\ndisobedience to their earthly Soveraign, and those that shall be\ninflicted in the world to come for disobedience to God, have need be\ntaught to distinguish well between what is, and what is not Necessary to\nEternall Salvation.\n\n\n\n\nAll That Is Necessary To Salvation Is Contained In Faith And Obedience\n\nAll that is NECESSARY to Salvation, is contained in two Vertues, Faith\nin Christ, and Obedience to Laws. The latter of these, if it were\nperfect, were enough to us. But because wee are all guilty of\ndisobedience to Gods Law, not onely originally in Adam, but also\nactually by our own transgressions, there is required at our hands now,\nnot onely Obedience for the rest of our time, but also a Remission of\nsins for the time past; which Remission is the reward of our Faith\nin Christ. That nothing else is Necessarily required to Salvation, is\nmanifest from this, that the Kingdome of Heaven, is shut to none but\nto Sinners; that is to say, to the disobedient, or transgressors of the\nLaw; nor to them, in case they Repent, and Beleeve all the Articles of\nChristian Faith, Necessary to Salvation.\n\n\n\n\nWhat Obedience Is Necessary;\n\nThe Obedience required at our hands by God, that accepteth in all our\nactions the Will for the Deed, is a serious Endeavour to Obey him;\nand is called also by all such names as signifie that Endeavour. And\ntherefore Obedience, is sometimes called by the names of Charity, and\nLove, because they imply a Will to Obey; and our Saviour himself maketh\nour Love to God, and to one another, a Fulfilling of the whole Law: and\nsometimes by the name of Righteousnesse; for Righteousnesse is but the\nwill to give to every one his owne, that is to say, the will to obey\nthe Laws: and sometimes by the name of Repentance; because to Repent,\nimplyeth a turning away from sinne, which is the same, with the return\nof the will to Obedience. Whosoever therefore unfeignedly desireth\nto fulfill the Commandements of God, or repenteth him truely of his\ntransgressions, or that loveth God with all his heart, and his neighbor\nas himself, hath all the Obedience Necessary to his Reception into the\nKingdome of God: For if God should require perfect Innocence, there\ncould no flesh be saved.\n\n\n\n\nAnd To What Laws\n\nBut what Commandements are those that God hath given us? Are all\nthose Laws which were given to the Jews by the hand of Moses, the\nCommandements of God? If they bee, why are not Christians taught to obey\nthem? If they be not, what others are so, besides the Law of Nature? For\nour Saviour Christ hath not given us new Laws, but Counsell to observe\nthose wee are subject to; that is to say, the Laws of Nature, and the\nLaws of our severall Soveraigns: Nor did he make any new Law to the Jews\nin his Sermon on the Mount, but onely expounded the Laws of Moses, to\nwhich they were subject before. The Laws of God therefore are none\nbut the Laws of Nature, whereof the principall is, that we should\nnot violate our Faith, that is, a commandement to obey our Civill\nSoveraigns, which wee constituted over us, by mutuall pact one with\nanother. And this Law of God, that commandeth Obedience to the Law\nCivill, commandeth by consequence Obedience to all the Precepts of the\nBible, which (as I have proved in the precedent Chapter) is there onely\nLaw, where the Civill Soveraign hath made it so; and in other places but\nCounsell; which a man at his own perill, may without injustice refuse to\nobey.\n\n\n\n\nIn The Faith Of A Christian, Who Is The Person Beleeved\n\nKnowing now what is the Obedience Necessary to Salvation, and to whom\nit is due; we are to consider next concerning Faith, whom, and why we\nbeleeve; and what are the Articles, or Points necessarily to be beleeved\nby them that shall be saved. And first, for the Person whom we beleeve,\nbecause it is impossible to beleeve any Person, before we know what he\nsaith, it is necessary he be one that wee have heard speak. The Person\ntherefore, whom Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the Prophets beleeved,\nwas God himself, that spake unto them supernaturally: And the Person,\nwhom the Apostles and Disciples that conversed with Christ beleeved, was\nour Saviour himself. But of them, to whom neither God the Father, nor\nour Saviour ever spake, it cannot be said, that the Person whom they\nbeleeved, was God. They beleeved the Apostles, and after them the\nPastors and Doctors of the Church, that recommended to their faith the\nHistory of the Old and New Testament: so that the Faith of Christians\never since our Saviours time, hath had for foundation, first, the\nreputation of their Pastors, and afterward, the authority of those that\nmade the Old and New Testament to be received for the Rule of Faith;\nwhich none could do but Christian Soveraignes; who are therefore the\nSupreme Pastors, and the onely Persons, whom Christians now hear speak\nfrom God; except such as God speaketh to, in these days supernaturally.\nBut because there be many false Prophets \"gone out into the world,\"\nother men are to examine such Spirits (as St. John advised us, 1\nEpistle, Chap. 4. ver.1.) \"whether they be of God, or not.\" And\ntherefore, seeing the Examination of Doctrines belongeth to the Supreme\nPastor, the Person which all they that have no speciall revelation are\nto beleeve, is (in every Common-wealth) the Supreme Pastor, that is to\nsay, the Civill Soveraigne.\n\n\n\n\nThe Causes Of Christian Faith\n\nThe causes why men beleeve any Christian Doctrine, are various; For\nFaith is the gift of God; and he worketh it in each severall man, by\nsuch wayes, as it seemeth good unto himself. The most ordinary immediate\ncause of our beleef, concerning any point of Christian Faith, is, that\nwee beleeve the Bible to be the Word of God. But why wee beleeve the\nBible to be the Word of God, is much disputed, as all questions must\nneeds bee, that are not well stated. For they make not the question\nto be, \"Why we Beleeve it,\" but \"How wee Know it;\" as if Beleeving and\nKnowing were all one. And thence while one side ground their Knowledge\nupon the Infallibility of the Church, and the other side, on the\nTestimony of the Private Spirit, neither side concludeth what it\npretends. For how shall a man know the Infallibility of the Church, but\nby knowing first the Infallibility of the Scripture? Or how shall a man\nknow his own Private spirit to be other than a beleef, grounded upon the\nAuthority, and Arguments of his Teachers; or upon a Presumption of his\nown Gifts? Besides, there is nothing in the Scripture, from which can be\ninferred the Infallibility of the Church; much lesse, of any particular\nChurch; and least of all, the Infallibility of any particular man.\n\n\n\n\nFaith Comes By Hearing\n\nIt is manifest, therefore, that Christian men doe not know, but onely\nbeleeve the Scripture to be the Word of God; and that the means of\nmaking them beleeve which God is pleased to afford men ordinarily, is\naccording to the way of Nature, that is to say, from their Teachers.\nIt is the Doctrine of St. Paul concerning Christian Faith in generall,\n(Rom. 10.17.) \"Faith cometh by Hearing,\" that is, by Hearing our lawfull\nPastors. He saith also (ver. 14,15. of the same Chapter) \"How shall\nthey beleeve in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear\nwithout a Preacher? and how shall they Preach, except they be sent?\"\nWhereby it is evident, that the ordinary cause of beleeving that the\nScriptures are the Word of God, is the same with the cause of the\nbeleeving of all other Articles of our Faith, namely, the Hearing of\nthose that are by the Law allowed and appointed to Teach us, as our\nParents in their Houses, and our Pastors in the Churches: Which also\nis made more manifest by experience. For what other cause can there bee\nassigned, why in Christian Common-wealths all men either beleeve, or\nat least professe the Scripture to bee the Word of God, and in other\nCommon-wealths scarce any; but that in Christian Common-wealths they\nare taught it from their infancy; and in other places they are taught\notherwise?\n\nBut if Teaching be the cause of Faith, why doe not all beleeve? It is\ncertain therefore that Faith is the gift of God, and hee giveth it to\nwhom he will. Neverthelesse, because of them to whom he giveth it, he\ngiveth it by the means of Teachers, the immediate cause of Faith is\nHearing. In a School where many are taught, and some profit, others\nprofit not, the cause of learning in them that profit, is the Master;\nyet it cannot be thence inferred, that learning is not the gift of God.\nAll good things proceed from God; yet cannot all that have them, say\nthey are Inspired; for that implies a gift supernaturall, and the\nimmediate hand of God; which he that pretends to, pretends to be a\nProphet, and is subject to the examination of the Church.\n\nBut whether men Know, or Beleeve, or Grant the Scriptures to be the Word\nof God; if out of such places of them, as are without obscurity, I\nshall shew what Articles of Faith are necessary, and onely necessary for\nSalvation, those men must needs Know, Beleeve, or Grant the same.\n\nThe Onely Necessary Article Of Christian Faith, The (Unum Necessarium)\nOnely Article of Faith, which the Scripture maketh simply Necessary to\nSalvation, is this, that JESUS IS THE CHRIST. By the name of Christ, is\nunderstood the King, which God had before promised by the Prophets of\nthe Old Testament, to send into the world, to reign (over the Jews,\nand over such of other nations as should beleeve in him) under himself\neternally; and to give them that eternall life, which was lost by the\nsin of Adam. Which when I have proved out of Scripture, I will further\nshew when, and in what sense some other Articles may bee also called\nNecessary.\n\n\n\n\nProved From The Scope Of The Evangelists\n\nFor Proof that the Beleef of this Article, Jesus Is The Christ, is all\nthe Faith required to Salvation, my first Argument shall bee from the\nScope of the Evangelists; which was by the description of the life of\nour Saviour, to establish that one Article, Jesus Is The Christ. The\nsumme of St. Matthews Gospell is this, That Jesus was of the stock of\nDavid; Born of a Virgin; which are the Marks of the true Christ: That\nthe Magi came to worship him as King of the Jews: That Herod for the\nsame cause sought to kill him: That John Baptist proclaimed him: That\nhe preached by himselfe, and his Apostles that he was that King; That\nhe taught the Law, not as a Scribe, but as a man of Authority: That he\ncured diseases by his Word onely, and did many other Miracles, which\nwere foretold the Christ should doe: That he was saluted King when he\nentered into Jerusalem: That he fore-warned them to beware of all others\nthat should pretend to be Christ: That he was taken, accused, and put\nto death, for saying, hee was King: That the cause of his condemnation\nwritten on the Crosse, was JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWES.\nAll which tend to no other end than this, that men should beleeve,\nthat Jesus Is The Christ. Such therefore was the Scope of St. Matthews\nGospel. But the Scope of all the Evangelists (as may appear by reading\nthem) was the same. Therefore the Scope of the whole Gospell, was the\nestablishing of that onely Article. And St. John expressely makes it his\nconclusion, John 20. 31. \"These things are written, that you may know\nthat Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.\"\n\n\n\n\nFrom The Sermons Of The Apostles:\n\nMy second Argument is taken from the Subject of the Sermons of the\nApostles, both whilest our Saviour lived on earth, and after his\nAscension. The Apostles in our Saviours time were sent, Luke 9.2. to\nPreach the Kingdome of God: For neither there, nor Mat. 10.7. giveth he\nany Commission to them, other than this, \"As ye go, Preach, saying, the\nKingdome of Heaven is at hand;\" that is, that Jesus is the Messiah, the\nChrist, the King which was to come. That their Preaching also after his\nascension was the same, is manifest out of Acts 17.6. \"They drew (saith\nSt. Luke) Jason and certain Brethren unto the Rulers of the City,\ncrying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither\nalso, whom Jason hath received. And these all do contrary to the Decrees\nof Caesar, saying, that there is another King, one Jesus:\" And out of\nthe 2.&3. verses of the same Chapter, where it is said, that St. Paul\n\"as his manner was, went in unto them; and three Sabbath dayes reasoned\nwith them out of the Scriptures; opening and alledging, that Christ must\nneeds have suffered, and risen againe from the dead, and that this Jesus\n(whom he preached) is Christ.\"\n\n\n\n\nFrom The Easinesse Of The Doctrine:\n\nThe third Argument is, from those places of Scripture, by which all the\nFaith required to Salvation is declared to be Easie. For if an inward\nassent of the mind to all the Doctrines concerning Christian Faith now\ntaught, (whereof the greatest part are disputed,) were necessary to\nSalvation, there would be nothing in the world so hard, as to be a\nChristian. The Thief upon the Crosse though repenting, could not have\nbeen saved for saying, \"Lord remember me when thou commest into thy\nKingdome;\" by which he testified no beleefe of any other Article, but\nthis, That Jesus Was The King. Nor could it bee said (as it is Mat.\n11. 30.) that \"Christs yoke is Easy, and his burthen Light:\" Nor that\n\"Little Children beleeve in him,\" as it is Matth. 18.6. Nor could St.\nPaul have said (1 Cor. 1. 21.) \"It pleased God by the Foolishnesse of\npreaching, to save them that beleeve:\" Nor could St. Paul himself have\nbeen saved, much lesse have been so great a Doctor of the Church\nso suddenly, that never perhaps thought of Transsubstantiation, nor\nPurgatory, nor many other Articles now obtruded.\n\n\n\n\nFrom Formall And Cleer Texts\n\nThe fourth Argument is taken from places expresse, and such as receive\nno controversie of Interpretation; as first, John 5. 39. \"Search the\nScriptures, for in them yee thinke yee have eternall life; and they are\nthey that testifie of mee.\" Our Saviour here speaketh of the Scriptures\nonely of the Old Testament; for the Jews at that time could not search\nthe Scriptures of the New Testament, which were not written. But the Old\nTestament hath nothing of Christ, but the Markes by which men might\nknow him when hee came; as that he should descend from David, be born at\nBethlehem, and of a Virgin; doe great Miracles, and the like. Therefore\nto beleeve that this Jesus was He, was sufficient to eternall life: but\nmore than sufficient is not Necessary; and consequently no other Article\nis required. Again, (John 11. 26.) \"Whosoever liveth and beleeveth in\nmee, shall not die eternally,\" Therefore to beleeve in Christ, is faith\nsufficient to eternall life; and consequently no more faith than that\nis Necessary, But to beleeve in Jesus, and to beleeve that Jesus is the\nChrist, is all one, as appeareth in the verses immediately following.\nFor when our Saviour (verse 26.) had said to Martha, \"Beleevest thou\nthis?\" she answereth (verse 27.) \"Yea Lord, I beleeve that thou art the\nChrist, the Son of God, which should come into the world;\" Therefore\nthis Article alone is faith sufficient to life eternall; and more than\nsufficient is not Necessary. Thirdly, John 20. 31. \"These things are\nwritten that yee might beleeve, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of\nGod, and that beleeving yee might have life through his name.\" There, to\nbeleeve that Jesus Is The Christ, is faith sufficient to the obtaining\nof life; and therefore no other Article is Necessary. Fourthly, 1 John\n4. 2. \"Every Spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the\nflesh, is of God.\" And 1 Joh. 5. 1. \"whosoever beleeveth that Jesus is\nthe Christ, is born of God.\" And verse 5. \"Who is hee that overcommeth\nthe world, but he that beleeveth that Jesus is the Son of God?\" Fiftly,\nAct. 8. ver. 36, 37. \"See (saith the Eunuch) here is water, what doth\nhinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou beleevest with all\nthy heart thou mayst. And hee answered and said, I beleeve that Jesus\nChrist is the Son of God.\" Therefore this Article beleeved, Jesus Is The\nChrist, is sufficient to Baptisme, that is to say, to our Reception into\nthe Kingdome of God, and by consequence, onely Necessary. And generally\nin all places where our Saviour saith to any man, \"Thy faith hath saved\nthee,\" the cause he saith it, is some Confession, which directly, or by\nconsequence, implyeth a beleef, that Jesus Is The Christ.\n\n\n\n\nFrom That It Is The Foundation Of All Other Articles\n\nThe last Argument is from the places, where this Article is made the\nFoundation of Faith: For he that holdeth the Foundation shall bee saved.\nWhich places are first, Mat. 24.23. \"If any man shall say unto you, Loe,\nhere is Christ, or there, beleeve it not, for there shall arise false\nChrists, and false Prophets, and shall shew great signes and wonders,\n&c.\" Here wee see, this Article Jesus Is The Christ, must bee held,\nthough hee that shall teach the contrary should doe great miracles. The\nsecond place is Gal. 1. 8. \"Though we, or an Angell from Heaven preach\nany other Gospell unto you, than that wee have preached unto you, let\nhim bee accursed.\" But the Gospell which Paul, and the other Apostles,\npreached, was onely this Article, that Jesus Is The Christ; Therefore\nfor the Beleef of this Article, we are to reject the Authority of\nan Angell from heaven; much more of any mortall man, if he teach the\ncontrary. This is therefore the Fundamentall Article of Christian Faith.\nA third place is, 1 Joh. 4.1. \"Beloved, beleeve not every spirit. Hereby\nyee shall know the Spirit of God; every spirit that confesseth that\nJesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God.\" By which it is evident,\nthat this Article, is the measure, and rule, by which to estimate,\nand examine all other Articles; and is therefore onely Fundamentall.\nA fourth is, Matt. 16.18. where after St. Peter had professed this\nArticle, saying to our Saviour, \"Thou art Christ the Son of the living\nGod,\" Our Saviour answered, \"Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will\nbuild my Church:\" from whence I inferre, that this Article is that,\non which all other Doctrines of the Church are built, as on their\nFoundation. A fift is (1 Cor. 3. ver. 11, 12, &c.) \"Other Foundation can\nno man lay, than that which is laid, Jesus is the Christ. Now if any man\nbuild upon this Foundation, Gold, Silver, pretious Stones, Wood, Hay,\nStubble; Every mans work shall be made manifest; For the Day shall\ndeclare it, because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try\nevery mans work, of what sort it is. If any mans work abide, which he\nhath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward: If any mans work shall\nbee burnt, he shall suffer losse; but he himself shall be saved, yet so\nas by fire.\" Which words, being partly plain and easie to understand,\nand partly allegoricall and difficult; out of that which is plain, may\nbe inferred, that Pastors that teach this Foundation, that Jesus Is The\nChrist, though they draw from it false consequences, (which all men are\nsometimes subject to,) they may neverthelesse bee saved; much more that\nthey may bee saved, who being no Pastors, but Hearers, beleeve that\nwhich is by their lawfull Pastors taught them. Therefore the beleef of\nthis Article is sufficient; and by consequence there is no other Article\nof Faith Necessarily required to Salvation.\n\nNow for the part which is Allegoricall, as \"That the fire shall try\nevery mans work,\" and that \"They shall be saved, but so as by fire,\"\nor \"through fire,\" (for the originall is dia puros,) it maketh nothing\nagainst this conclusion which I have drawn from the other words, that\nare plain. Neverthelesse, because upon this place there hath been an\nargument taken, to prove the fire of Purgatory, I will also here offer\nyou my conjecture concerning the meaning of this triall of Doctrines,\nand saving of men as by Fire. The Apostle here seemeth to allude to\nthe words of the Prophet Zachary, Ch. 13. 8,9. who speaking of the\nRestauration of the Kingdome of God, saith thus, \"Two parts therein\nshall be cut off, and die, but the third shall be left therein; and\nI will bring the third part through the Fire, and will refine them as\nSilver is refined, and will try them as Gold is tryed; they shall call\non the name of the Lord, and I will hear them.\" The day of Judgment, is\nthe day of the Restauration of the Kingdome of God; and at that day\nit is, that St. Peter tells us (2 Pet. 3. v.7, 10, 12.) shall be the\nConflagration of the world, wherein the wicked shall perish; but the\nremnant which God will save, shall passe through that Fire, unhurt,\nand be therein (as Silver and Gold are refined by the fire from their\ndrosse) tryed, and refined from their Idolatry, and be made to call upon\nthe name of the true God. Alluding whereto St. Paul here saith, that The\nDay (that is, the Day of Judgment, the Great Day of our Saviours comming\nto restore the Kingdome of God in Israel) shall try every mans doctrine,\nby Judging, which are Gold, Silver, Pretious Stones, Wood, Hay, Stubble;\nAnd then they that have built false Consequences on the true Foundation,\nshall see their Doctrines condemned; neverthelesse they themselves\nshall be saved, and passe unhurt through this universall Fire, and live\neternally, to call upon the name of the true and onely God. In which\nsense there is nothing that accordeth not with the rest of Holy\nScripture, or any glimpse of the fire of Purgatory.\n\n\n\n\nIn What Sense Other Articles May Be Called Necessary\n\nBut a man may here aske, whether it bee not as necessary to Salvation,\nto beleeve, that God is Omnipotent; Creator of the world; that Jesus\nChrist is risen; and that all men else shall rise again from the dead\nat the last day; as to beleeve, that Jesus Is The Christ. To which I\nanswer, they are; and so are many more Articles: but they are such, as\nare contained in this one, and may be deduced from it, with more, or\nlesse difficulty. For who is there that does not see, that they\nwho beleeve Jesus to be the Son of the God of Israel, and that the\nIsraelites had for God the Omnipotent Creator of all things, doe therein\nalso beleeve, that God is the Omnipotent Creator of all things? Or how\ncan a man beleeve, that Jesus is the King that shall reign eternally,\nunlesse hee beleeve him also risen again from the dead? For a dead man\ncannot exercise the Office of a King. In summe, he that holdeth this\nFoundation, Jesus Is The Christ, holdeth Expressely all that hee\nseeth rightly deduced from it, and Implicitely all that is consequent\nthereunto, though he have not skill enough to discern the consequence.\nAnd therefore it holdeth still good, that the beleef of this one Article\nis sufficient faith to obtaine remission of sinnes to the Penitent, and\nconsequently to bring them into the Kingdome of Heaven.\n\n\n\n\nThat Faith, And Obedience Are Both Of Them Necessary To Salvation\n\nNow that I have shewn, that all the Obedience required to Salvation,\nconsisteth in the will to obey the Law of God, that is to say, in\nRepentance; and all the Faith required to the same, is comprehended in\nthe beleef of this Article, Jesus Is The Christ; I will further alledge\nthose places of the Gospell, that prove, that all that is Necessary to\nSalvation is contained in both these joined together. The men to whom\nSt. Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, next after the Ascension\nof our Saviour, asked him, and the rest of the Apostles, saying, (Act.\n2.37.) \"Men and Brethren what shall we doe?\" to whom St. Peter answered\n(in the next verse) \"Repent, and be Baptized every one of you, for the\nremission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.\"\nTherefore Repentance, and Baptisme, that is, beleeving that Jesus Is The\nChrist, is all that is Necessary to Salvation. Again, our Saviour being\nasked by a certain Ruler, (Luke 18.18.) \"What shall I doe to inherit\neternall life?\" Answered (verse 20) \"Thou knowest the Commandements,\nDoe not commit Adultery, Doe not Kill, Doe not Steal, Doe not bear false\nwitnesse, Honor thy Father, and thy Mother;\" which when he said he had\nobserved, our Saviour added, \"Sell all thou hast, give it to the Poor,\nand come and follow me:\" which was as much as to say, Relye on me that\nam the King: Therefore to fulfill the Law, and to beleeve that Jesus\nis the King, is all that is required to bring a man to eternall life.\nThirdly, St. Paul saith (Rom. 1.17.) \"The Just shall live by Faith;\" not\nevery one, but the Just; therefore Faith and Justice (that is, the Will\nTo Be Just, or Repentance) are all that is Necessary to life eternall.\nAnd (Mark 1.15.) our Saviour preached, saying, \"The time is fulfilled,\nand the Kingdom of God is at hand, Repent and Beleeve the Evangile,\"\nthat is, the Good news that the Christ was come. Therefore to Repent,\nand to Beleeve that Jesus is the Christ, is all that is required to\nSalvation.\n\n\n\n\nWhat Each Of Them Contributes Thereunto\n\nSeeing then it is Necessary that Faith, and Obedience (implyed in the\nword Repentance) do both concurre to our Salvation; the question\nby which of the two we are Justified, is impertinently disputed.\nNeverthelesse, it will not be impertinent, to make manifest in what\nmanner each of them contributes thereunto; and in what sense it is said,\nthat we are to be Justified by the one, and by the other. And first,\nif by Righteousnesse be understood the Justice of the Works themselves,\nthere is no man that can be saved; for there is none that hath not\ntransgressed the Law of God. And therefore when wee are said to be\nJustified by Works, it is to be understood of the Will, which God doth\nalwaies accept for the Work it selfe, as well in good, as in evill men.\nAnd in this sense onely it is, that a man is called Just, or Unjust; and\nthat his Justice Justifies him, that is, gives him the title, in Gods\nacceptation, of Just; and renders him capable of Living By His Faith,\nwhich before he was not. So that Justice Justifies in that that sense,\nin which to Justifie, is the same that to Denominate A Man Just; and not\nin the signification of discharging the Law; whereby the punishment of\nhis sins should be unjust.\n\nBut a man is then also said to be Justified, when his Plea, though in\nit selfe unsufficient, is accepted; as when we Plead our Will, our\nEndeavour to fulfill the Law, and Repent us of our failings, and God\naccepteth it for the Performance it selfe: And because God accepteth not\nthe Will for the Deed, but onely in the Faithfull; it is therefore Faith\nthat makes good our Plea; and in this sense it is, that Faith onely\nJustifies: So that Faith and Obedience are both Necessary to Salvation;\nyet in severall senses each of them is said to Justifie.\n\n\n\n\nObedience To God And To The Civill Soveraign Not Inconsistent\n\nWhether Christian, Having thus shewn what is Necessary to Salvation; it\nis not hard to reconcile our Obedience to the Civill Soveraign; who is\neither Christian, or Infidel. If he bee a Christian, he alloweth the\nbeleefe of this Article, that Jesus Is The Christ; and of all the\nArticles that are contained in, or are evident consequence deduced from\nit: which is all the Faith Necessary to Salvation. And because he is a\nSoveraign, he requireth Obedience to all his owne, that is, to all the\nCivill Laws; in which also are contained all the Laws of Nature, that\nis, all the Laws of God: for besides the Laws of Nature, and the Laws of\nthe Church, which are part of the Civill Law, (for the Church that\ncan make Laws is the Common-wealth,) there bee no other Laws Divine.\nWhosoever therefore obeyeth his Christian Soveraign, is not thereby\nhindred, neither from beleeving, nor from obeying God. But suppose that\na Christian King should from this Foundation, Jesus Is The Christ, draw\nsome false consequences, that is to say, make some superstructions of\nHay, or Stubble, and command the teaching of the same; yet seeing St.\nPaul says, he shal be saved; much more shall he be saved, that teacheth\nthem by his command; and much more yet, he that teaches not, but onely\nbeleeves his lawfull Teacher. And in case a Subject be forbidden by\nthe Civill Soveraign to professe some of those his opinions, upon\nwhat grounds can he disobey? Christian Kings may erre in deducing a\nConsequence, but who shall Judge? Shall a private man Judge, when the\nquestion is of his own obedience? or shall any man Judg but he that is\nappointed thereto by the Church, that is, by the Civill Soveraign that\nrepresenteth it? or if the Pope, or an Apostle Judge, may he not erre\nin deducing of a consequence? did not one of the two, St. Peter, or St.\nPaul erre in a superstructure, when St. Paul withstood St. Peter to his\nface? There can therefore be no contradiction between the Laws of God,\nand the Laws of a Christian Common-wealth.\n\n\n\n\nOr Infidel\n\nAnd when the Civill Soveraign is an Infidel, every one of his own\nSubjects that resisteth him, sinneth against the Laws of God (for such\nas are the Laws of Nature,) and rejecteth the counsell of the Apostles,\nthat admonisheth all Christians to obey their Princes, and all Children\nand Servants to obey they Parents, and Masters, in all things. And for\ntheir Faith, it is internall, and invisible; They have the licence that\nNaaman had, and need not put themselves into danger for it. But if they\ndo, they ought to expect their reward in Heaven, and not complain of\ntheir Lawfull Soveraign; much lesse make warre upon him. For he that\nis not glad of any just occasion of Martyrdome, has not the faith be\nprofesseth, but pretends it onely, to set some colour upon his own\ncontumacy. But what Infidel King is so unreasonable, as knowing he has\na Subject, that waiteth for the second comming of Christ, after the\npresent world shall be burnt, and intendeth then to obey him (which is\nthe intent of beleeving that Jesus is the Christ,) and in the mean time\nthinketh himself bound to obey the Laws of that Infidel King, (which\nall Christians are obliged in conscience to doe,) to put to death, or to\npersecute such a Subject?\n\nAnd thus much shall suffice, concerning the Kingdome of God, and Policy\nEcclesiasticall. Wherein I pretend not to advance any Position of\nmy own, but onely to shew what are the Consequences that seem to me\ndeducible from the Principles of Christian Politiques, (which are the\nholy Scriptures,) in confirmation of the Power of Civill Soveraigns, and\nthe Duty of their Subjects. And in the allegation of Scripture, I have\nendeavoured to avoid such Texts as are of obscure, or controverted\nInterpretation; and to alledge none, but is such sense as is most plain,\nand agreeable to the harmony and scope of the whole Bible; which was\nwritten for the re-establishment of the Kingdome of God in Christ. For\nit is not the bare Words, but the Scope of the writer that giveth the\ntrue light, by which any writing is to bee interpreted; and they that\ninsist upon single Texts, without considering the main Designe, can\nderive no thing from them cleerly; but rather by casting atomes of\nScripture, as dust before mens eyes, make every thing more obscure than\nit is; an ordinary artifice of those that seek not the truth, but their\nown advantage.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLIV. OF SPIRITUALL DARKNESSE FROM MISINTERPRETATION OF\nSCRIPTURE\n\n\n\n\nThe Kingdome Of Darknesse What\n\nBesides these Soveraign Powers, Divine, and Humane, of which I have\nhitherto discoursed, there is mention in Scripture of another Power,\nnamely, (Eph. 6. 12.), that of \"the Rulers of the Darknesse of this\nworld,\" (Mat. 12. 26.), \"the Kingdome of Satan,\" and, (Mat. 9. 34.), \"the\nPrincipality of Beelzebub over Daemons,\" that is to say, over Phantasmes\nthat appear in the Air: For which cause Satan is also called (Eph. 2.\n2.) \"the Prince of the Power of the Air;\" and (because he ruleth in the\ndarknesse of this world) (Joh. 16. 11.) \"The Prince of this world;\" And\nin consequence hereunto, they who are under his Dominion, in opposition\nto the faithfull (who are the Children Of The Light) are called the\nChildren Of Darknesse. For seeing Beelzebub is Prince of Phantasmes,\nInhabitants of his Dominion of Air and Darknesse, the Children of\nDarknesse, and these Daemons, Phantasmes, or Spirits of Illusion,\nsignifie allegorically the same thing. This considered, the Kingdome\nof Darknesse, as it is set forth in these, and other places of the\nScripture, is nothing else but a \"Confederacy of Deceivers, that to\nobtain dominion over men in this present world, endeavour by dark, and\nerroneous Doctrines, to extinguish in them the Light, both of Nature,\nand of the Gospell; and so to dis-prepare them for the Kingdome of God\nto come.\"\n\n\n\n\nThe Church Not Yet Fully Freed Of Darknesse\n\nAs men that are utterly deprived from their Nativity, of the light\nof the bodily Eye, have no Idea at all, of any such light; and no man\nconceives in his imagination any greater light, than he hath at some\ntime, or other perceived by his outward Senses: so also is it of the\nlight of the Gospel, and of the light of the Understanding, that no man\ncan conceive there is any greater degree of it, than that which he hath\nalready attained unto. And from hence it comes to passe, that men\nhave no other means to acknowledge their owne Darknesse, but onely by\nreasoning from the un-forseen mischances, that befall them in their\nways; The Darkest part of the Kingdome of Satan, is that which is\nwithout the Church of God; that is to say, amongst them that beleeve not\nin Jesus Christ. But we cannot say, that therefore the Church enjoyeth\n(as the land of Goshen) all the light, which to the performance of\nthe work enjoined us by God, is necessary. Whence comes it, that in\nChristendome there has been, almost from the time of the Apostles,\nsuch justling of one another out of their places, both by forraign,\nand Civill war? such stumbling at every little asperity of their own\nfortune, and every little eminence of that of other men? and such\ndiversity of ways in running to the same mark, Felicity, if it be not\nNight amongst us, or at least a Mist? wee are therefore yet in the Dark.\n\n\n\n\nFour Causes Of Spirituall Darknesse\n\nThe Enemy has been here in the Night of our naturall Ignorance, and sown\nthe tares of Spirituall Errors; and that, First, by abusing, and\nputting out the light of the Scriptures: For we erre, not knowing the\nScriptures. Secondly, by introducing the Daemonology of the Heathen\nPoets, that is to say, their fabulous Doctrine concerning Daemons, which\nare but Idols, or Phantasms of the braine, without any reall nature of\ntheir own, distinct from humane fancy; such as are dead mens Ghosts, and\nFairies, and other matter of old Wives tales. Thirdly, by mixing with\nthe Scripture divers reliques of the Religion, and much of the vain and\nerroneous Philosophy of the Greeks, especially of Aristotle. Fourthly,\nby mingling with both these, false, or uncertain Traditions, and\nfained, or uncertain History. And so we come to erre, by \"giving heed\nto seducing Spirits,\" and the Daemonology of such \"as speak lies in\nHypocrisie,\" (or as it is in the Originall, 1 Tim. 4.1,2. \"of those that\nplay the part of lyars\") \"with a seared conscience,\" that is, contrary\nto their own knowledge. Concerning the first of these, which is the\nSeducing of men by abuse of Scripture, I intend to speak briefly in this\nChapter.\n\n\n\n\nErrors From Misinterpreting The Scriptures, Concerning The Kingdome\n\nOf God\n\nThe greatest, and main abuse of Scripture, and to which almost all the\nrest are either consequent, or subservient, is the wresting of it, to\nprove that the Kingdome of God, mentioned so often in the Scripture, is\nthe present Church, or multitude of Christian men now living, or that\nbeing dead, are to rise again at the last day: whereas the Kingdome of\nGod was first instituted by the Ministery of Moses, over the Jews onely;\nwho were therefore called his Peculiar People; and ceased afterward, in\nthe election of Saul, when they refused to be governed by God any more,\nand demanded a King after the manner of the nations; which God himself\nconsented unto, as I have more at large proved before, in the 35.\nChapter. After that time, there was no other Kingdome of God in the\nworld, by any Pact, or otherwise, than he ever was, is, and shall be\nKing, of all men, and of all creatures, as governing according to his\nWill, by his infinite Power. Neverthelesse, he promised by his Prophets\nto restore this his Government to them again, when the time he hath in\nhis secret counsell appointed for it shall bee fully come, and when they\nshall turn unto him by repentance, and amendment of life; and not\nonely so, but he invited also the Gentiles to come in, and enjoy the\nhappinesse of his Reign, on the same conditions of conversion and\nrepentance; and hee promised also to send his Son into the world, to\nexpiate the sins of them all by his death, and to prepare them by his\nDoctrine, to receive him at his second coming: Which second coming not\nyet being, the Kingdome of God is not yet come, and wee are not now\nunder any other Kings by Pact, but our Civill Soveraigns; saving onely,\nthat Christian men are already in the Kingdome of Grace, in as much as\nthey have already the Promise of being received at his comming againe.\n\n\n\n\nAs That The Kingdome Of God Is The Present Church\n\nConsequent to this Errour, that the present Church is Christs Kingdome,\nthere ought to be some one Man, or Assembly, by whose mouth our Saviour\n(now in heaven) speaketh, giveth law, and which representeth his person\nto all Christians, or divers Men, or divers Assemblies that doe the same\nto divers parts of Christendome. This power Regal under Christ, being\nchallenged, universally by that Pope, and in particular Common-wealths\nby Assemblies of the Pastors of the place, (when the Scripture gives it\nto none but to Civill Soveraigns,) comes to be so passionately disputed,\nthat it putteth out the Light of Nature, and causeth so great a\nDarknesse in mens understanding, that they see not who it is to whom\nthey have engaged their obedience.\n\n\n\n\nAnd That The Pope Is His Vicar Generall\n\nConsequent to this claim of the Pope to Vicar Generall of Christ in the\npresent Church, (supposed to be that Kingdom of his, to which we are\naddressed in the Gospel,) is the Doctrine, that it is necessary for a\nChristian King, to receive his Crown by a Bishop; as if it were from\nthat Ceremony, that he derives the clause of Dei Gratia in his title;\nand that then onely he is made King by the favour of God, when he is\ncrowned by the authority of Gods universall Viceregent on earth; and\nthat every Bishop whosoever be his Soveraign, taketh at his Consecration\nan oath of absolute Obedience to the Pope, Consequent to the same, is\nthe Doctrine of the fourth Councell of Lateran, held under Pope Innocent\nthe third, (Chap. 3. De Haereticis.) \"That if a King at the Popes\nadmonition, doe not purge his Kingdome of Haeresies, and being\nexcommunicate for the same, doe not give satisfaction within a year,\nhis Subjects are absolved of the bond of their obedience.\" Where, by\nHaeresies are understood all opinions which the Church of Rome hath\nforbidden to be maintained. And by this means, as often as there is\nany repugnancy between the Politicall designes of the Pope, and other\nChristian Princes, as there is very often, there ariseth such a Mist\namongst their Subjects, that they know not a stranger that thrusteth\nhimself into the throne of their lawfull Prince, from him whom they\nhad themselves placed there; and in this Darknesse of mind, are made to\nfight one against another, without discerning their enemies from their\nfriends, under the conduct of another mans ambition.\n\n\n\n\nAnd That The Pastors Are The Clergy\n\nFrom the same opinion, that the present Church is the Kingdome of God,\nit proceeds that Pastours, Deacons, and all other Ministers of the\nChurch, take the name to themselves of the Clergy, giving to other\nChristians the name of Laity, that is, simply People. For Clergy\nsignifies those, whose maintenance is that Revenue, which God having\nreserved to himselfe during his Reigne over the Israelites, assigned\nto the tribe of Levi (who were to be his publique Ministers, and had no\nportion of land set them out to live on, as their brethren) to be their\ninheritance. The Pope therefore, (pretending the present Church to be,\nas the Realme of Israel, the Kingdome of God) challenging to himselfe\nand his subordinate Ministers, the like revenue, as the Inheritance of\nGod, the name of Clergy was sutable to that claime. And thence it is,\nthat Tithes, or other tributes paid to the Levites, as Gods Right,\namongst the Israelites, have a long time been demanded, and taken of\nChristians, by Ecclesiastiques, Jure Divino, that is, in Gods Right. By\nwhich meanes, the people every where were obliged to a double tribute;\none to the State, another to the Clergy; whereof, that to the Clergy,\nbeing the tenth of their revenue, is double to that which a King of\nAthens (and esteemed a Tyrant) exacted of his subjects for the defraying\nof all publique charges: For he demanded no more but the twentieth part;\nand yet abundantly maintained therewith the Commonwealth. And in the\nKingdome of the Jewes, during the Sacerdotall Reigne of God, the Tithes\nand Offerings were the whole Publique Revenue.\n\nFrom the same mistaking of the present Church for the Kingdom of God,\ncame in the distinction betweene the Civill and the Canon Laws: The\ncivil Law being the acts of Soveraigns in their own Dominions, and\nthe Canon Law being the Acts of the Pope in the same Dominions. Which\nCanons, though they were but Canons, that is, Rules Propounded, and but\nvoluntarily received by Christian Princes, till the translation of\nthe Empire to Charlemain; yet afterwards, as the power of the Pope\nencreased, became Rules Commanded, and the Emperours themselves (to\navoyd greater mischiefes, which the people blinded might be led into)\nwere forced to let them passe for Laws.\n\nFrom hence it is, that in all Dominions, where the Popes Ecclesiasticall\npower is entirely received, Jewes, Turkes, and Gentiles, are in the\nRoman Church tolerated in their Religion, as farre forth, as in the\nexercise and profession thereof they offend not against the civill\npower: whereas in a Christian, though a stranger, not to be of the Roman\nReligion, is Capitall; because the Pope pretendeth that all Christians\nare his Subjects. For otherwise it were as much against the law of\nNations, to persecute a Christian stranger, for professing the Religion\nof his owne country, as an Infidell; or rather more, in as much as they\nthat are not against Christ, are with him.\n\nFrom the same it is, that in every Christian State there are certaine\nmen, that are exempt, by Ecclesiasticall liberty, from the tributes, and\nfrom the tribunals of the Civil State; for so are the secular Clergy,\nbesides Monks and Friars, which in many places, bear so great a\nproportion to the common people, as if need were, there might be raised\nout of them alone, an Army, sufficient for any warre the Church militant\nshould imploy them in, against their owne, or other Princes.\n\n\n\n\nError From Mistaking Consecration For Conjuration\n\nA second generall abuse of Scripture, is the turning of Consecration\ninto Conjuration, or Enchantment. To Consecrate, is in Scripture, to\nOffer, Give, or Dedicate, in pious and decent language and gesture, a\nman, or any other thing to God, by separating of it from common use;\nthat is to say, to Sanctifie, or make it Gods, and to be used only by\nthose, whom God hath appointed to be his Publike Ministers, (as I have\nalready proved at large in the 35. Chapter;) and thereby to change, not\nthe thing Consecrated, but onely the use of it, from being Profane\nand common, to be Holy, and peculiar to Gods service. But when by such\nwords, the nature of qualitie of the thing it selfe, is pretended to be\nchanged, it is not Consecration, but either an extraordinary worke of\nGod, or a vaine and impious Conjuration. But seeing (for the frequency\nof pretending the change of Nature in their Consecrations,) it cannot\nbe esteemed a work extraordinary, it is no other than a Conjuration or\nIncantation, whereby they would have men to beleeve an alteration of\nNature that is not, contrary to the testimony of mans Sight, and of all\nthe rest of his Senses. As for example, when the Priest, in stead of\nConsecrating Bread and Wine to Gods peculiar service in the Sacrament of\nthe Lords Supper, (which is but a separation of it from the common use,\nto signifie, that is, to put men in mind of their Redemption, by the\nPassion of Christ, whose body was broken, and blood shed upon the Crosse\nfor our transgressions,) pretends, that by saying of the words of our\nSaviour, \"This is my Body,\" and \"This is my Blood,\" the nature of Bread\nis no more there, but his very Body; notwithstanding there appeared not\nto the Sight, or other Sense of the Receiver, any thing that appeareth\nnot before the Consecration. The Egyptian Conjurers, that are said\nto have turned their Rods to Serpents, and the Water into Bloud, are\nthought but to have deluded the senses of the Spectators by a false shew\nof things, yet are esteemed Enchanters: But what should wee have thought\nof them, if there had appeared in their Rods nothing like a Serpent, and\nin the Water enchanted, nothing like Bloud, nor like any thing else but\nWater, but that they had faced down the King, that they were Serpents\nthat looked like Rods, and that it was Bloud that seemed Water? That\nhad been both Enchantment, and Lying. And yet in this daily act of\nthe Priest, they doe the very same, by turning the holy words into the\nmanner of a Charme, which produceth nothing now to the Sense; but they\nface us down, that it hath turned the Bread into a Man; nay more, into\na God; and require men to worship it, as if it were our Saviour himself\npresent God and Man, and thereby to commit most grosse Idolatry. For if\nit bee enough to excuse it of Idolatry, to say it is no more Bread, but\nGod; why should not the same excuse serve the Egyptians, in case they\nhad the faces to say, the Leeks, and Onyons they worshipped, were\nnot very Leeks, and Onyons, but a Divinity under their Species, or\nlikenesse. The words, \"This is my Body,\" are aequivalent to these,\n\"This signifies, or represents my Body;\" and it is an ordinary figure of\nSpeech: but to take it literally, is an abuse; nor though so taken, can\nit extend any further, than to the Bread which Christ himself with his\nown hands Consecrated. For hee never said, that of what Bread soever,\nany Priest whatsoever, should say, \"This is my Body,\" or, \"This is\nChrists Body,\" the same should presently be transubstantiated. Nor did\nthe Church of Rome ever establish this Transubstantiation, till the time\nof Innocent the third; which was not above 500. years agoe, when the\nPower of Popes was at the Highest, and the Darknesse of the time grown\nso great, as men discerned not the Bread that was given them to eat,\nespecially when it was stamped with the figure of Christ upon the\nCrosse, as if they would have men beleeve it were Transubstantiated, not\nonely into the Body of Christ, but also into the Wood of his Crosse, and\nthat they did eat both together in the Sacrament.\n\n\n\n\nIncantation In The Ceremonies Of Baptisme\n\nThe like incantation, in stead of Consecration, is used also in the\nSacrament of Baptisme: Where the abuse of Gods name in each severall\nPerson, and in the whole Trinity, with the sign of the Crosse at each\nname, maketh up the Charm: As first, when they make the Holy water, the\nPriest saith, \"I Conjure thee, thou Creature of Water, in the name of\nGod the Father Almighty, and in the name of Jesus Christ his onely Son\nour Lord, and in vertue of the Holy Ghost, that thou become Conjured\nwater, to drive away all the Powers of the Enemy, and to eradicate, and\nsupplant the Enemy, &c.\" And the same in the Benediction of the Salt\nto be mingled with it; \"That thou become Conjured Salt, that all\nPhantasmes, and Knavery of the Devills fraud may fly and depart from the\nplace wherein thou art sprinkled; and every unclean Spirit bee Conjured\nby Him that shall come to judge the quicke and the dead.\" The same in\nthe Benediction of the Oyle. \"That all the Power of the Enemy, all the\nHost of the Devill, all Assaults and Phantasmes of Satan, may be\ndriven away by this Creature of Oyle.\" And for the Infant that is to be\nBaptized, he is subject to many Charms; First, at the Church dore the\nPriest blows thrice in the Childs face, and sayes, \"Goe out of him\nunclean Spirit, and give place to the Holy Ghost the Comforter.\" As\nif all Children, till blown on by the Priest were Daemoniaques: Again,\nbefore his entrance into the Church, he saith as before, \"I Conjure\nthee, &c. to goe out, and depart from this Servant of God:\" And again\nthe same Exorcisme is repeated once more before he be Baptized. These,\nand some other Incantations, and Consecrations, in administration of the\nSacraments of Baptisme, and the Lords Supper; wherein every thing that\nserveth to those holy men (except the unhallowed Spittle of the Priest)\nhath some set form of Exorcisme.\n\n\n\n\nIn Marriage, In Visitation Of The Sick, And In Consecration Of Places\n\nNor are the other rites, as of Marriage, of Extreme Unction, of\nVisitation of the Sick, of Consecrating Churches, and Church-yards, and\nthe like, exempt from Charms; in as much as there is in them the use of\nEnchanted Oyle, and Water, with the abuse of the Crosse, and of the holy\nword of David, \"Asperges me Domine Hyssopo,\" as things of efficacy to\ndrive away Phantasmes, and Imaginery Spirits.\n\n\n\n\nErrors From Mistaking Eternall Life, And Everlasting Death\n\nAnother generall Error, is from the Misinterpretation of the words\nEternall Life, Everlasting Death, and the Second Death. For though we\nread plainly in Holy Scripture, that God created Adam in an estate of\nLiving for Ever, which was conditionall, that is to say, if he disobeyed\nnot his Commandement; which was not essentiall to Humane Nature, but\nconsequent to the vertue of the Tree of Life; whereof hee had liberty\nto eat, as long as hee had not sinned; and that hee was thrust out of\nParadise after he had sinned, lest hee should eate thereof, and live for\never; and that Christs Passion is a Discharge of sin to all that beleeve\non him; and by consequence, a restitution of Eternall Life, to all the\nFaithfull, and to them onely: yet the Doctrine is now, and hath been a\nlong time far otherwise; namely, that every man hath Eternity of Life by\nNature, in as much as his Soul is Immortall: So that the flaming Sword\nat the entrance of Paradise, though it hinder a man from coming to the\nTree of Life, hinders him not from the Immortality which God took from\nhim for his Sin; nor makes him to need the sacrificing of Christ, for\nthe recovering of the same; and consequently, not onely the faithfull\nand righteous, but also the wicked, and the Heathen, shall enjoy\nEternall Life, without any Death at all; much lesse a Second, and\nEverlasting Death. To salve this, it is said, that by Second, and\nEverlasting Death, is meant a Second, and Everlasting Life, but in\nTorments; a Figure never used, but in this very Case.\n\nAll which Doctrine is founded onely on some of the obscurer places of\nthe New Testament; which neverthelesse, the whole scope of the Scripture\nconsidered, are cleer enough in a different sense, and unnecessary to\nthe Christian Faith. For supposing that when a man dies, there remaineth\nnothing of him but his carkasse; cannot God that raised inanimated dust\nand clay into a living creature by his Word, as easily raise a dead\ncarkasse to life again, and continue him alive for Ever, or make him\ndie again, by another Word? The Soule in Scripture, signifieth alwaies,\neither the Life, or the Living Creature; and the Body and Soule jointly,\nthe Body Alive. In the fift day of the Creation, God said, Let the water\nproduce Reptile Animae Viventis, the creeping thing that hath in it a\nLiving Soule; the English translate it, \"that hath Life:\" And again,\nGod created Whales, \"& omnem animam viventem;\" which in the English is,\n\"every living Creature:\" And likewise of Man, God made him of the dust\nof the earth, and breathed in his face the breath of Life, \"& factus est\nHomo in animam viventem,\" that is, \"and Man was made a Living Creature;\"\nAnd after Noah came out of the Arke, God saith, hee will no more smite\n\"omnem animam viventem,\" that is \"every Living Creature;\" And Deut.\n12.23. \"Eate not the Bloud, for the Bloud is the Soule;\" that is\n\"the Life.\" From which places, if by Soule were meant a Substance\nIncorporeall, with an existence separated from the Body, it might as\nwell be inferred of any other living Creature, as of Man. But that\nthe Souls of the Faithfull, are not of their own Nature, but by Gods\nspeciall Grace, to remaine in their bodies, from the Resurrection to\nall Eternity, I have already I think sufficiently proved out of the\nScriptures, in the 38. Chapter. And for the places of the New Testament,\nwhere it is said that any man shall be cast Body and Soul into Hell\nfire, it is no more than Body and Life; that is to say, they shall be\ncast alive into the perpetuall fire of Gehenna.\n\n\n\n\nAs The Doctrine Of Purgatory, And Exorcismes, And Invocation Of Saints\n\nThis window it is, that gives entrance to the Dark Doctrine, first, of\nEternall Torments; and afterwards of Purgatory, and consequently of the\nwalking abroad, especially in places Consecrated, Solitary, or Dark, of\nthe Ghosts of men deceased; and thereby to the pretences of Exorcisme\nand Conjuration of Phantasmes; as also of Invocation of men dead; and to\nthe Doctrine of Indulgences; that is to say, of exemption for a time,\nor for ever, from the fire of Purgatory, wherein these Incorporeall\nSubstances are pretended by burning to be cleansed, and made fit\nfor Heaven. For men being generally possessed before the time of our\nSaviour, by contagion of the Daemonology of the Greeks, of an opinion,\nthat the Souls of men were substances distinct from their Bodies, and\ntherefore that when the Body was dead, the Soule of every man, whether\ngodly, or wicked, must subsist somewhere by vertue of its own nature,\nwithout acknowledging therein any supernaturall gift of Gods; the\nDoctors of the Church doubted a long time, what was the place, which\nthey were to abide in, till they should be re-united to their Bodies in\nthe Resurrection; supposing for a while, they lay under the Altars: but\nafterward the Church of Rome found it more profitable, to build for them\nthis place of Purgatory; which by some other Churches in this later age,\nhas been demolished.\n\n\n\n\nThe Texts Alledged For The Doctrines Aforementioned Have Been Answered\n\nBefore\n\nLet us now consider, what texts of Scripture seem most to confirm these\nthree generall Errors, I have here touched. As for those which Cardinall\nBellarmine hath alledged, for the present Kingdome of God administred by\nthe Pope, (than which there are none that make a better show of proof,)\nI have already answered them; and made it evident, that the Kingdome\nof God, instituted by Moses, ended in the election of Saul: After which\ntime the Priest of his own authority never deposed any King. That which\nthe High Priest did to Athaliah, was not done in his own right, but in\nthe right of the young King Joash her Son: But Solomon in his own right\ndeposed the High Priest Abiathar, and set up another in his place. The\nmost difficult place to answer, of all those than can be brought,\nto prove the Kingdome of God by Christ is already in this world, is\nalledged, not by Bellarmine, nor any other of the Church of Rome; but\nby Beza; that will have it to begin from the Resurrection of Christ.\nBut whether hee intend thereby, to entitle the Presbytery to the Supreme\nPower Ecclesiasticall in the Common-wealth of Geneva, (and consequently\nto every Presbytery in every other Common-wealth,) or to Princes,\nand other Civill Soveraignes, I doe not know. For the Presbytery hath\nchallenged the power to Excommunicate their owne Kings, and to bee the\nSupreme Moderators in Religion, in the places where they have that form\nof Church government, no lesse then the Pope challengeth it universally.\n\n\n\n\nAnswer To The Text On Which Beza Infereth\n\nThat The Kingdome Of Christ Began At The Resurrection The words are\n(Marke 9.1.) \"Verily, I say unto you, that there be some of them that\nstand here, which shall not tast of death, till they have seene the\nKingdome of God come with power.\" Which words, if taken grammatically,\nmake it certaine, that either some of those men that stood by Christ at\nthat time, are yet alive; or else, that the Kingdome of God must be now\nin this present world. And then there is another place more difficult:\nFor when the Apostles after our Saviours Resurrection, and immediately\nbefore his Ascension, asked our Saviour, saying, (Acts.1.6.) \"Wilt thou\nat this time restore again the Kingdome to Israel,\" he answered them,\n\"It is not for you to know the times and the seasons, which the Father\nhath put in his own power; But ye shall receive power by the comming of\nthe Holy Ghost upon you, and yee shall be my (Martyrs) witnesses both in\nJerusalem, & in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part\nof the Earth:\" Which is as much as to say, My Kingdome is not yet come,\nnor shall you foreknow when it shall come, for it shall come as a theefe\nin the night; But I will send you the Holy Ghost, and by him you shall\nhave power to beare witnesse to all the world (by your preaching) of\nmy Resurrection, and the workes I have done, and the doctrine I have\ntaught, that they may beleeve in me, and expect eternall life, at my\ncomming againe: How does this agree with the comming of Christs Kingdome\nat the Resurrection? And that which St. Paul saies (1 Thessal. 1.9, 10.)\n\"That they turned from Idols, to serve the living and true God, and\nto waite for his Sonne from Heaven:\" Where to waite for his Sonne from\nHeaven, is to wait for his comming to be King in power; which were\nnot necessary, if this Kingdome had beene then present. Againe, if the\nKingdome of God began (as Beza on that place (Mark 9.1.) would have it)\nat the Resurrection; what reason is there for Christians ever since the\nResurrection to say in their prayers, \"Let thy Kingdome Come\"? It\nis therefore manifest, that the words of St. Mark are not so to be\ninterpreted. There be some of them that stand here (saith our Saviour)\nthat shall not tast of death till they have seen the Kingdome of God\ncome in power. If then this Kingdome were to come at the Resurrection\nof Christ, why is it said, \"some of them\" rather than all? For they all\nlived till after Christ was risen.\n\n\n\n\nExplication Of The Place In Mark 9.1\n\nBut they that require an exact interpretation of this text, let them\ninterpret first the like words of our Saviour to St. Peter concerning\nSt. John, (chap. 21.22.) \"If I will that he tarry till I come, what is\nthat to thee?\" upon which was grounded a report that hee should not dye:\nNeverthelesse the truth of that report was neither confirmed, as well\ngrounded; nor refuted, as ill grounded on those words; but left as a\nsaying not understood. The same difficulty is also in the place of St.\nMarke. And if it be lawfull to conjecture at their meaning, by that\nwhich immediately followes, both here, and in St. Luke, where the same\nis againe repeated, it is not unprobable, to say they have relation\nto the Transfiguration, which is described in the verses immediately\nfollowing; where it is said, that \"After six dayes Jesus taketh with\nhim Peter, and James, and John (not all, but some of his Disciples)\nand leadeth them up into an high mountaine apart by themselves, and\nwas transfigured before them. And his rayment became shining, exceeding\nwhite as snow; so as no Fuller on earth can white them. And there\nappeared unto them Elias with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus,\n&c.\" So that they saw Christ in Glory and Majestie, as he is to come;\ninsomuch as \"They were sore afraid.\" And thus the promise of our Saviour\nwas accomplished by way of Vision: For it was a Vision, as may probably\nbee inferred out of St. Luke, that reciteth the same story (ch. 9. ve.\n28.) and saith, that Peter and they that were with him, were heavy with\nsleep; But most certainly out of Matth. 17.9. (where the same is again\nrelated;) for our Saviour charged them, saying, \"Tell no man the Vision\nuntill the Son of man be Risen from the dead.\" Howsoever it be, yet\nthere can from thence be taken no argument, to prove that the Kingdome\nof God taketh beginning till the day of Judgement.\n\n\n\n\nAbuse Of Some Other Texts In Defence Of The Power Of The Pope\n\nAs for some other texts, to prove the Popes Power over civill\nSoveraignes (besides those of Bellarmine;) as that the two Swords that\nChrist and his Apostles had amongst them, were the Spirituall and the\nTemporall Sword, which they say St. Peter had given him by Christ: And,\nthat of the two Luminaries, the greater signifies the Pope, and the\nlesser the King; One might as well inferre out of the first verse of the\nBible, that by Heaven is meant the Pope, and by Earth the King: Which\nis not arguing from Scripture, but a wanton insulting over Princes, that\ncame in fashion after the time the Popes were growne so secure of their\ngreatnesse, as to contemne all Christian Kings; and Treading on the\nnecks of Emperours, to mocke both them, and the Scripture, in the words\nof the 91. Psalm, \"Thou shalt Tread upon the Lion and the Adder, the\nyoung Lion and the Dragon thou shalt Trample under thy feet.\"\n\n\n\n\nThe Manner Of Consecrations In The Scripture, Was Without Exorcisms\n\nAs for the rites of Consecration, though they depend for the most part\nupon the discretion and judgement of the governors of the Church,\nand not upon the Scriptures; yet those governors are obliged to such\ndirection, as the nature of the action it selfe requireth; as that the\nceremonies, words, and gestures, be both decent, and significant, or at\nleast conformable to the action. When Moses consecrated the Tabernacle,\nthe Altar, and the Vessels belonging to them (Exod. 40.) he anointed\nthem with the Oyle which God had commanded to bee made for that\npurpose; and they were holy; There was nothing Exorcised, to drive away\nPhantasmes. The same Moses (the civill Soveraigne of Israel) when he\nconsecrated Aaron (the High Priest,) and his Sons, did wash them with\nWater, (not Exorcised water,) put their Garments upon them, and anointed\nthem with Oyle; and they were sanctified, to minister unto the Lord\nin the Priests office; which was a simple and decent cleansing, and\nadorning them, before hee presented them to God, to be his servants.\nWhen King Solomon, (the civill Soveraigne of Israel) consecrated the\nTemple hee had built, (2 Kings 8.) he stood before all the Congregation\nof Israel; and having blessed them, he gave thanks to God, for putting\ninto the heart of his father, to build it; and for giving to himselfe\nthe grace to accomplish the same; and then prayed unto him, first,\nto accept that House, though it were not sutable to his infinite\nGreatnesse; and to hear the prayers of his Servants that should pray\ntherein, or (if they were absent) towards it; and lastly, he offered a\nsacrifice of Peace-offering, and the House was dedicated. Here was no\nProcession; the King stood still in his first place; no Exorcised Water;\nno Asperges Me, nor other impertinent application of words spoken upon\nanother occasion; but a decent, and rationall speech, and such as in\nmaking to God a present of his new built House, was most conformable\nto the occasion. We read not that St. John did Exorcise the Water\nof Jordan; nor Philip the Water of the river wherein he baptized the\nEunuch; nor that any Pastor in the time of the Apostles, did take his\nspittle, and put it to the nose of the person to be Baptized, and say,\n\"In odorem suavitatis,\" that is, \"for a sweet savour unto the Lord;\"\nwherein neither the Ceremony of Spittle, for the uncleannesse; nor the\napplication of that Scripture for the levity, can by any authority of\nman be justified.\n\n\n\n\nThe Immortality Of Mans Soule, Not Proved By Scripture To Be Of Nature,\n\nBut Of Grace\n\nTo prove that the Soule separated from the Body liveth eternally, not\nonely the Soules of the Elect, by especiall grace, and restauration of\nthe Eternall Life which Adam lost by Sinne, and our Saviour restored\nby the Sacrifice of himself, to the Faithfull, but also the Soules\nof Reprobates, as a property naturally consequent to the essence of\nmankind, without other grace of God, but that which is universally given\nto all mankind; there are divers places, which at the first sight seem\nsufficiently to serve the turn: but such, as when I compare them with\nthat which I have before (Chapter 38.) alledged out of the 14 of Job,\nseem to mee much more subject to a divers interpretation, than the words\nof Job.\n\nAnd first there are the words of Solomon (Ecclesiastes 12.7.) \"Then\nshall the Dust return to Dust, as it was, and the Spirit shall return to\nGod that gave it.\" Which may bear well enough (if there be no other text\ndirectly against it) this interpretation, that God onely knows, (but\nMan not,) what becomes of a mans spirit, when he expireth; and the same\nSolomon, in the same Book, (Chap. 3. ver. 20,21.) delivereth in the same\nsentence in the sense I have given it: His words are, \"All goe, (man\nand beast) to the same place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust\nagain; who knoweth that the spirit of Man goeth upward, and the spirit\nof the Beast goeth downward to the earth?\" That is, none knows but God;\nNor is it an unusuall phrase to say of things we understand not, \"God\nknows what,\" and \"God knows where.\" That of Gen. 5.24. \"Enoch walked\nwith God, and he was not; for God took him;\" which is expounded Heb.\n13.5. \"He was translated, that he should not die; and was not found,\nbecause God had translated him. For before his Translation, he had this\ntestimony, that he pleased God,\" making as much for the Immortality\nof the Body, as of the Soule, proveth, that this his translation was\npeculiar to them that please God; not common to them with the wicked;\nand depending on Grace, not on Nature. But on the contrary, what\ninterpretation shall we give, besides the literall sense of the words of\nSolomon (Eccles. 3.19.) \"That which befalleth the Sons of Men, befalleth\nBeasts, even one thing befalleth them; as the one dyeth, so doth the\nother; yea, they have all one breath (one spirit;) so that a Man hath no\npraeeminence above a Beast, for all is vanity.\" By the literall sense,\nhere is no Naturall Immortality of the Soule; nor yet any repugnancy\nwith the Life Eternall, which the Elect shall enjoy by Grace. And (chap.\n4. ver.3.) \"Better is he that hath not yet been, than both they;\" that\nis, than they that live, or have lived; which, if the Soule of all them\nthat have lived, were Immortall, were a hard saying; for then to have\nan Immortall Soule, were worse than to have no Soule at all. And\nagaine,(Chapt. 9.5.) \"The living know they shall die, but the dead know\nnot any thing;\" that is, Naturally, and before the resurrection of the\nbody.\n\nAnother place which seems to make for a Naturall Immortality of the\nSoule, is that, where our Saviour saith, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob\nare living: but this is spoken of the promise of God, and of their\ncertitude to rise again, not of a Life then actuall; and in the same\nsense that God said to Adam, that on the day hee should eate of the\nforbidden fruit, he should certainly die; from that time forward he was\na dead man by sentence; but not by execution, till almost a thousand\nyears after. So Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive by promise, then,\nwhen Christ spake; but are not actually till the Resurrection. And the\nHistory of Dives and Lazarus, make nothing against this, if wee take it\n(as it is) for a Parable.\n\nBut there be other places of the New Testament, where an Immortality\nseemeth to be directly attributed to the wicked. For it is evident, that\nthey shall all rise to Judgement. And it is said besides in many places,\nthat they shall goe into \"Everlasting fire, Everlasting torments,\nEverlasting punishments; and that the worm of conscience never dyeth;\"\nand all this is comprehended in the word Everlasting Death, which is\nordinarily interpreted Everlasting Life In Torments: And yet I can find\nno where that any man shall live in torments Everlastingly. Also, it\nseemeth hard, to say, that God who is the Father of Mercies, that doth\nin Heaven and Earth all that hee will; that hath the hearts of all men\nin his disposing; that worketh in men both to doe, and to will; and\nwithout whose free gift a man hath neither inclination to good, nor\nrepentance of evill, should punish mens transgressions without any end\nof time, and with all the extremity of torture, that men can imagine,\nand more. We are therefore to consider, what the meaning is, of\nEverlasting Fire, and other the like phrases of Scripture.\n\nI have shewed already, that the Kingdome of God by Christ beginneth at\nthe day of Judgment: That in that day, the Faithfull shall rise again,\nwith glorious, and spirituall Bodies, and bee his Subjects in that his\nKingdome, which shall be Eternall; That they shall neither marry, nor\nbe given in marriage, nor eate and drink, as they did in their naturall\nbodies; but live for ever in their individuall persons, without the\nspecificall eternity of generation: And that the Reprobates also shall\nrise again, to receive punishments for their sins: As also, that those\nof the Elect, which shall be alive in their earthly bodies at that\nday, shall have their bodies suddenly changed, and made spirituall, and\nImmortall. But that the bodies of the Reprobate, who make the Kingdome\nof Satan, shall also be glorious, or spirituall bodies, or that they\nshall bee as the Angels of God, neither eating, nor drinking, nor\nengendring; or that their life shall be Eternall in their individuall\npersons, as the life of every faithfull man is, or as the life of Adam\nhad been if hee had not sinned, there is no place of Scripture to prove\nit; save onely these places concerning Eternall Torments; which may\notherwise be interpreted.\n\nFrom whence may be inferred, that as the Elect after the Resurrection\nshall be restored to the estate, wherein Adam was before he had sinned;\nso the Reprobate shall be in the estate, that Adam, and his posterity\nwere in after the sin committed; saving that God promised a Redeemer to\nAdam, and such of his seed as should trust in him, and repent; but not\nto them that should die in their sins, as do the Reprobate.\n\n\n\n\nEternall Torments What\n\nThese things considered, the texts that mention Eternall Fire, Eternal\nTorments, or the Word That Never Dieth, contradict not the Doctrine of\na Second, and Everlasting Death, in the proper and naturall sense of the\nword Death. The Fire, or Torments prepared for the wicked in Gehenna,\nTophet, or in what place soever, may continue for ever; and there may\nnever want wicked men to be tormented in them; though not every, nor\nany one Eternally. For the wicked being left in the estate they were in\nafter Adams sin, may at the Resurrection live as they did, marry, and\ngive in marriage, and have grosse and corruptible bodies, as all\nmankind now have; and consequently may engender perpetually, after the\nResurrection, as they did before: For there is no place of Scripture to\nthe contrary. For St. Paul, speaking of the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15.)\nunderstandeth it onely of the Resurrection to Life Eternall; and not the\nResurrection to Punishment. And of the first, he saith that the Body is\n\"Sown in Corruption, raised in Incorruption; sown in Dishonour, raised\nin Honour; sown in Weaknesse, raised in Power; sown a Naturall body,\nraised a Spirituall body:\" There is no such thing can be said of the\nbodies of them that rise to Punishment. The text is Luke 20. Verses\n34,35,36. a fertile text. \"The Children of this world marry, and are\ngiven in marriage; but they that shall be counted worthy to obtaine that\nworld, and the Resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given\nin marriage: Neither can they die any more; for they are equall to\nthe Angells, and are the Children of God, being the Children of the\nResurrection:\" The Children of this world, that are in the estate\nwhich Adam left them in, shall marry, and be given in marriage; that is\ncorrupt, and generate successively; which is an Immortality of the Kind,\nbut not of the Persons of men: They are not worthy to be counted amongst\nthem that shall obtain the next world, and an absolute Resurrection from\nthe dead; but onely a short time, as inmates of that world; and to the\nend onely to receive condign punishment for their contumacy. The Elect\nare the onely children of the Resurrection; that is to say the sole\nheirs of Eternall Life: they only can die no more; it is they that are\nequall to the Angels, and that are the children of God; and not the\nReprobate. To the Reprobate there remaineth after the Resurrection,\na Second, and Eternall Death: between which Resurrection, and their\nSecond, and Eternall death, is but a time of Punishment and Torment; and\nto last by succession of sinners thereunto, as long as the kind of Man\nby propagation shall endure, which is Eternally.\n\n\n\n\nAnswer Of The Texts Alledged For Purgatory\n\nUpon this Doctrine of the Naturall Eternity of separated Soules, is\nfounded (as I said) the Doctrine of Purgatory. For supposing Eternall\nLife by Grace onely, there is no Life, but the Life of the Body; and no\nImmortality till the Resurrection. The texts for Purgatory alledged by\nBellarmine out of the Canonicall Scripture of the old Testament, are\nfirst, the Fasting of David for Saul and Jonathan, mentioned (2 Kings,\n1. 12.); and againe, (2 Sam. 3. 35.) for the death of Abner. This\nFasting of David, he saith, was for the obtaining of something for them\nat Gods hands, after their death; because after he had Fasted to procure\nthe recovery of his owne child, assoone as he know it was dead, he\ncalled for meate. Seeing then the Soule hath an existence separate from\nthe Body, and nothing can be obtained by mens Fasting for the Soules\nthat are already either in Heaven, or Hell, it followeth that there be\nsome Soules of dead men, what are neither in Heaven, nor in Hell; and\ntherefore they must bee in some third place, which must be Purgatory.\nAnd thus with hard straining, hee has wrested those places to the proofe\nof a Purgatory; whereas it is manifest, that the ceremonies of Mourning,\nand Fasting, when they are used for the death of men, whose life was\nnot profitable to the Mourners, they are used for honours sake to their\npersons; and when tis done for the death of them by whose life the\nMourners had benefit, it proceeds from their particular dammage: And so\nDavid honoured Saul, and Abner, with his Fasting; and in the death of\nhis owne child, recomforted himselfe, by receiving his ordinary food.\n\nIn the other places, which he alledgeth out of the old Testament, there\nis not so much as any shew, or colour of proofe. He brings in every text\nwherein there is the word Anger, or Fire, or Burning, or Purging, or\nClensing, in case any of the Fathers have but in a Sermon rhetorically\napplied it to the Doctrine of Purgatory, already beleeved. The first\nverse of Psalme, 37. \"O Lord rebuke me not in thy wrath, nor chasten me\nin thy hot displeasure:\" What were this to Purgatory, if Augustine had\nnot applied the Wrath to the fire of Hell, and the Displeasure, to that\nof Purgatory? And what is it to Purgatory, that of Psalme, 66. 12. \"Wee\nwent through fire and water, and thou broughtest us to a moist place;\"\nand other the like texts, (with which the Doctors of those times\nentended to adorne, or extend their Sermons, or Commentaries) haled to\ntheir purposes by force of wit?\n\n\n\n\nPlaces Of The New Testament For Purgatory Answered\n\nBut he alledgeth other places of the New Testament, that are not\nso easie to be answered: And first that of Matth. 12.32. \"Whosoever\nspeaketh a word against the Sonne of man, it shall be forgiven him; but\nwhosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not bee forgiven\nhim neither in this world, nor in the world to come:\" Where he will have\nPurgatory to be the World to come, wherein some sinnes may be forgiven,\nwhich in this World were not forgiven: notwithstanding that it is\nmanifest, there are but three Worlds; one from the Creation to the\nFlood, which was destroyed by Water, and is called in Scripture the\nOld World; another from the Flood to the day of Judgement, which is the\nPresent World, and shall bee destroyed by Fire; and the third, which\nshall bee from the day of Judgement forward, everlasting, which is\ncalled the World To Come; and in which it is agreed by all, there shall\nbe no Purgatory; And therefore the World to come, and Purgatory, are\ninconsistent. But what then can bee the meaning of those our Saviours\nwords? I confesse they are very hardly to bee reconciled with all the\nDoctrines now unanimously received: Nor is it any shame, to confesse the\nprofoundnesse of the Scripture, to bee too great to be sounded by the\nshortnesse of humane understanding. Neverthelesse, I may propound such\nthings to the consideration of more learned Divines, as the text it\nselfe suggesteth. And first, seeing to speake against the Holy Ghost, as\nbeing the third Person of the Trinity, is to speake against the Church,\nin which the Holy Ghost resideth; it seemeth the comparison is made,\nbetweene the Easinesse of our Saviour, in bearing with offences done to\nhim while he was on earth, and the Severity of the Pastors after him,\nagainst those which should deny their authority, which was from the Holy\nGhost: As if he should say, You that deny my Power; nay you that shall\ncrucifie me, shall be pardoned by mee, as often as you turne unto mee by\nRepentance: But if you deny the Power of them that teach you hereafter,\nby vertue of the Holy Ghost, they shall be inexorable, and shall not\nforgive you, but persecute you in this World, and leave you without\nabsolution, (though you turn to me, unlesse you turn also to them,) to\nthe punishments (as much as lies in them) of the World to come: And\nso the words may be taken as a Prophecy, or Praediction concerning the\ntimes, as they have along been in the Christian Church: Or if this be\nnot the meaning, (for I am not peremptory in such difficult places,)\nperhaps there may be place left after the Resurrection for the\nRepentance of some sinners: And there is also another place, that\nseemeth to agree therewith. For considering the words of St. Paul (1\nCor. 15. 29.) \"What shall they doe which are Baptized for the dead, if\nthe dead rise not at all? why also are they Baptized for the dead?\" a\nman may probably inferre, as some have done, that in St. Pauls time,\nthere was a custome by receiving Baptisme for the dead, (as men that now\nbeleeve, are Sureties and Undertakers for the Faith of Infants, that\nare not capable of beleeving,) to undertake for the persons of their\ndeceased friends, that they should be ready to obey, and receive our\nSaviour for their King, at his coming again; and then the forgivenesse\nof sins in the world to come, has no need of a Purgatory. But in both\nthese interpretations, there is so much of paradox, that I trust not\nto them; but propound them to those that are throughly versed in the\nScripture, to inquire if there be no clearer place that contradicts\nthem. Onely of thus much, I see evident Scripture, to perswade men, that\nthere is neither the word, nor the thing of Purgatory, neither in this,\nnor any other text; nor any thing that can prove a necessity of a place\nfor the Soule without the Body; neither for the Soule of Lazarus during\nthe four days he was dead; nor for the Soules of them which the Romane\nChurch pretend to be tormented now in Purgatory. For God, that could\ngive a life to a peece of clay, hath the same power to give life again\nto a dead man, and renew his inanimate, and rotten Carkasse, into a\nglorious, spirituall, and immortall Body.\n\nAnother place is that of 1 Cor. 3. where it is said that they which\nbuilt Stubble, Hay, &c. on the true Foundation, their work shall perish;\nbut \"they themselves shall be saved; but as through Fire:\" This Fire, he\nwill have to be the Fire of Purgatory. The words, as I have said before,\nare an allusion to those of Zach. 13. 9. where he saith, \"I will bring\nthe third part through the Fire, and refine them as Silver is refined,\nand will try them as Gold is tryed;\" Which is spoken of the comming of\nthe Messiah in Power and Glory; that is, at the day of Judgment, and\nConflagration of the present world; wherein the Elect shall not be\nconsumed, but be refined; that is, depose their erroneous Doctrines, and\nTraditions, and have them as it were sindged off; and shall afterwards\ncall upon the name of the true God. In like manner, the Apostle saith\nof them, that holding this Foundation Jesus Is The Christ, shall build\nthereon some other Doctrines that be erroneous, that they shall not be\nconsumed in that fire which reneweth the world, but shall passe through\nit to Salvation; but so, as to see, and relinquish their former Errours.\nThe Builders, are the Pastors; the Foundation, that Jesus Is The Christ;\nthe Stubble and Hay, False Consequences Drawn From It Through Ignorance,\nOr Frailty; the Gold, Silver, and pretious Stones, are their True\nDoctrines; and their Refining or Purging, the Relinquishing Of Their\nErrors. In all which there is no colour at all for the burning of\nIncorporeall, that is to say, Impatible Souls.\n\n\n\n\nBaptisme For The Dead, How Understood\n\nA third place is that of 1 Cor. 15. before mentioned, concerning\nBaptisme for the Dead: out of which he concludeth, first, that Prayers\nfor the Dead are not unprofitable; and out of that, that there is a Fire\nof Purgatory: But neither of them rightly. For of many interpretations\nof the word Baptisme, he approveth this in the first place, that by\nBaptisme is meant (metaphorically) a Baptisme of Penance; and that men\nare in this sense Baptized, when they Fast, and Pray, and give Almes:\nAnd so Baptisme for the Dead, and Prayer of the Dead, is the same thing.\nBut this is a Metaphor, of which there is no example, neither in\nthe Scripture, nor in any other use of language; and which is also\ndiscordant to the harmony, and scope of the Scripture. The word Baptisme\nis used (Mar. 10. 38. & Luk. 12. 59.) for being Dipped in ones own\nbloud, as Christ was upon the Cross, and as most of the Apostles\nwere, for giving testimony of him. But it is hard to say, that Prayer,\nFasting, and Almes, have any similitude with Dipping. The same is used\nalso Mat. 3. 11. (which seemeth to make somewhat for Purgatory) for\na Purging with Fire. But it is evident the Fire and Purging here\nmentioned, is the same whereof the Prophet Zachary speaketh (chap. 13.\nv. 9.) \"I will bring the third part through the Fire, and will Refine\nthem, &c.\" And St. Peter after him (1 Epist. 1. 7.) \"That the triall\nof your Faith, which is much more precious than of Gold that perisheth,\nthough it be tryed with fire, might be found unto praise, and honour,\nand glory at the Appearing of Jesus Christ;\" And St. Paul (1 Cor. 3.\n13.) The Fire shall trie every mans work of what sort it is.\" But\nSt. Peter, and St. Paul speak of the Fire that shall be at the Second\nAppearing of Christ; and the Prophet Zachary of the Day of Judgment: And\ntherefore this place of S. Mat. may be interpreted of the same; and then\nthere will be no necessity of the Fire of Purgatory.\n\nAnother interpretation of Baptisme for the Dead, is that which I\nhave before mentioned, which he preferreth to the second place of\nprobability; And thence also he inferreth the utility of Prayer for the\nDead. For if after the Resurrection, such as have not heard of Christ,\nor not beleeved in him, may be received into Christs Kingdome; it is\nnot in vain, after their death, that their friends should pray for them,\ntill they should be risen. But granting that God, at the prayers of the\nfaithfull, may convert unto him some of those that have not heard Christ\npreached, and consequently cannot have rejected Christ, and that the\ncharity of men in that point, cannot be blamed; yet this concludeth\nnothing for Purgatory, because to rise from Death to Life, is one thing;\nto rise from Purgatory to Life is another; and being a rising from Life\nto Life, from a Life in torments to a Life in joy.\n\nA fourth place is that of Mat. 5. 25. \"Agree with thine Adversary\nquickly, whilest thou art in the way with him, lest at any time the\nAdversary deliver thee to the Officer, and thou be cast into prison.\nVerily I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence, till\nthou has paid the uttermost farthing.\" In which Allegory, the Offender\nis the Sinner; both the Adversary and the Judge is God; the Way is\nthis Life; the Prison is the Grave; the Officer, Death; from which, the\nsinner shall not rise again to life eternall, but to a second Death,\ntill he have paid the utmost farthing, or Christ pay it for him by his\nPassion, which is a full Ransome for all manner of sin, as well lesser\nsins, as greater crimes; both being made by the passion of Christ\nequally veniall.\n\nThe fift place, is that of Matth. 5. 22. \"Whosoever is angry with his\nBrother without a cause, shall be guilty in Judgment. And whosoever\nshall say to his Brother, RACHA, shall be guilty in the Councel. But\nwhosoever shall say, Thou Foole, shall be guilty to hell fire.\" From\nwhich words he inferreth three sorts of Sins, and three sorts of\nPunishments; and that none of those sins, but the last, shall be\npunished with hell fire; and consequently, that after this life, there\nis punishment of lesser sins in Purgatory. Of which inference, there is\nno colour in any interpretation that hath yet been given to them: Shall\nthere be a distinction after this life of Courts of Justice, as there\nwas amongst the Jews in our Saviours time, to hear, and determine\ndivers sorts of Crimes; as the Judges, and the Councell? Shall not\nall Judicature appertain to Christ, and his Apostles? To understand\ntherefore this text, we are not to consider it solitarily, but jointly\nwith the words precedent, and subsequent. Our Saviour in this Chapter\ninterpreteth the Law of Moses; which the Jews thought was then\nfulfilled, when they had not transgressed the Grammaticall sense\nthereof, howsoever they had transgressed against the sentence, or\nmeaning of the Legislator. Therefore whereas they thought the Sixth\nCommandement was not broken, but by Killing a man; nor the Seventh, but\nwhen a man lay with a woman, not his wife; our Saviour tells them, the\ninward Anger of a man against his brother, if it be without just cause,\nis Homicide: You have heard (saith hee) the Law of Moses, \"Thou shalt\nnot Kill,\" and that \"Whosoever shall Kill, shall be condemned before the\nJudges,\" or before the Session of the Seventy: But I say unto you, to\nbe Angry with ones Brother without cause; or to say unto him Racha, or\nFoole, is Homicide, and shall be punished at the day of Judgment, and\nSession of Christ, and his Apostles, with Hell fire: so that those words\nwere not used to distinguish between divers Crimes, and divers Courts\nof Justice, and divers Punishments; but to taxe the distinction between\nsin, and sin, which the Jews drew not from the difference of the Will\nin Obeying God, but from the difference of their Temporall Courts of\nJustice; and to shew them that he that had the Will to hurt his Brother,\nthough the effect appear but in Reviling, or not at all, shall be cast\ninto hell fire, by the Judges, and by the Session, which shall be the\nsame, not different Courts at the day of Judgment. This Considered, what\ncan be drawn from this text, to maintain Purgatory, I cannot imagine.\n\nThe sixth place is Luke 16. 9. \"Make yee friends of the unrighteous\nMammon, that when yee faile, they may receive you into Everlasting\nTabernacles.\" This he alledges to prove Invocation of Saints departed.\nBut the sense is plain, That we should make friends with our Riches, of\nthe Poore, and thereby obtain their Prayers whilest they live. \"He that\ngiveth to the Poore, lendeth to the Lord. \"The seventh is Luke 23. 42.\n\"Lord remember me when thou commest into thy Kingdome:\" Therefore, saith\nhee, there is Remission of sins after this life. But the consequence\nis not good. Our Saviour then forgave him; and at his comming againe in\nGlory, will remember to raise him againe to Life Eternall.\n\nThe Eight is Acts 2. 24. where St. Peter saith of Christ, \"that God\nhad raised him up, and loosed the Paines of Death, because it was not\npossible he should be holden of it;\" Which hee interprets to bee a\ndescent of Christ into Purgatory, to loose some Soules there from their\ntorments; whereas it is manifest, that it was Christ that was loosed;\nit was hee that could not bee holden of Death, or the Grave; and not the\nSouls in Purgatory. But if that which Beza sayes in his notes on this\nplace be well observed, there is none that will not see, that in stead\nof Paynes, it should be Bands; and then there is no further cause to\nseek for Purgatory in this Text.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLV. OF DAEMONOLOGY, AND OTHER RELIQUES OF THE RELIGION OF THE\nGENTILES\n\n\n\n\nThe Originall Of Daemonology\n\nThe impression made on the organs of Sight, by lucide Bodies, either in\none direct line, or in many lines, reflected from Opaque, or refracted\nin the passage through Diaphanous Bodies, produceth in living Creatures,\nin whom God hath placed such Organs, an Imagination of the Object, from\nwhence the Impression proceedeth; which Imagination is called Sight; and\nseemeth not to bee a meer Imagination, but the Body it selfe without\nus; in the same manner, as when a man violently presseth his eye, there\nappears to him a light without, and before him, which no man perceiveth\nbut himselfe; because there is indeed no such thing without him, but\nonely a motion in the interiour organs, pressing by resistance\noutward, that makes him think so. And the motion made by this pressure,\ncontinuing after the object which caused it is removed, is that we call\nImagination, and Memory, and (in sleep, and sometimes in great distemper\nof the organs by Sicknesse, or Violence) a Dream: of which things I have\nalready spoken briefly, in the second and third Chapters.\n\nThis nature of Sight having never been discovered by the ancient\npretenders to Naturall Knowledge; much lesse by those that consider not\nthings so remote (as that Knowledge is) from their present use; it was\nhard for men to conceive of those Images in the Fancy, and in the Sense,\notherwise, than of things really without us: Which some (because they\nvanish away, they know not whither, nor how,) will have to be absolutely\nIncorporeall, that is to say Immateriall, of Formes without Matter;\nColour and Figure, without any coloured or figured Body; and that they\ncan put on Aiery bodies (as a garment) to make them Visible when\nthey will to our bodily Eyes; and others say, are Bodies, and living\nCreatures, but made of Air, or other more subtile and aethereall Matter,\nwhich is, then, when they will be seen, condensed. But Both of them\nagree on one generall appellation of them, DAEMONS. As if the Dead of\nwhom they Dreamed, were not Inhabitants of their own Brain, but of the\nAir, or of Heaven, or Hell; not Phantasmes, but Ghosts; with just\nas much reason, as if one should say, he saw his own Ghost in a\nLooking-Glasse, or the Ghosts of the Stars in a River; or call the\nordinary apparition of the Sun, of the quantity of about a foot, the\nDaemon, or Ghost of that great Sun that enlighteneth the whole visible\nworld: And by that means have feared them, as things of an unknown, that\nis, of an unlimited power to doe them good, or harme; and consequently,\ngiven occasion to the Governours of the Heathen Common-wealths to\nregulate this their fear, by establishing that DAEMONOLOGY (in which\nthe Poets, as Principal Priests of the Heathen Religion, were specially\nemployed, or reverenced) to the Publique Peace, and to the Obedience of\nSubjects necessary thereunto; and to make some of them Good Daemons,\nand others Evill; the one as a Spurre to the Observance, the other, as\nReines to withhold them from Violation of the Laws.\n\n\n\n\nWhat Were The Daemons Of The Ancients\n\nWhat kind of things they were, to whom they attributed the name of\nDaemons, appeareth partly in the Genealogie of their Gods, written by\nHesiod, one of the most ancient Poets of the Graecians; and partly in\nother Histories; of which I have observed some few before, in the 12.\nChapter of this discourse.\n\n\n\n\nHow That Doctrine Was Spread\n\nThe Graecians, by their Colonies and Conquests, communicated their\nLanguage and Writings into Asia, Egypt, and Italy; and therein, by\nnecessary consequence their Daemonology, or (as St. Paul calles it)\n\"their Doctrines of Devils;\" And by that meanes, the contagion was\nderived also to the Jewes, both of Judaea, and Alexandria, and other\nparts, whereinto they were dispersed. But the name of Daemon they did\nnot (as the Graecians) attribute to Spirits both Good, and Evill; but\nto the Evill onely: And to the Good Daemons they gave the name of the\nSpirit of God; and esteemed those into whose bodies they entred to be\nProphets. In summe, all singularity if Good, they attributed to the\nSpirit of God; and if Evill, to some Daemon, but a kakodaimen, an Evill\nDaemon, that is, a Devill. And therefore, they called Daemoniaques, that\nis, possessed by the Devill, such as we call Madmen or Lunatiques; or\nsuch as had the Falling Sicknesse; or that spoke any thing, which they\nfor want of understanding, thought absurd: As also of an Unclean person\nin a notorious degree, they used to say he had an Unclean Spirit; of a\nDumbe man, that he had a Dumbe Devill; and of John Baptist (Math. 11.\n18.) for the singularity of his fasting, that he had a Devill; and of\nour Saviour, because he said, hee that keepeth his sayings should not\nsee Death In Aeternum, (John 8. 52.) \"Now we know thou hast a Devill;\nAbraham is dead, and the Prophets are dead:\" And again, because he said\n(John 7. 20.) \"They went about to kill him,\" the people answered, \"Thou\nhast a Devill, who goeth about to kill thee?\" Whereby it is manifest,\nthat the Jewes had the same opinions concerning Phantasmes, namely, that\nthey were not Phantasmes that is, Idols of the braine, but things reall,\nand independent on the Fancy.\n\n\n\n\nWhy Our Saviour Controlled It Not\n\nWhich doctrine if it be not true, why (may some say) did not our Saviour\ncontradict it, and teach the Contrary? nay why does he use on diverse\noccasions, such forms of speech as seem to confirm it? To this I answer,\nthat first, where Christ saith, \"A Spirit hath not flesh and bone,\"\nthough hee shew that there be Spirits, yet he denies not that they are\nBodies: And where St. Paul sais, \"We shall rise Spirituall Bodies,\" he\nacknowledgeth the nature of Spirits, but that they are Bodily Spirits;\nwhich is not difficult to understand. For Air and many other things\nare Bodies, though not Flesh and Bone, or any other grosse body, to bee\ndiscerned by the eye. But when our Saviour speaketh to the Devill, and\ncommandeth him to go out of a man, if by the Devill, be meant a Disease,\nas Phrenesy, or Lunacy, or a corporeal Spirit, is not the speech\nimproper? can Diseases heare? or can there be a corporeall Spirit in a\nBody of Flesh and Bone, full already of vitall and animall Spirits?\nAre there not therefore Spirits, that neither have Bodies, nor are meer\nImaginations? To the first I answer, that the addressing of our Saviours\ncommand to the Madnesse, or Lunacy he cureth, is no more improper, then\nwas his rebuking of the Fever, or of the Wind, and Sea; for neither\ndo these hear: Or than was the command of God, to the Light, to the\nFirmament, to the Sunne, and Starres, when he commanded them to bee; for\nthey could not heare before they had a beeing. But those speeches are\nnot improper, because they signifie the power of Gods Word: no more\ntherefore is it improper, to command Madnesse, or Lunacy (under the\nappellation of Devils, by which they were then commonly understood,)\nto depart out of a mans body. To the second, concerning their being\nIncorporeall, I have not yet observed any place of Scripture, from\nwhence it can be gathered, that any man was ever possessed with any\nother Corporeal Spirit, but that of his owne, by which his body is\nnaturally moved.\n\n\n\n\nThe Scriptures Doe Not Teach That Spirits Are Incorporeall\n\nOur Saviour, immediately after the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the\nform of a Dove, is said by St. Matthew (Chapt. 4. 1.) to have been \"led\nup by the Spirit into the Wildernesse;\" and the same is recited (Luke 4.\n1.) in these words, \"Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost, was led in\nthe Spirit into the Wildernesse;\" Whereby it is evident, that by\nSpirit there, is meant the Holy Ghost. This cannot be interpreted for\na Possession: For Christ, and the Holy Ghost, are but one and the same\nsubstance; which is no possession of one substance, or body, by another.\nAnd whereas in the verses following, he is said \"to have been taken\nup by the Devill into the Holy City, and set upon a pinnacle of the\nTemple,\" shall we conclude thence that hee was possessed of the Devill,\nor carryed thither by violence? And again, \"carryed thence by the Devill\ninto an exceeding high mountain, who shewed him them thence all the\nKingdomes of the world:\" herein, wee are not to beleeve he was either\npossessed, or forced by the Devill; nor that any Mountaine is high\nenough, (according to the literall sense,) to shew him one whole\nHemisphere. What then can be the meaning of this place, other than that\nhe went of himself into the Wildernesse; and that this carrying of him\nup and down, from the Wildernesse to the City, and from thence into a\nMountain, was a Vision? Conformable whereunto, is also the phrase of St.\nLuke, that hee was led into the Wildernesse, not By, but In the Spirit:\nwhereas concerning His being Taken up into the Mountaine, and unto the\nPinnacle of the Temple, hee speaketh as St. Matthew doth. Which suiteth\nwith the nature of a Vision.\n\nAgain, where St. Luke sayes of Judas Iscariot, that \"Satan entred into\nhim, and thereupon that he went and communed with the Chief Priests, and\nCaptaines, how he might betray Christ unto them:\" it may be answered,\nthat by the Entring of Satan (that is the Enemy) into him, is meant, the\nhostile and traiterous intention of selling his Lord and Master. For as\nby the Holy Ghost, is frequently in Scripture understood, the Graces and\ngood Inclinations given by the Holy Ghost; so by the Entring of\nSatan, may bee understood the wicked Cogitations, and Designes of the\nAdversaries of Christ, and his Disciples. For as it is hard to say,\nthat the Devill was entred into Judas, before he had any such hostile\ndesigne; so it is impertinent to say, he was first Christs Enemy in his\nheart, and that the Devill entred into him afterwards. Therefore the\nEntring of Satan, and his Wicked Purpose, was one and the same thing.\n\nBut if there be no Immateriall Spirit, nor any Possession of mens bodies\nby any Spirit Corporeall, it may again be asked, why our Saviour and his\nApostles did not teach the People so; and in such cleer words, as they\nmight no more doubt thereof. But such questions as these, are more\ncurious, than necessary for a Christian mans Salvation. Men may as well\naske, why Christ that could have given to all men Faith, Piety, and all\nmanner of morall Vertues, gave it to some onely, and not to all: and\nwhy he left the search of naturall Causes, and Sciences, to the naturall\nReason and Industry of men, and did not reveal it to all, or any man\nsupernaturally; and many other such questions: Of which neverthelesse\nthere may be alledged probable and pious reasons. For as God, when he\nbrought the Israelites into the Land of Promise, did not secure them\ntherein, by subduing all the Nations round about them; but left many of\nthem, as thornes in their sides, to awaken from time to time their\nPiety and Industry: so our Saviour, in conducting us toward his heavenly\nKingdome, did not destroy all the difficulties of Naturall Questions;\nbut left them to exercise our Industry, and Reason; the Scope of\nhis preaching, being onely to shew us this plain and direct way to\nSalvation, namely, the beleef of this Article, \"that he was the Christ,\nthe Son of the living God, sent into the world to sacrifice himselfe for\nour Sins, and at his comming again, gloriously to reign over his Elect,\nand to save them from their Enemies eternally:\" To which, the opinion\nof Possession by Spirits, or Phantasmes, are no impediment in the way;\nthough it be to some an occasion of going out of the way, and to follow\ntheir own Inventions. If wee require of the Scripture an account of all\nquestions, which may be raised to trouble us in the performance of Gods\ncommands; we may as well complaine of Moses for not having set downe the\ntime of the creation of such Spirits, as well as of the Creation of the\nEarth, and Sea, and of Men, and Beasts. To conclude, I find in Scripture\nthat there be Angels, and Spirits, good and evill; but not that they are\nIncorporeall, as are the Apparitions men see in the Dark, or in a Dream,\nor Vision; which the Latines call Spectra, and took for Daemons. And I\nfind that there are Spirits Corporeal, (though subtile and Invisible;)\nbut not that any mans body was possessed, or inhabited by them; And that\nthe Bodies of the Saints shall be such, namely, Spirituall Bodies, as\nSt. Paul calls them.\n\n\n\n\nThe Power Of Casting Out Devills, Not The Same It Was In The Primitive\n\nChurch\n\nNeverthelesse, the contrary Doctrine, namely, that there be Incorporeall\nSpirits, hath hitherto so prevailed in the Church, that the use of\nExorcisme, (that is to say, of ejection of Devills by Conjuration) is\nthereupon built; and (though rarely and faintly practised) is not yet\ntotally given over. That there were many Daemoniaques in the Primitive\nChurch, and few Mad-men, and other such singular diseases; whereas in\nthese times we hear of, and see many Mad-men, and few Daemoniaques,\nproceeds not from the change of Nature; but of Names. But how it comes\nto passe, that whereas heretofore the Apostles, and after them for a\ntime, the Pastors of the Church, did cure those singular Diseases, which\nnow they are not seen to doe; as likewise, why it is not in the power of\nevery true Beleever now, to doe all that the Faithfull did then, that is\nto say, as we read (Mark 16. 17.) \"In Christs name to cast out Devills,\nto speak with new Tongues, to take up Serpents, to drink deadly Poison\nwithout harm taking, and to cure the Sick by the laying on of their\nhands,\" and all this without other words, but \"in the Name of Jesus,\"\nis another question. And it is probable, that those extraordinary gifts\nwere given to the Church, for no longer a time, than men trusted wholly\nto Christ, and looked for their felicity onely in his Kingdome to come;\nand consequently, that when they sought Authority, and Riches, and\ntrusted to their own Subtilty for a Kingdome of this world, these\nsupernaturall gifts of God were again taken from them.\n\n\n\n\nAnother Relique Of Gentilisme, Worshipping Images, Left In The Church\n\nNot Brought Into It\n\nAnother relique of Gentilisme, is the Worship of Images, neither\ninstituted by Moses in the Old, nor by Christ in the New Testament; nor\nyet brought in from the Gentiles; but left amongst them, after they had\ngiven their names to Christ. Before our Saviour preached, it was the\ngenerall Religion of the Gentiles, to worship for Gods, those Apparences\nthat remain in the Brain from the impression of externall Bodies upon\nthe organs of their Senses, which are commonly called Ideas, Idols,\nPhantasmes, Conceits, as being Representations of those externall\nBodies, which cause them, and have nothing in them of reality, no more\nthan there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a Dream:\nAnd this is the reason why St. Paul says, \"Wee know that an Idol is\nNothing:\" Not that he thought that an Image of Metall, Stone, or Wood,\nwas nothing; but that the thing which they honored, or feared in\nthe Image, and held for a God, was a meer Figment, without place,\nhabitation, motion, or existence, but in the motions of the Brain.\nAnd the worship of these with Divine Honour, is that which is in the\nScripture called Idolatry, and Rebellion against God. For God being King\nof the Jews, and his Lieutenant being first Moses, and afterward the\nHigh Priest; if the people had been permitted to worship, and pray to\nImages, (which are Representations of their own Fancies,) they had\nhad no farther dependence on the true God, of whom there can be no\nsimilitude; nor on his prime Ministers, Moses, and the High Priests;\nbut every man had governed himself according to his own appetite, to the\nutter eversion of the Common-wealth, and their own destruction for want\nof Union. And therefore the first Law of God was, \"They should not take\nfor Gods, ALIENOS DEOS, that is, the Gods of other nations, but that\nonely true God, who vouchsafed to commune with Moses, and by him to give\nthem laws and directions, for their peace, and for their salvation\nfrom their enemies.\" And the second was, that \"they should not make to\nthemselves any Image to Worship, of their own Invention.\" For it is the\nsame deposing of a King, to submit to another King, whether he be set up\nby a neighbour nation, or by our selves.\n\n\n\n\nAnswer To Certain Seeming Texts For Images\n\nThe places of Scripture pretended to countenance the setting up of\nImages, to worship them; or to set them up at all in the places where\nGod is worshipped, are First, two Examples; one of the Cherubins over\nthe Ark of God; the other of the Brazen Serpent: Secondly, some texts\nwhereby we are commanded to worship certain Creatures for their relation\nto God; as to worship his Footstool: And lastly, some other texts, by\nwhich is authorized, a religious honoring of Holy things. But before I\nexamine the force of those places, to prove that which is pretended, I\nmust first explain what is to be understood by Worshipping, and what by\nImages, and Idols.\n\n\n\n\nWhat Is Worship\n\nI have already shewn in the 20 Chapter of this Discourse, that to Honor,\nis to value highly the Power of any person: and that such value is\nmeasured, by our comparing him with others. But because there is nothing\nto be compared with God in Power; we Honor him not but Dishonour him\nby any Value lesse than Infinite. And thus Honor is properly of its own\nnature, secret, and internall in the heart. But the inward thoughts of\nmen, which appeare outwardly in their words and actions, are the signes\nof our Honoring, and these goe by the name of WORSHIP, in Latine,\nCULTUS. Therefore, to Pray to, to Swear by, to Obey, to bee Diligent,\nand Officious in Serving: in summe, all words and actions that betoken\nFear to Offend, or Desire to Please, is Worship, whether those words\nand actions be sincere, or feigned: and because they appear as signes of\nHonoring, are ordinarily also called Honor.\n\n\n\n\nDistinction Between Divine And Civill Worship\n\nThe Worship we exhibite to those we esteem to be but men, as to Kings,\nand men in Authority, is Civill Worship: But the worship we exhibite\nto that which we think to bee God, whatsoever the words, ceremonies,\ngestures, or other actions be, is Divine Worship. To fall prostrate\nbefore a King, in him that thinks him but a Man, is but Civill Worship:\nAnd he that but putteth off his hat in the Church, for this cause, that\nhe thinketh it the House of God, worshippeth with Divine Worship. They\nthat seek the distinction of Divine and Civill Worship, not in the\nintention of the Worshipper, but in the Words douleia, and latreia,\ndeceive themselves. For whereas there be two sorts of Servants; that\nsort, which is of those that are absolutely in the power of their\nMasters, as Slaves taken in war, and their Issue, whose bodies are not\nin their own power, (their lives depending on the Will of their Masters,\nin such manner as to forfeit them upon the least disobedience,) and that\nare bought and sold as Beasts, were called Douloi, that is properly,\nSlaves, and their Service, Douleia: The other, which is of those that\nserve (for hire, or in hope of benefit from their Masters) voluntarily;\nare called Thetes; that is, Domestique Servants; to whose service the\nMasters have no further right, than is contained in the Covenants made\nbetwixt them. These two kinds of Servants have thus much common to them\nboth, that their labour is appointed them by another, whether, as a\nSlave, or a voluntary Servant: And the word Latris, is the general name\nof both, signifying him that worketh for another, whether, as a Slave,\nor a voluntary Servant: So that Latreia signifieth generally all\nService; but Douleia the service of Bondmen onely, and the condition of\nSlavery: And both are used in Scripture (to signifie our Service of God)\npromiscuously. Douleia, because we are Gods Slaves; Latreia, because\nwee Serve him: and in all kinds of Service is contained, not onely\nObedience, but also Worship, that is, such actions, gestures, and words,\nas signifie Honor.\n\n\n\n\nAn Image What Phantasmes\n\nAn IMAGE (in the most strict signification of the word) is the\nResemblance of some thing visible: In which sense the Phantasticall\nFormes, Apparitions, or Seemings of Visible Bodies to the Sight, are\nonely Images; such as are the Shew of a man, or other thing in the\nWater, by Reflexion, or Refraction; or of the Sun, or Stars by Direct\nVision in the Air; which are nothing reall in the things seen, nor in\nthe place where thy seem to bee; nor are their magnitudes and figures\nthe same with that of the object; but changeable, by the variation of\nthe organs of Sight, or by glasses; and are present oftentimes in our\nImagination, and in our Dreams, when the object is absent; or changed\ninto other colours, and shapes, as things that depend onely upon the\nFancy. And these are the Images which are originally and most properly\ncalled Ideas, and IDOLS, and derived from the language of the Graecians,\nwith whom the word Eido signifieth to See. They are also called\nPHANTASMES, which is in the same language, Apparitions. And from these\nImages it is that one of the faculties of mans Nature, is called the\nImagination. And from hence it is manifest, that there neither is, nor\ncan bee any Image made of a thing Invisible.\n\nIt is also evident, that there can be no Image of a thing Infinite: for\nall the Images, and Phantasmes that are made by the Impression of things\nvisible, are figured: but Figure is a quantity every way determined: And\ntherefore there can bee no Image of God: nor of the Soule of Man; nor of\nSpirits, but onely of Bodies Visible, that is, Bodies that have light in\nthemselves, or are by such enlightened.\n\n\n\n\nFictions; Materiall Images\n\nAnd whereas a man can fancy Shapes he never saw; making up a Figure out\nof the parts of divers creatures; as the Poets make their Centaures,\nChimaeras, and other Monsters never seen: So can he also give Matter to\nthose Shapes, and make them in Wood, Clay or Metall. And these are also\ncalled Images, not for the resemblance of any corporeall thing, but for\nthe resemblance of some Phantasticall Inhabitants of the Brain of the\nMaker. But in these Idols, as they are originally in the Brain, and\nas they are painted, carved, moulded, or moulten in matter, there is a\nsimilitude of the one to the other, for which the Materiall Body made\nby Art, may be said to be the Image of the Phantasticall Idoll made by\nNature.\n\nBut in a larger use of the word Image, is contained also, any\nRepresentation of one thing by another. So an earthly Soveraign may be\ncalled the Image of God: And an inferiour Magistrate the Image of an\nearthly Soveraign. And many times in the Idolatry of the Gentiles there\nwas little regard to the similitude of their Materiall Idoll to the\nIdol in their fancy, and yet it was called the Image of it. For a\nStone unhewn has been set up for Neptune, and divers other shapes far\ndifferent from the shapes they conceived of their Gods. And at this\nday we see many Images of the Virgin Mary, and other Saints, unlike one\nanother, and without correspondence to any one mans Fancy; and yet serve\nwell enough for the purpose they were erected for; which was no more but\nby the Names onely, to represent the Persons mentioned in the History;\nto which every man applyeth a Mentall Image of his owne making, or\nnone at all. And thus an Image in the largest sense, is either the\nResemblance, or the Representation of some thing Visible; or both\ntogether, as it happeneth for the most part.\n\nBut the name of Idoll is extended yet further in Scripture, to\nsignifie also the Sunne, or a Starre, or any other Creature, visible or\ninvisible, when they are worshipped for Gods.\n\n\n\n\nIdolatry What\n\nHaving shewn what is Worship, and what an Image; I will now put them\ntogether, and examine what that IDOLATRY is, which is forbidden in the\nSecond Commandement, and other places of the Scripture.\n\nTo worship an Image, is voluntarily to doe those externall acts, which\nare signes of honoring either the matter of the Image, which is Wood,\nStone, or Metall, or some other visible creature; or the Phantasme of\nthe brain, for the resemblance, or representation whereof, the matter\nwas formed and figured; or both together, as one animate Body, composed\nof the Matter and the Phantasme, as of a Body and Soule.\n\nTo be uncovered, before a man of Power and Authority, or before the\nThrone of a Prince, or in such other places as hee ordaineth to that\npurpose in his absence, is to Worship that man, or Prince with Civill\nWorship; as being a signe, not of honoring the stoole, or place, but the\nPerson; and is not Idolatry. But if hee that doth it, should suppose the\nSoule of the Prince to be in the Stool, or should present a Petition to\nthe Stool, it were Divine Worship, and Idolatry.\n\nTo pray to a King for such things, as hee is able to doe for us, though\nwe prostrate our selves before him, is but Civill Worship; because we\nacknowledge no other power in him, but humane: But voluntarily to pray\nunto him for fair weather, or for any thing which God onely can doe\nfor us, is Divine Worship, and Idolatry. On the other side, if a King\ncompell a man to it by the terrour of Death, or other great corporall\npunishment, it is not Idolatry: For the Worship which the Soveraign\ncommandeth to bee done unto himself by the terrour of his Laws, is not\na sign that he that obeyeth him, does inwardly honour him as a God, but\nthat he is desirous to save himselfe from death, or from a miserable\nlife; and that which is not a sign of internall honor, is no Worship;\nand therefore no Idolatry. Neither can it bee said, that hee that does\nit, scandalizeth, or layeth any stumbling block before his Brother;\nbecause how wise, or learned soever he be that worshippeth in that\nmanner, another man cannot from thence argue, that he approveth it; but\nthat he doth it for fear; and that it is not his act, but the act of the\nSoveraign.\n\nTo worship God, in some peculiar Place, or turning a mans face towards\nan Image, or determinate Place, is not to worship, or honor the Place,\nor Image; but to acknowledge it Holy, that is to say, to acknowledge\nthe Image, or the Place to be set apart from common use: for that is the\nmeaning of the word Holy; which implies no new quality in the Place, or\nImage; but onely a new Relation by Appropriation to God; and therefore\nis not Idolatry; no more than it was Idolatry to worship God before\nthe Brazen Serpent; or for the Jews when they were out of their owne\ncountrey, to turn their faces (when they prayed) toward the Temple of\nJerusalem; or for Moses to put off his Shoes when he was before the\nFlaming Bush, the ground appertaining to Mount Sinai; which place God\nhad chosen to appear in, and to give his Laws to the People of Israel,\nand was therefore Holy ground, not by inhaerent sanctity, but by\nseparation to Gods use; or for Christians to worship in the Churches,\nwhich are once solemnly dedicated to God for that purpose, by the\nAuthority of the King, or other true Representant of the Church. But to\nworship God, is inanimating, or inhibiting, such Image, or place; that\nis to say, an infinite substance in a finite place, is Idolatry: for\nsuch finite Gods, are but Idols of the brain, nothing reall; and are\ncommonly called in the Scripture by the names of Vanity, and Lyes, and\nNothing. Also to worship God, not as inanimating, or present in the\nplace, or Image; but to the end to be put in mind of him, or of some\nworks of his, in case the Place, or Image be dedicated, or set up\nby private authority, and not by the authority of them that are our\nSoveraign Pastors, is Idolatry. For the Commandement is, \"Thou shalt not\nmake to thy selfe any graven image.\" God commanded Moses to set up the\nBrazen Serpent; hee did not make it to himselfe; it was not therefore\nagainst the Commandement. But the making of the Golden Calfe by Aaron,\nand the People, as being done without authority from God, was Idolatry;\nnot onely because they held it for God, but also because they made it\nfor a Religious use, without warrant either from God their Soveraign, or\nfrom Moses, that was his Lieutenant.\n\nThe Gentiles worshipped for Gods, Jupiter, and others; that living, were\nmen perhaps that had done great and glorious Acts; and for the Children\nof God, divers men and women, supposing them gotten between an Immortall\nDeity, and a mortall man. This was Idolatry, because they made them so\nto themselves, having no authority from God, neither in his eternall Law\nof Reason, nor in his positive and revealed Will. But though our Saviour\nwas a man, whom wee also beleeve to bee God Immortall, and the Son of\nGod; yet this is no Idolatry; because wee build not that beleef upon\nour own fancy, or judgment, but upon the Word of God revealed in the\nScriptures. And for the adoration of the Eucharist, if the words of\nChrist, \"This is my Body,\" signifie, \"that he himselfe, and the seeming\nbread in his hand; and not onely so, but that all the seeming morsells\nof bread that have ever since been, and any time hereafter shall bee\nconsecrated by Priests, bee so many Christs bodies, and yet all of them\nbut one body,\" then is that no Idolatry, because it is authorized by our\nSaviour: but if that text doe not signifie that, (for there is no other\nthat can be alledged for it,) then, because it is a worship of humane\ninstitution, it is Idolatry. For it is not enough to say, God can\ntransubstantiate the Bread into Christs Body: For the Gentiles also held\nGod to be Omnipotent; and might upon that ground no lesse excuse their\nIdolatry, by pretending, as well as others, as transubstantiation of\ntheir Wood, and Stone into God Almighty.\n\nWhereas there be, that pretend Divine Inspiration, to be a supernaturall\nentring of the Holy Ghost into a man, and not an acquisition of Gods\ngrace, by doctrine, and study; I think they are in a very dangerous\nDilemma. For if they worship not the men whom they beleeve to be so\ninspired, they fall into Impiety; as not adoring Gods supernaturall\nPresence. And again, if they worship them, they commit Idolatry; for the\nApostles would never permit themselves to be so worshipped. Therefore\nthe safest way is to beleeve, that by the Descending of the Dove upon\nthe Apostles; and by Christs Breathing on them, when hee gave them\nthe Holy Ghost; and by the giving of it by Imposition of Hands, are\nunderstood the signes which God hath been pleased to use, or ordain to\nbe used, of his promise to assist those persons in their study to\nPreach his Kingdome, and in their Conversation, that it might not be\nScandalous, but Edifying to others.\n\n\n\n\nScandalous Worship Of Images\n\nBesides the Idolatrous Worship of Images, there is also a Scandalous\nWorship of them; which is also a sin; but not Idolatry. For Idolatry is\nto worship by signes of an internall, and reall honour: but Scandalous\nWorship, is but Seeming Worship; and may sometimes bee joined with\nan inward, and hearty detestation, both of the Image, and of the\nPhantasticall Daemon, or Idol, to which it is dedicated; and proceed\nonely from the fear of death, or other grievous punishment; and is\nneverthelesse a sin in them that so worship, in case they be men whose\nactions are looked at by others, as lights to guide them by; because\nfollowing their ways, they cannot but stumble, and fall in the way of\nReligion: Whereas the example of those we regard not, works not on us\nat all, but leaves us to our own diligence and caution; and consequently\nare no causes of our falling.\n\nIf therefore a Pastor lawfully called to teach and direct others, or any\nother, of whose knowledge there is a great opinion, doe externall honor\nto an Idol for fear; unlesse he make his feare, and unwillingnesse to\nit, as evident as the worship; he Scandalizeth his Brother, by seeming\nto approve Idolatry. For his Brother, arguing from the action of his\nteacher, or of him whose knowledge he esteemeth great, concludes it\nto bee lawfull in it selfe. And this Scandall, is Sin, and a Scandall\ngiven. But if one being no Pastor, nor of eminent reputation for\nknowledge in Christian Doctrine, doe the same, and another follow him;\nthis is no Scandall given; for he had no cause to follow such example:\nbut is a pretence of Scandall which hee taketh of himselfe for an excuse\nbefore men: For an unlearned man, that is in the power of an idolatrous\nKing, or State, if commanded on pain of death to worship before an\nIdoll, hee detesteth the Idoll in his heart, hee doth well; though if he\nhad the fortitude to suffer death, rather than worship it, he should\ndoe better. But if a Pastor, who as Christs Messenger, has undertaken to\nteach Christs Doctrine to all nations, should doe the same, it were\nnot onely a sinfull Scandall, in respect of other Christian mens\nconsciences, but a perfidious forsaking of his charge.\n\nThe summe of that which I have said hitherto, concerning the Worship of\nImages, is that, that he that worshippeth in an Image, or any Creature,\neither the Matter thereof, or any Fancy of his own, which he thinketh\nto dwell in it; or both together; or beleeveth that such things hear\nhis Prayers, or see his Devotions, without Ears, or Eyes, committeth\nIdolatry: and he that counterfeiteth such Worship for fear of\npunishment, if he bee a man whose example hath power amongst his\nBrethren, committeth a sin: But he that worshippeth the Creator of the\nworld before such an Image, or in such a place as he hath not made, or\nchosen of himselfe, but taken from the commandement of Gods Word, as the\nJewes did in worshipping God before the Cherubins, and before the Brazen\nSerpent for a time, and in, or towards the Temple of Jerusalem, which\nwas also but for a time, committeth not Idolatry.\n\nNow for the Worship of Saints, and Images, and Reliques, and other\nthings at this day practised in the Church of Rome, I say they are not\nallowed by the Word of God, not brought into the Church of Rome, from\nthe Doctrine there taught; but partly left in it at the first conversion\nof the Gentiles; and afterwards countenanced, and confirmed, and\naugmented by the Bishops of Rome.\n\n\n\n\nAnswer To The Argument From The Cherubins, And Brazen Serpent\n\nAs for the proofs alledged out of Scripture, namely, those examples\nof Images appointed by God to bee set up; They were not set up for the\npeople, or any man to worship; but that they should worship God himselfe\nbefore them: as before the Cherubins over the Ark, and the Brazen\nSerpent. For we read not, that the Priest, or any other did worship the\nCherubins; but contrarily wee read (2 Kings 18.4.) that Hezekiah brake\nin pieces the Brazen Serpent which Moses had set up, because the\nPeople burnt incense to it. Besides, those examples are not put for\nour Imitation, that we also should set up Images, under pretence\nof worshipping God before them; because the words of the second\nCommandement, \"Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any graven Image, &c.\"\ndistinguish between the Images that God commanded to be set up, and\nthose which wee set up to our selves. And therefore from the Cherubins,\nor Brazen Serpent, to the Images of mans devising; and from the Worship\ncommanded by God, to the Will-Worship of men, the argument is not good.\nThis also is to bee considered, that as Hezekiah brake in pieces the\nBrazen Serpent, because the Jews did worship it, to the end they should\ndoe so no more; so also Christian Soveraigns ought to break down the\nImages which their Subjects have been accustomed to worship; that there\nbe no more occasion of such Idolatry. For at this day, the ignorant\nPeople, where Images are worshipped, doe really beleeve there is a\nDivine Power in the Images; and are told by their Pastors, that some\nof them have spoken; and have bled; and that miracles have been done by\nthem; which they apprehend as done by the Saint, which they think either\nis the Image it self, or in it. The Israelites, when they worshipped the\nCalfe, did think they worshipped the God that brought them out of Egypt;\nand yet it was Idolatry, because they thought the Calfe either was\nthat God, or had him in his belly. And though some man may think it\nimpossible for people to be so stupid, as to think the Image to be\nGod, or a Saint; or to worship it in that notion; yet it is manifest\nin Scripture to the contrary; where when the Golden Calfe was made, the\npeople said, (Exod. 32. 2.) \"These are thy Gods O Israel;\" and where the\nImages of Laban (Gen. 31.30.) are called his Gods. And wee see daily by\nexperience in all sorts of People, that such men as study nothing but\ntheir food and ease, are content to beleeve any absurdity, rather than\nto trouble themselves to examine it; holding their faith as it were by\nentaile unalienable, except by an expresse and new Law.\n\n\n\n\nPainting Of Fancies No Idolatry: Abusing Them To Religious Worship Is\n\nBut they inferre from some other places, that it is lawfull to paint\nAngels, and also God himselfe: as from Gods walking in the Garden; from\nJacobs seeing God at the top of the ladder; and from other Visions, and\nDreams. But Visions, and Dreams whether naturall, or supernaturall, are\nbut Phantasmes: and he that painteth an Image of any of them, maketh not\nan Image of God, but of his own Phantasm, which is, making of an Idol. I\nsay not, that to draw a Picture after a fancy, is a Sin; but when it\nis drawn, to hold it for a Representation of God, is against the second\nCommandement; and can be of no use, but to worship. And the same may be\nsaid of the Images of Angels, and of men dead; unlesse as Monuments of\nfriends, or of men worthy remembrance: For such use of an Image, is not\nWorship of the Image; but a civill honoring of the Person, not that is,\nbut that was: But when it is done to the Image which we make of a Saint,\nfor no other reason, but that we think he heareth our prayers, and is\npleased with the honour wee doe him, when dead, and without sense, wee\nattribute to him more than humane power; and therefore it is Idolatry.\n\nSeeing therefore there is no authority, neither in the Law of Moses,\nnor in the Gospel, for the religious Worship of Images, or other\nRepresentations of God, which men set up to themselves; or for the\nWorship of the Image of any Creature in Heaven, or Earth, or under the\nEarth: And whereas Christian Kings, who are living Representants of God,\nare not to be worshipped by their Subjects, by any act, that signifieth\na greater esteem of his power, than the nature of mortall man is capable\nof; It cannot be imagined, that the Religious Worship now in use,\nwas brought into the Church, by misunderstanding of the Scripture. It\nresteth therefore, that it was left in it, by not destroying the Images\nthemselves, in the conversion of the Gentiles that worshipped them.\n\n\n\n\nHow Idolatry Was Left In The Church\n\nThe cause whereof, was the immoderate esteem, and prices set upon the\nworkmanship of them, which made the owners (though converted, from\nworshipping them as they had done Religiously for Daemons) to retain\nthem still in their houses, upon pretence of doing it in the honor of\nChrist, of the Virgin Mary, and of the Apostles, and other the Pastors\nof the Primitive Church; as being easie, by giving them new names, to\nmake that an Image of the Virgin Mary, and of her Sonne our Saviour,\nwhich before perhaps was called the Image of Venus, and Cupid; and so of\na Jupiter to make a Barnabas, and of Mercury a Paul, and the like. And\nas worldly ambition creeping by degrees into the Pastors, drew them to\nan endeavour of pleasing the new made Christians; and also to a liking\nof this kind of honour, which they also might hope for after their\ndecease, as well as those that had already gained it: so the worshipping\nof the Images of Christ and his Apostles, grow more and more Idolatrous;\nsave that somewhat after the time of Constantine, divers Emperors, and\nBishops, and generall Councells observed, and opposed the unlawfulnesse\nthereof; but too late, or too weakly.\n\n\n\n\nCanonizing Of Saints\n\nThe Canonizing of Saints, is another Relique of Gentilisme: It is\nneither a misunderstanding of Scripture, nor a new invention of the\nRoman Church, but a custome as ancient as the Common-wealth of Rome it\nself. The first that ever was canonized at Rome, was Romulus, and that\nupon the narration of Julius Proculus, that swore before the Senate,\nhe spake with him after his death, and was assured by him, he dwelt in\nHeaven, and was there called Quirinius, and would be propitious to\nthe State of their new City: And thereupon the Senate gave Publique\nTestimony of his Sanctity. Julius Caesar, and other Emperors after him,\nhad the like Testimony; that is, were Canonized for Saints; now defined;\nand is the same with the Apotheosis of the Heathen.\n\n\n\n\nThe Name Of Pontifex\n\nIt is also from the Roman Heathen, that the Popes have received the\nname, and power of PONTIFEX MAXIMUS. This was the name of him that in\nthe ancient Common-wealth of Rome, had the Supreme Authority under\nthe Senate and People, of regulating all Ceremonies, and Doctrines\nconcerning their Religion: And when Augustus Caesar changed the State\ninto a Monarchy, he took to himselfe no more but this office, and that\nof Tribune of the People, (than is to say, the Supreme Power both in\nState, and Religion;) and the succeeding Emperors enjoyed the same. But\nwhen the Emperour Constantine lived, who was the first that professed\nand authorized Christian Religion, it was consonant to his profession,\nto cause Religion to be regulated (under his authority) by the Bishop\nof Rome: Though it doe not appear they had so soon the name of Pontifex;\nbut rather, that the succeeding Bishops took it of themselves, to\ncountenance the power they exercised over the Bishops of the Roman\nProvinces. For it is not any Priviledge of St. Peter, but the Priviledge\nof the City of Rome, which the Emperors were alwaies willing to uphold;\nthat gave them such authority over other Bishops; as may be evidently\nseen by that, that the Bishop of Constantinople, when the Emperour made\nthat City the Seat of the Empire, pretended to bee equall to the Bishop\nof Rome; though at last, not without contention, the Pope carryed it,\nand became the Pontifex Maximus; but in right onely of the Emperour; and\nnot without the bounds of the Empire; nor any where, after the Emperour\nhad lost his power in Rome; though it were the Pope himself that took\nhis power from him. From whence wee may by the way observe, that there\nis no place for the superiority of the Pope over other Bishops, except\nin the territories whereof he is himself the Civill Soveraign; and where\nthe Emperour having Soveraign Power Civill, hath expressely chosen the\nPope for the chief Pastor under himselfe, of his Christian Subjects.\n\n\n\n\nProcession Of Images\n\nThe carrying about of Images in Procession, is another Relique of the\nReligion of the Greeks, and Romans: For they also carried their\nIdols from place to place, in a kind of Chariot, which was peculiarly\ndedicated to that use, which the Latines called Thensa, and Vehiculum\nDeorum; and the Image was placed in a frame, or Shrine, which they\ncalled Ferculum: And that which they called Pompa, is the same that\nnow is named Procession: According whereunto, amongst the Divine Honors\nwhich were given to Julius Caesar by the Senate, this was one, that in\nthe Pompe (or Procession) at the Circaean games, he should have Thensam\n& Ferculum, a sacred Chariot, and a Shrine; which was as much, as to be\ncarried up and down as a God: Just as at this day the Popes are carried\nby Switzers under a Canopie.\n\n\n\n\nWax Candles, And Torches Lighted\n\nTo these Processions also belonged the bearing of burning Torches, and\nCandles, before the Images of the Gods, both amongst the Greeks, and\nRomans. For afterwards the Emperors of Rome received the same honor; as\nwe read of Caligula, that at his reception to the Empire, he was carried\nfrom Misenum to Rome, in the midst of a throng of People, the wayes\nbeset with Altars, and Beasts for Sacrifice, and burning Torches: And\nof Caracalla that was received into Alexandria with Incense, and with\ncasting of Flowers, and Dadouchiais, that is, with Torches; for Dadochoi\nwere they that amongst the Greeks carried Torches lighted in the\nProcessions of their Gods: And in processe of time, the devout, but\nignorant People, did many times honor their Bishops with the like\npompe of Wax Candles, and the Images of our Saviour, and the Saints,\nconstantly, in the Church it self. And thus came in the use of Wax\nCandles; and was also established by some of the ancient Councells.\n\nThe Heathens had also their Aqua Lustralis, that is to say, Holy Water.\nThe Church of Rome imitates them also in their Holy Dayes. They had\ntheir Bacchanalia; and we have our Wakes, answering to them: They\ntheir Saturnalia, and we our Carnevalls, and Shrove-tuesdays liberty\nof Servants: They their Procession of Priapus; wee our fetching in,\nerection, and dancing about May-poles; and Dancing is one kind of\nWorship: They had their Procession called Ambarvalia; and we our\nProcession about the fields in the Rogation Week. Nor do I think that\nthese are all the Ceremonies that have been left in the Church, from the\nfirst conversion of the Gentiles: but they are all that I can for the\npresent call to mind; and if a man would wel observe that which is\ndelivered in the Histories, concerning the Religious Rites of the Greeks\nand Romanes, I doubt not but he might find many more of these old empty\nBottles of Gentilisme, which the Doctors of the Romane Church, either\nby Negligence, or Ambition, have filled up again with the new Wine of\nChristianity, that will not faile in time to break them.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLVI. OF DARKNESSE FROM VAIN PHILOSOPHY, AND FABULOUS TRADITIONS\n\n\n\n\nWhat Philosophy Is\n\nBy Philosophy is understood \"the Knowledge acquired by Reasoning, from\nthe Manner of the Generation of any thing, to the Properties; or from\nthe Properties, to some possible Way of Generation of the same; to the\nend to bee able to produce, as far as matter, and humane force permit,\nsuch Effects, as humane life requireth.\" So the Geometrician, from the\nConstruction of Figures, findeth out many Properties thereof; and from\nthe Properties, new Ways of their Construction, by Reasoning; to the end\nto be able to measure Land and Water; and for infinite other uses. So\nthe Astronomer, from the Rising, Setting, and Moving of the Sun, and\nStarres, in divers parts of the Heavens, findeth out the Causes of Day,\nand Night, and of the different Seasons of the Year; whereby he keepeth\nan account of Time: And the like of other Sciences.\n\n\n\n\nPrudence No Part Of Philosophy\n\nBy which Definition it is evident, that we are not to account as any\npart thereof, that originall knowledge called Experience, in which\nconsisteth Prudence: Because it is not attained by Reasoning, but found\nas well in Brute Beasts, as in Man; and is but a Memory of successions\nof events in times past, wherein the omission of every little\ncircumstance altering the effect, frustrateth the expectation of the\nmost Prudent: whereas nothing is produced by Reasoning aright, but\ngenerall, eternall, and immutable Truth.\n\n\n\n\nNo False Doctrine Is Part Of Philosophy\n\nNor are we therefore to give that name to any false Conclusions: For he\nthat Reasoneth aright in words he understandeth, can never conclude an\nError:\n\n\n\nNo More Is Revelation Supernaturall\n\nNor to that which any man knows by supernaturall Revelation; because it\nis not acquired by Reasoning:\n\n\n\n\nNor Learning Taken Upon Credit Of Authors\n\nNor that which is gotten by Reasoning from the Authority of Books;\nbecause it is not by Reasoning from the Cause to the Effect, nor from\nthe Effect to the Cause; and is not Knowledge, but Faith.\n\n\n\n\nOf The Beginnings And Progresse Of Philosophy\n\nThe faculty of Reasoning being consequent to the use of Speech, it was\nnot possible, but that there should have been some generall Truthes\nfound out by Reasoning, as ancient almost as Language it selfe. The\nSavages of America, are not without some good Morall Sentences; also\nthey have a little Arithmetick, to adde, and divide in Numbers not too\ngreat: but they are not therefore Philosophers. For as there were Plants\nof Corn and Wine in small quantity dispersed in the Fields and Woods,\nbefore men knew their vertue, or made use of them for their nourishment,\nor planted them apart in Fields, and Vineyards; in which time they\nfed on Akorns, and drank Water: so also there have been divers true,\ngenerall, and profitable Speculations from the beginning; as being the\nnaturall plants of humane Reason: But they were at first but few in\nnumber; men lived upon grosse Experience; there was no Method; that is\nto say, no Sowing, nor Planting of Knowledge by it self, apart from the\nWeeds, and common Plants of Errour and Conjecture: And the cause of it\nbeing the want of leasure from procuring the necessities of life, and\ndefending themselves against their neighbours, it was impossible, till\nthe erecting of great Common-wealths, it should be otherwise. Leasure\nis the mother of Philosophy; and Common-wealth, the mother of Peace, and\nLeasure: Where first were great and flourishing Cities, there was first\nthe study of Philosophy. The Gymnosophists of India, the Magi of Persia,\nand the Priests of Chaldea and Egypt, are counted the most ancient\nPhilosophers; and those Countreys were the most ancient of Kingdomes.\nPhilosophy was not risen to the Graecians, and other people of the West,\nwhose Common-wealths (no greater perhaps then Lucca, or Geneva) had\nnever Peace, but when their fears of one another were equall; nor the\nLeasure to observe any thing but one another. At length, when Warre had\nunited many of these Graecian lesser Cities, into fewer, and greater;\nthen began Seven Men, of severall parts of Greece, to get the reputation\nof being Wise; some of them for Morall and Politique Sentences; and\nothers for the learning of the Chaldeans and Egyptians, which was\nAstronomy, and Geometry. But we hear not yet of any Schools of\nPhilosophy.\n\n\n\n\nOf The Schools Of Philosophy Amongst The Athenians\n\nAfter the Athenians by the overthrow of the Persian Armies, had gotten\nthe Dominion of the Sea; and thereby, of all the Islands, and Maritime\nCities of the Archipelago, as well of Asia as Europe; and were grown\nwealthy; they that had no employment, neither at home, nor abroad, had\nlittle else to employ themselves in, but either (as St. Luke says, Acts\n17.21.) \"in telling and hearing news,\" or in discoursing of Philosophy\npubliquely to the youth of the City. Every Master took some place for\nthat purpose. Plato in certaine publique Walks called Academia, from one\nAcademus: Aristotle in the Walk of the Temple of Pan, called Lycaeum:\nothers in the Stoa, or covered Walk, wherein the Merchants Goods were\nbrought to land: others in other places; where they spent the time of\ntheir Leasure, in teaching or in disputing of their Opinions: and some\nin any place, where they could get the youth of the City together to\nhear them talk. And this was it which Carneades also did at Rome, when\nhe was Ambassadour: which caused Cato to advise the Senate to dispatch\nhim quickly, for feare of corrupting the manners of the young men that\ndelighted to hear him speak (as they thought) fine things.\n\nFrom this it was, that the place where any of them taught, and disputed,\nwas called Schola, which in their Tongue signifieth Leasure; and their\nDisputations, Diatribae, that is to say, Passing of The Time. Also the\nPhilosophers themselves had the name of their Sects, some of them from\nthese their Schools: For they that followed Plato's Doctrine, were\ncalled Academiques; The followers of Aristotle, Peripatetiques, from the\nWalk hee taught in; and those that Zeno taught, Stoiques, from the Stoa:\nas if we should denominate men from More-fields, from Pauls-Church, and\nfrom the Exchange, because they meet there often, to prate and loyter.\n\nNeverthelesse, men were so much taken with this custome, that in time\nit spread it selfe over all Europe, and the best part of Afrique; so as\nthere were Schools publiquely erected, and maintained for Lectures, and\nDisputations, almost in every Common-wealth.\n\n\n\n\nOf The Schools Of The Jews\n\nThere were also Schools, anciently, both before, and after the time of\nour Saviour, amongst the Jews: but they were Schools of their Law. For\nthough they were called Synagogues, that is to say, Congregations of the\nPeople; yet in as much as the Law was every Sabbath day read, expounded,\nand disputed in them, they differed not in nature, but in name onely\nfrom Publique Schools; and were not onely in Jerusalem, but in every\nCity of the Gentiles, where the Jews inhabited. There was such a Schoole\nat Damascus, whereinto Paul entred, to persecute. There were others at\nAntioch, Iconium and Thessalonica, whereinto he entred, to dispute:\nAnd such was the Synagogue of the Libertines, Cyrenians, Alexandrians,\nCilicians, and those of Asia; that is to say, the Schoole of Libertines,\nand of Jewes, that were strangers in Jerusalem: And of this Schoole they\nwere that disputed with Saint Steven.\n\n\n\n\nThe Schoole Of Graecians Unprofitable\n\nBut what has been the Utility of those Schools? what Science is there\nat this day acquired by their Readings and Disputings? That wee have\nof Geometry, which is the Mother of all Naturall Science, wee are not\nindebted for it to the Schools. Plato that was the best Philosopher\nof the Greeks, forbad entrance into his Schoole, to all that were not\nalready in some measure Geometricians. There were many that studied that\nScience to the great advantage of mankind: but there is no mention of\ntheir Schools; nor was there any Sect of Geometricians; nor did they\nthen passe under the name of Philosophers. The naturall Philosophy\nof those Schools, was rather a Dream than Science, and set forth in\nsenselesse and insignificant Language; which cannot be avoided by\nthose that will teach Philosophy, without having first attained great\nknowledge in Geometry: For Nature worketh by Motion; the Wayes,\nand Degrees whereof cannot be known, without the knowledge of the\nProportions and Properties of Lines, and Figures. Their Morall\nPhilosophy is but a description of their own Passions. For the rule of\nManners, without Civill Government, is the Law of Nature; and in it,\nthe Law Civill; that determineth what is Honest, and Dishonest; what is\nJust, and Unjust; and generally what is Good, and Evill: whereas they\nmake the Rules of Good, and Bad, by their own Liking, and Disliking: By\nwhich means, in so great diversity of taste, there is nothing generally\nagreed on; but every one doth (as far as he dares) whatsoever seemeth\ngood in his own eyes, to the subversion of Common-wealth. Their Logique\nwhich should bee the Method of Reasoning, is nothing else but Captions\nof Words, and Inventions how to puzzle such as should goe about to pose\nthem. To conclude there is nothing so absurd, that the old Philosophers\n(as Cicero saith, who was one of them) have not some of them maintained.\nAnd I beleeve that scarce any thing can be more absurdly said\nin naturall Philosophy, than that which now is called Aristotles\nMetaphysiques, nor more repugnant to Government, than much of that hee\nhath said in his Politiques; nor more ignorantly, than a great part of\nhis Ethiques.\n\n\n\n\nThe Schools Of The Jews Unprofitable\n\nThe Schoole of the Jews, was originally a Schoole of the Law of Moses;\nwho commanded (Deut. 31.10.) that at the end of every seventh year, at\nthe Feast of the Tabernacles, it should be read to all the people, that\nthey might hear, and learn it: Therefore the reading of the Law (which\nwas in use after the Captivity) every Sabbath day, ought to have had\nno other end, but the acquainting of the people with the Commandements\nwhich they were to obey, and to expound unto them the writings of the\nProphets. But it is manifest, by the many reprehensions of them by\nour Saviour, that they corrupted the Text of the Law with their\nfalse Commentaries, and vain Traditions; and so little understood the\nProphets, that they did neither acknowledge Christ, nor the works he\ndid; for which the Prophets prophecyed. So that by their Lectures and\nDisputations in their Synagogues, they turned the Doctrine of their Law\ninto a Phantasticall kind of Philosophy, concerning the incomprehensible\nnature of God, and of Spirits; which they compounded of the Vain\nPhilosophy and Theology of the Graecians, mingled with their own\nfancies, drawn from the obscurer places of the Scripture, and which\nmight most easily bee wrested to their purpose; and from the Fabulous\nTraditions of their Ancestors.\n\n\n\n\nUniversity What It Is\n\nThat which is now called an University, is a Joyning together, and an\nIncorporation under one Government of many Publique Schools, in one and\nthe same Town or City. In which, the principal Schools were ordained for\nthe three Professions, that is to say, of the Romane Religion, of the\nRomane Law, and of the Art of Medicine. And for the study of Philosophy\nit hath no otherwise place, then as a handmaid to the Romane Religion:\nAnd since the Authority of Aristotle is onely current there, that\nstudy is not properly Philosophy, (the nature whereof dependeth not on\nAuthors,) but Aristotelity. And for Geometry, till of very late times it\nhad no place at all; as being subservient to nothing but rigide Truth.\nAnd if any man by the ingenuity of his owne nature, had attained to any\ndegree of perfection therein, hee was commonly thought a Magician, and\nhis Art Diabolicall.\n\n\n\n\nErrors Brought Into Religion From Aristotles Metaphysiques\n\nNow to descend to the particular Tenets of Vain Philosophy, derived to\nthe Universities, and thence into the Church, partly from Aristotle,\npartly from Blindnesse of understanding; I shall first consider their\nPrinciples. There is a certain Philosophia Prima, on which all other\nPhilosophy ought to depend; and consisteth principally, in right\nlimiting of the significations of such Appellations, or Names, as are\nof all others the most Universall: Which Limitations serve to avoid\nambiguity, and aequivocation in Reasoning; and are commonly called\nDefinitions; such as are the Definitions of Body, Time, Place, Matter,\nForme, Essence, Subject, Substance, Accident, Power, Act, Finite,\nInfinite, Quantity, Quality, Motion, Action, Passion, and divers others,\nnecessary to the explaining of a mans Conceptions concerning the Nature\nand Generation of Bodies. The Explication (that is, the setling of the\nmeaning) of which, and the like Terms, is commonly in the Schools called\nMetaphysiques; as being a part of the Philosophy of Aristotle, which\nhath that for title: but it is in another sense; for there it signifieth\nas much, as \"Books written, or placed after his naturall Philosophy:\"\nBut the Schools take them for Books Of Supernaturall Philosophy: for the\nword Metaphysiques will bear both these senses. And indeed that which is\nthere written, is for the most part so far from the possibility of being\nunderstood, and so repugnant to naturall Reason, that whosoever\nthinketh there is any thing to bee understood by it, must needs think it\nsupernaturall.\n\n\n\n\nErrors Concerning Abstract Essences\n\nFrom these Metaphysiques, which are mingled with the Scripture to make\nSchoole Divinity, wee are told, there be in the world certaine\nEssences separated from Bodies, which they call Abstract Essences, and\nSubstantiall Formes: For the Interpreting of which Jargon, there is\nneed of somewhat more than ordinary attention in this place. Also I\nask pardon of those that are not used to this kind of Discourse, for\napplying my selfe to those that are. The World, (I mean not the Earth\nonely, that denominates the Lovers of it Worldly Men, but the Universe,\nthat is, the whole masse of all things that are) is Corporeall, that\nis to say, Body; and hath the dimensions of Magnitude, namely, Length,\nBredth, and Depth: also every part of Body, is likewise Body, and hath\nthe like dimensions; and consequently every part of the Universe,\nis Body, and that which is not Body, is no part of the Universe: And\nbecause the Universe is all, that which is no part of it, is Nothing;\nand consequently No Where. Nor does it follow from hence, that Spirits\nare Nothing: for they have dimensions, and are therefore really Bodies;\nthough that name in common Speech be given to such Bodies onely, as are\nvisible, or palpable; that is, that have some degree of Opacity: But for\nSpirits, they call them Incorporeall; which is a name of more honour,\nand may therefore with more piety bee attributed to God himselfe; in\nwhom wee consider not what Attribute expresseth best his Nature, which\nis Incomprehensible; but what best expresseth our desire to honour him.\n\nTo know now upon what grounds they say there be Essences Abstract, or\nSubstantiall Formes, wee are to consider what those words do properly\nsignifie. The use of Words, is to register to our selves, and make\nmanifest to others the Thoughts and Conceptions of our Minds. Of which\nWords, some are the names of the Things conceived; as the names of all\nsorts of Bodies, that work upon the Senses, and leave an Impression in\nthe Imagination: Others are the names of the Imaginations themselves;\nthat is to say, of those Ideas, or mentall Images we have of all things\nwee see, or remember: And others againe are names of Names; or of\ndifferent sorts of Speech: As Universall, Plurall, Singular, Negation,\nTrue, False, Syllogisme, Interrogation, Promise, Covenant, are the names\nof certain Forms of Speech. Others serve to shew the Consequence, or\nRepugnance of one name to another; as when one saith, \"A Man is a Body,\"\nhee intendeth that the name of Body is necessarily consequent to the\nname of Man; as being but severall names of the same thing, Man; which\nConsequence is signified by coupling them together with the word Is.\nAnd as wee use the Verbe Is; so the Latines use their Verbe Est, and\nthe Greeks their Esti through all its Declinations. Whether all other\nNations of the world have in their severall languages a word that\nanswereth to it, or not, I cannot tell; but I am sure they have not need\nof it: For the placing of two names in order may serve to signifie their\nConsequence, if it were the custome, (for Custome is it, that give words\ntheir force,) as well as the words Is, or Bee, or Are, and the like.\n\nAnd if it were so, that there were a Language without any Verb\nanswerable to Est, or Is, or Bee; yet the men that used it would bee\nnot a jot the lesse capable of Inferring, Concluding, and of all kind of\nReasoning, than were the Greeks, and Latines. But what then would become\nof these Terms, of Entity, Essence, Essentiall, Essentially, that are\nderived from it, and of many more that depend on these, applyed as most\ncommonly they are? They are therefore no Names of Things; but Signes, by\nwhich wee make known, that wee conceive the Consequence of one name or\nAttribute to another: as when we say, \"a Man, is, a living Body,\" wee\nmean not that the Man is one thing, the Living Body another, and the Is,\nor Beeing a third: but that the Man, and the Living Body, is the same\nthing: because the Consequence, \"If hee bee a Man, hee is a living\nBody,\" is a true Consequence, signified by that word Is. Therefore, to\nbee a Body, to Walke, to bee Speaking, to Live, to See, and the like\nInfinitives; also Corporeity, Walking, Speaking, Life, Sight, and the\nlike, that signifie just the same, are the names of Nothing; as I have\nelsewhere more amply expressed.\n\nBut to what purpose (may some man say) is such subtilty in a work of\nthis nature, where I pretend to nothing but what is necessary to the\ndoctrine of Government and Obedience? It is to this purpose, that men\nmay no longer suffer themselves to be abused, by them, that by this\ndoctrine of Separated Essences, built on the Vain Philosophy of\nAristotle, would fright them from Obeying the Laws of their Countrey,\nwith empty names; as men fright Birds from the Corn with an empty\ndoublet, a hat, and a crooked stick. For it is upon this ground, that\nwhen a Man is dead and buried, they say his Soule (that is his Life) can\nwalk separated from his Body, and is seen by night amongst the graves.\nUpon the same ground they say, that the Figure, and Colour, and Tast of\na peece of Bread, has a being, there, where they say there is no Bread:\nAnd upon the same ground they say, that Faith, and Wisdome, and other\nVertues are sometimes powred into a man, sometimes blown into him from\nHeaven; as if the Vertuous, and their Vertues could be asunder; and a\ngreat many other things that serve to lessen the dependance of Subjects\non the Soveraign Power of their Countrey. For who will endeavour to obey\nthe Laws, if he expect Obedience to be Powred or Blown into him? Or who\nwill not obey a Priest, that can make God, rather than his Soveraign;\nnay than God himselfe? Or who, that is in fear of Ghosts, will not bear\ngreat respect to those that can make the Holy Water, that drives them\nfrom him? And this shall suffice for an example of the Errors, which are\nbrought into the Church, from the Entities, and Essences of Aristotle:\nwhich it may be he knew to be false Philosophy; but writ it as a thing\nconsonant to, and corroborative of their Religion; and fearing the fate\nof Socrates.\n\nBeing once fallen into this Error of Separated Essences, they are\nthereby necessarily involved in many other absurdities that follow it.\nFor seeing they will have these Forms to be reall, they are obliged to\nassign them some place. But because they hold them Incorporeall, without\nall dimension of Quantity, and all men know that Place is Dimension, and\nnot to be filled, but by that which is Corporeall; they are driven to\nuphold their credit with a distinction, that they are not indeed any\nwhere Circumscriptive, but Definitive: Which Terms being meer Words, and\nin this occasion insignificant, passe onely in Latine, that the vanity\nof them may bee concealed. For the Circumscription of a thing, is\nnothing else but the Determination, or Defining of its Place; and so\nboth the Terms of the Distinction are the same. And in particular, of\nthe Essence of a Man, which (they say) is his Soule, they affirm it,\nto be All of it in his little Finger, and All of it in every other Part\n(how small soever) of his Body; and yet no more Soule in the Whole Body,\nthan in any one of those Parts. Can any man think that God is served\nwith such absurdities? And yet all this is necessary to beleeve,\nto those that will beleeve the Existence of an Incorporeall Soule,\nSeparated from the Body.\n\nAnd when they come to give account, how an Incorporeall Substance can\nbe capable of Pain, and be tormented in the fire of Hell, or Purgatory,\nthey have nothing at all to answer, but that it cannot be known how fire\ncan burn Soules.\n\nAgain, whereas Motion is change of Place, and Incorporeall Substances\nare not capable of Place, they are troubled to make it seem possible,\nhow a Soule can goe hence, without the Body to Heaven, Hell, or\nPurgatory; and how the Ghosts of men (and I may adde of their clothes\nwhich they appear in) can walk by night in Churches, Church-yards, and\nother places of Sepulture. To which I know not what they can answer,\nunlesse they will say, they walke Definitive, not Circumscriptive, or\nSpiritually, not Temporally: for such egregious distinctions are equally\napplicable to any difficulty whatsoever.\n\n\n\n\nNunc-stans\n\nFor the meaning of Eternity, they will not have it to be an Endlesse\nSuccession of Time; for then they should not be able to render a reason\nhow Gods Will, and Praeordaining of things to come, should not be before\nhis Praescience of the same, as the Efficient Cause before the Effect,\nor Agent before the Action; nor of many other their bold opinions\nconcerning the Incomprehensible Nature of God. But they will teach us,\nthat Eternity is the Standing still of the Present Time, a Nunc-stans\n(as the Schools call it;) which neither they, nor any else understand,\nno more than they would a Hic-stans for an Infinite greatnesse of Place.\n\n\n\n\nOne Body In Many Places, And Many Bodies In One Place At Once\n\nAnd whereas men divide a Body in their thought, by numbring parts of\nit, and in numbring those parts, number also the parts of the Place\nit filled; it cannot be, but in making many parts, wee make also many\nplaces of those parts; whereby there cannot bee conceived in the mind of\nany man, more, or fewer parts, than there are places for: yet they will\nhave us beleeve, that by the Almighty power of God, one body may be at\none and the same time in many places; and many bodies at one and the\nsame time in one place; as if it were an acknowledgment of the Divine\nPower, to say, that which is, is not; or that which has been, has not\nbeen. And these are but a small part of the Incongruities they are\nforced to, from their disputing Philosophically, in stead of admiring,\nand adoring of the Divine and Incomprehensible Nature; whose Attributes\ncannot signifie what he is, but ought to signifie our desire to honour\nhim, with the best Appellations we can think on. But they that venture\nto reason of his Nature, from these Attributes of Honour, losing their\nunderstanding in the very first attempt, fall from one Inconvenience\ninto another, without end, and without number; in the same manner,\nas when a man ignorant of the Ceremonies of Court, comming into the\npresence of a greater Person than he is used to speak to, and stumbling\nat his entrance, to save himselfe from falling, lets slip his Cloake;\nto recover his Cloake, lets fall his Hat; and with one disorder after\nanother, discovers his astonishment and rusticity.\n\n\n\n\nAbsurdities In Naturall Philosophy, As Gravity The Cause Of Heavinesse\n\nThen for Physiques, that is, the knowledge of the subordinate, and\nsecundary causes of naturall events; they render none at all, but empty\nwords. If you desire to know why some kind of bodies sink naturally\ndownwards toward the Earth, and others goe naturally from it; The\nSchools will tell you out of Aristotle, that the bodies that sink\ndownwards, are Heavy; and that this Heavinesse is it that causes them to\ndescend: But if you ask what they mean by Heavinesse, they will define\nit to bee an endeavour to goe to the center of the Earth: so that the\ncause why things sink downward, is an Endeavour to be below: which is\nas much as to say, that bodies descend, or ascend, because they doe.\nOr they will tell you the center of the Earth is the place of Rest, and\nConservation for Heavy things; and therefore they endeavour to be there:\nAs if Stones, and Metalls had a desire, or could discern the place they\nwould bee at, as Man does; or loved Rest, as Man does not; or that a\npeece of Glasse were lesse safe in the Window, than falling into the\nStreet.\n\n\n\n\nQuantity Put Into Body Already Made\n\nIf we would know why the same Body seems greater (without adding to it)\none time, than another; they say, when it seems lesse, it is Condensed;\nwhen greater, Rarefied. What is that Condensed, and Rarefied? Condensed,\nis when there is in the very same Matter, lesse Quantity than before;\nand Rarefied, when more. As if there could be Matter, that had not some\ndetermined Quantity; when Quantity is nothing else but the Determination\nof Matter; that is to say of Body, by which we say one Body is greater,\nor lesser than another, by thus, or thus much. Or as if a Body were made\nwithout any Quantity at all, and that afterwards more, or lesse were put\ninto it, according as it is intended the Body should be more, or lesse\nDense.\n\n\n\n\nPowring In Of Soules\n\nFor the cause of the Soule of Man, they say, Creatur Infundendo, and\nCreando Infunditur: that is, \"It is Created by Powring it in,\" and\n\"Powred in by Creation.\"\n\n\n\n\nUbiquity Of Apparition\n\nFor the Cause of Sense, an ubiquity of Species; that is, of the Shews\nor Apparitions of objects; which when they be Apparitions to the Eye, is\nSight; when to the Eare, Hearing; to the Palate, Tast; to the Nostrill,\nSmelling; and to the rest of the Body, Feeling.\n\n\n\n\nWill, The Cause Of Willing\n\nFor cause of the Will, to doe any particular action, which is called\nVolitio, they assign the Faculty, that is to say, the Capacity in\ngenerall, that men have, to will sometimes one thing, sometimes another,\nwhich is called Voluntas; making the Power the cause of the Act: As\nif one should assign for cause of the good or evill Acts of men, their\nAbility to doe them.\n\n\n\n\nIgnorance An Occult Cause\n\nAnd in many occasions they put for cause of Naturall events, their own\nIgnorance, but disguised in other words: As when they say, Fortune is\nthe cause of things contingent; that is, of things whereof they know no\ncause: And as when they attribute many Effects to Occult Qualities; that\nis, qualities not known to them; and therefore also (as they thinke)\nto no Man else. And to Sympathy, Antipathy, Antiperistasis, Specificall\nQualities, and other like Termes, which signifie neither the Agent that\nproduceth them, nor the Operation by which they are produced.\n\nIf such Metaphysiques, and Physiques as this, be not Vain Philosophy,\nthere was never any; nor needed St. Paul to give us warning to avoid it.\n\n\n\n\nOne Makes The Things Incongruent, Another The Incongruity\n\nAnd for their Morall, and Civill Philosophy, it hath the same, or\ngreater absurdities. If a man doe an action of Injustice, that is to\nsay, an action contrary to the Law, God they say is the prime cause of\nthe Law, and also the prime cause of that, and all other Actions; but no\ncause at all of the Injustice; which is the Inconformity of the Action\nto the Law. This is Vain Philosophy. A man might as well say, that one\nman maketh both a streight line, and a crooked, and another maketh their\nIncongruity. And such is the Philosophy of all men that resolve of their\nConclusions, before they know their Premises; pretending to comprehend,\nthat which is Incomprehensible; and of Attributes of Honour to make\nAttributes of Nature; as this distinction was made to maintain the\nDoctrine of Free-Will, that is, of a Will of man, not subject to the\nWill of God.\n\n\n\n\nPrivate Appetite The Rule Of Publique Good:\n\nAristotle, and other Heathen Philosophers define Good, and Evill, by the\nAppetite of men; and well enough, as long as we consider them governed\nevery one by his own Law: For in the condition of men that have no other\nLaw but their own Appetites, there can be no generall Rule of Good, and\nEvill Actions. But in a Common-wealth this measure is false: Not the\nAppetite of Private men, but the Law, which is the Will and Appetite of\nthe State is the measure. And yet is this Doctrine still practised; and\nmen judge the Goodnesse, or Wickednesse of their own, and of other mens\nactions, and of the actions of the Common-wealth it selfe, by their own\nPassions; and no man calleth Good or Evill, but that which is so in his\nown eyes, without any regard at all to the Publique Laws; except onely\nMonks, and Friers, that are bound by Vow to that simple obedience to\ntheir Superiour, to which every Subject ought to think himself bound by\nthe Law of Nature to the Civill Soveraign. And this private measure of\nGood, is a Doctrine, not onely Vain, but also Pernicious to the Publique\nState.\n\n\n\n\nAnd That Lawfull Marriage Is Unchastity\n\nIt is also Vain and false Philosophy, to say the work of Marriage is\nrepugnant to Chastity, or Continence, and by consequence to make them\nMorall Vices; as they doe, that pretend Chastity, and Continence, for\nthe ground of denying Marriage to the Clergy. For they confesse it is\nno more, but a Constitution of the Church, that requireth in those holy\nOrders that continually attend the Altar, and administration of the\nEucharist, a continuall Abstinence from women, under the name of\ncontinuall Chastity, Continence, and Purity. Therefore they call the\nlawfull use of Wives, want of Chastity, and Continence; and so make\nMarriage a Sin, or at least a thing so impure, and unclean, as to render\na man unfit for the Altar. If the Law were made because the use of Wives\nis Incontinence, and contrary to Chastity, then all marriage is vice; If\nbecause it is a thing too impure, and unclean for a man consecrated to\nGod; much more should other naturall, necessary, and daily works which\nall men doe, render men unworthy to bee Priests, because they are more\nunclean.\n\nBut the secret foundation of this prohibition of Marriage of Priests, is\nnot likely to have been laid so slightly, as upon such errours in Morall\nPhilosophy; nor yet upon the preference of single life, to the estate of\nMatrimony; which proceeded from the wisdome of St. Paul, who perceived\nhow inconvenient a thing it was, for those that in those times of\npersecution were Preachers of the Gospel, and forced to fly from one\ncountrey to another, to be clogged with the care of wife and children;\nbut upon the design of the Popes, and Priests of after times, to make\nthemselves the Clergy, that is to say, sole Heirs of the Kingdome of God\nin this world; to which it was necessary to take from them the use of\nMarriage, because our Saviour saith, that at the coming of his Kingdome\nthe Children of God shall \"neither Marry, nor bee given in Marriage, but\nshall bee as the Angels in heaven;\" that is to say, Spirituall. Seeing\nthen they had taken on them the name of Spirituall, to have allowed\nthemselves (when there was no need) the propriety of Wives, had been an\nIncongruity.\n\n\n\n\nAnd That All Government But Popular, Is Tyranny\n\nFrom Aristotles Civill Philosophy, they have learned, to call all manner\nof Common-wealths but the Popular, (such as was at that time the state\nof Athens,) Tyranny. All Kings they called Tyrants; and the Aristocracy\nof the thirty Governours set up there by the Lacedemonians that subdued\nthem, the thirty Tyrants: As also to call the condition of the people\nunder the Democracy, Liberty. A Tyrant originally signified no more\nsimply, but a Monarch: But when afterwards in most parts of Greece that\nkind of government was abolished, the name began to signifie, not onely\nthe thing it did before, but with it, the hatred which the Popular\nStates bare towards it: As also the name of King became odious after the\ndeposing of the Kings in Rome, as being a thing naturall to all men,\nto conceive some great Fault to be signified in any Attribute, that is\ngiven in despight, and to a great Enemy. And when the same men shall be\ndispleased with those that have the administration of the Democracy,\nor Aristocracy, they are not to seek for disgraceful names to expresse\ntheir anger in; but call readily the one Anarchy, and the other\nOligarchy, or the Tyranny Of A Few. And that which offendeth the People,\nis no other thing, but that they are governed, not as every one of them\nwould himselfe, but as the Publique Representant, be it one Man, or an\nAssembly of men thinks fit; that is, by an Arbitrary government: for\nwhich they give evill names to their Superiors; never knowing (till\nperhaps a little after a Civill warre) that without such Arbitrary\ngovernment, such Warre must be perpetuall; and that it is Men, and Arms,\nnot Words, and Promises, that make the Force and Power of the Laws.\n\n\n\n\nThat Not Men, But Law Governs\n\nAnd therefore this is another Errour of Aristotles Politiques, that in\na wel ordered Common-wealth, not Men should govern, but the Laws. What\nman, that has his naturall Senses, though he can neither write nor read,\ndoes not find himself governed by them he fears, and beleeves can kill\nor hurt him when he obeyeth not? or that beleeves the Law can hurt him;\nthat is, Words, and Paper, without the Hands, and Swords of men? And\nthis is of the number of pernicious Errors: for they induce men, as oft\nas they like not their Governours, to adhaere to those that call them\nTyrants, and to think it lawfull to raise warre against them: And yet\nthey are many times cherished from the Pulpit, by the Clergy.\n\n\n\n\nLaws Over The Conscience\n\nThere is another Errour in their Civill Philosophy (which they never\nlearned of Aristotle, nor Cicero, nor any other of the Heathen,) to\nextend the power of the Law, which is the Rule of Actions onely, to the\nvery Thoughts, and Consciences of men, by Examination, and Inquisition\nof what they Hold, notwithstanding the Conformity of their Speech and\nActions: By which, men are either punished for answering the truth\nof their thoughts, or constrained to answer an untruth for fear of\npunishment. It is true, that the Civill Magistrate, intending to employ\na Minister in the charge of Teaching, may enquire of him, if hee bee\ncontent to Preach such, and such Doctrines; and in case of refusall,\nmay deny him the employment: But to force him to accuse himselfe of\nOpinions, when his Actions are not by Law forbidden, is against the\nLaw of Nature; and especially in them, who teach, that a man shall bee\ndamned to Eternall and extream torments, if he die in a false opinion\nconcerning an Article of the Christian Faith. For who is there, that\nknowing there is so great danger in an error, when the naturall care\nof himself, compelleth not to hazard his Soule upon his own judgement,\nrather than that of any other man that is unconcerned in his damnation?\n\n\n\n\nPrivate Interpretation Of Law\n\nFor a Private man, without the Authority of the Common-wealth, that is\nto say, without permission from the Representant thereof, to Interpret\nthe Law by his own Spirit, is another Error in the Politiques; but not\ndrawn from Aristotle, nor from any other of the Heathen Philosophers.\nFor none of them deny, but that in the Power of making Laws, is\ncomprehended also the Power of Explaining them when there is need. And\nare not the Scriptures, in all places where they are Law, made Law by\nthe Authority of the Common-wealth, and consequently, a part of the\nCivill Law?\n\nOf the same kind it is also, when any but the Soveraign restraineth in\nany man that power which the Common-wealth hath not restrained: as they\ndo, that impropriate the Preaching of the Gospell to one certain Order\nof men, where the Laws have left it free. If the State give me leave to\npreach, or teach; that is, if it forbid me not, no man can forbid me.\nIf I find my selfe amongst the Idolaters of America, shall I that am a\nChristian, though not in Orders, think it a sin to preach Jesus Christ,\ntill I have received Orders from Rome? or when I have preached, shall\nnot I answer their doubts, and expound the Scriptures to them; that is\nshall I not Teach? But for this may some say, as also for administring\nto them the Sacraments, the necessity shall be esteemed for a sufficient\nMission; which is true: But this is true also, that for whatsoever,\na dispensation is due for the necessity, for the same there needs no\ndispensation, when there is no Law that forbids it. Therefore to deny\nthese Functions to those, to whom the Civill Soveraigne hath not denyed\nthem, is a taking away of a lawfull Liberty, which is contrary to the\nDoctrine of Civill Government.\n\n\n\n\nLanguage Of Schoole-Divines\n\nMore examples of Vain Philosophy, brought into Religion by the Doctors\nof Schoole-Divinity, might be produced; but other men may if they please\nobserve them of themselves. I shall onely adde this, that the\nWritings of Schoole-Divines, are nothing else for the most part, but\ninsignificant Traines of strange and barbarous words, or words otherwise\nused, then in the common use of the Latine tongue; such as would pose\nCicero, and Varro, and all the Grammarians of ancient Rome. Which if any\nman would see proved, let him (as I have said once before) see whether\nhe can translate any Schoole-Divine into any of the Modern tongues, as\nFrench, English, or any other copious language: for that which cannot\nin most of these be made Intelligible, is no Intelligible in the Latine.\nWhich Insignificancy of language, though I cannot note it for false\nPhilosophy; yet it hath a quality, not onely to hide the Truth, but also\nto make men think they have it, and desist from further search.\n\n\n\n\nErrors From Tradition\n\nLastly, for the errors brought in from false, or uncertain History, what\nis all the Legend of fictitious Miracles, in the lives of the Saints;\nand all the Histories of Apparitions, and Ghosts, alledged by the\nDoctors of the Romane Church, to make good their Doctrines of Hell, and\npurgatory, the power of Exorcisme, and other Doctrines which have no\nwarrant, neither in Reason, nor Scripture; as also all those Traditions\nwhich they call the unwritten Word of God; but old Wives Fables?\nWhereof, though they find dispersed somewhat in the Writings of the\nancient Fathers; yet those Fathers were men, that might too easily\nbeleeve false reports; and the producing of their opinions for testimony\nof the truth of what they beleeved, hath no other force with them that\n(according to the Counsell of St. John 1 Epist. chap. 4. verse 1.)\nexamine Spirits, than in all things that concern the power of the Romane\nChurch, (the abuse whereof either they suspected not, or had benefit\nby it,) to discredit their testimony, in respect of too rash beleef of\nreports; which the most sincere men, without great knowledge of naturall\ncauses, (such as the Fathers were) are commonly the most subject to: For\nnaturally, the best men are the least suspicious of fraudulent purposes.\nGregory the Pope, and S. Bernard have somewhat of Apparitions of Ghosts,\nthat said they were in Purgatory; and so has our Beda: but no where, I\nbeleeve, but by report from others. But if they, or any other, relate\nany such stories of their own knowledge, they shall not thereby confirm\nthe more such vain reports; but discover their own Infirmity, or Fraud.\n\n\n\n\nSuppression Of Reason\n\nWith the Introduction of False, we may joyn also the suppression of True\nPhilosophy, by such men, as neither by lawfull authority, nor sufficient\nstudy, are competent Judges of the truth. Our own Navigations make\nmanifest, and all men learned in humane Sciences, now acknowledge there\nare Antipodes: And every day it appeareth more and more, that Years, and\nDayes are determined by Motions of the Earth. Neverthelesse, men that\nhave in their Writings but supposed such Doctrine, as an occasion to\nlay open the reasons for, and against it, have been punished for it\nby Authority Ecclesiasticall. But what reason is there for it? Is it\nbecause such opinions are contrary to true Religion? that cannot be,\nif they be true. Let therefore the truth be first examined by competent\nJudges, or confuted by them that pretend to know the contrary. Is\nit because they be contrary to the Religion established? Let them be\nsilenced by the Laws of those, to whom the Teachers of them are subject;\nthat is, by the Laws Civill: For disobedience may lawfully be punished\nin them, that against the Laws teach even true Philosophy. Is it because\nthey tend to disorder in Government, as countenancing Rebellion, or\nSedition? then let them be silenced, and the Teachers punished by vertue\nof his power to whom the care of the Publique quiet is committed; which\nis the Authority Civill. For whatsoever Power Ecclesiastiques take upon\nthemselves (in any place where they are subject to the State) in their\nown Right, though they call it Gods Right, is but Usurpation.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLVII. OF THE BENEFIT THAT PROCEEDETH FROM SUCH DARKNESSE,\n\nAND TO WHOM IT ACCREWETH\n\n\n\n\nHe That Receiveth Benefit By A Fact, Is Presumed To Be The Author\n\nCicero maketh honorable mention of one of the Cassii, a severe Judge\namongst the Romans, for a custome he had, in Criminal causes, (when the\ntestimony of the witnesses was not sufficient,) to ask the Accusers,\nCui Bono; that is to say, what Profit, Honor, or other Contentment, the\naccused obtained, or expected by the Fact. For amongst Praesumptions,\nthere is none that so evidently declareth the Author, as doth the\nBENEFIT of the Action. By the same rule I intend in this place to\nexamine, who they may be, that have possessed the People so long in this\npart of Christendome, with these Doctrines, contrary to the Peaceable\nSocieties of Mankind.\n\n\n\n\nThat The Church Militant Is The Kingdome Of God, Was First Taught By\n\nThe Church Of Rome\n\nAnd first, to this Error, That The Present Church Now Militant On Earth,\nIs The Kingdome Of God, (that is, the Kingdome of Glory, or the Land of\nPromise; not the Kingdome of Grace, which is but a Promise of the\nLand,) are annexed these worldly Benefits, First, that the Pastors,\nand Teachers of the Church, are entitled thereby, as Gods Publique\nMinisters, to a Right of Governing the Church; and consequently (because\nthe Church, and Common-wealth are the same Persons) to be Rectors, and\nGovernours of the Common-wealth. By this title it is, that the Pope\nprevailed with the subjects of all Christian Princes, to beleeve, that\nto disobey him, was to disobey Christ himselfe; and in all differences\nbetween him and other Princes, (charmed with the word Power Spirituall,)\nto abandon their lawfull Soveraigns; which is in effect an universall\nMonarchy over all Christendome. For though they were first invested in\nthe right of being Supreme Teachers of Christian Doctrine, by, and\nunder Christian Emperors, within the limits of the Romane Empire (as is\nacknowledged by themselves) by the title of Pontifex Maximus, who was an\nOfficer subject to the Civill State; yet after the Empire was divided,\nand dissolved, it was not hard to obtrude upon the people already\nsubject to them, another Title, namely, the Right of St. Peter; not\nonely to save entire their pretended Power; but also to extend the same\nover the same Christian Provinces, though no more united in the Empire\nof Rome. This Benefit of an Universall Monarchy, (considering the desire\nof men to bear Rule) is a sufficient Presumption, that the popes that\npretended to it, and for a long time enjoyed it, were the Authors of\nthe Doctrine, by which it was obtained; namely, that the Church now\non Earth, is the Kingdome of Christ. For that granted, it must be\nunderstood, that Christ hath some Lieutenant amongst us, by whom we are\nto be told what are his Commandements.\n\nAfter that certain Churches had renounced this universall Power of the\nPope, one would expect in reason, that the Civill Soveraigns in all\nthose Churches, should have recovered so much of it, as (before they had\nunadvisedly let it goe) was their own Right, and in their own hands.\nAnd in England it was so in effect; saving that they, by whom the Kings\nadministred the Government of Religion, by maintaining their imployment\nto be in Gods Right, seemed to usurp, if not a Supremacy, yet an\nIndependency on the Civill Power: and they but seemed to usurp it, in\nas much as they acknowledged a Right in the King, to deprive them of the\nExercise of their Functions at his pleasure.\n\n\n\n\nAnd Maintained Also By The Presbytery\n\nBut in those places where the Presbytery took that Office, though many\nother Doctrines of the Church of Rome were forbidden to be taught; yet\nthis Doctrine, that the Kingdome of Christ is already come, and that it\nbegan at the Resurrection of our Saviour, was still retained. But Cui\nBono? What Profit did they expect from it? The same which the Popes\nexpected: to have a Soveraign Power over the People. For what is it for\nmen to excommunicate their lawful King, but to keep him from all places\nof Gods publique Service in his own Kingdom? and with force to resist\nhim, when he with force endeavoureth to correct them? Or what is it,\nwithout Authority from the Civill Soveraign, to excommunicate any\nperson, but to take from him his Lawfull Liberty, that is, to usurpe\nan unlawfull Power over their Brethren? The Authors therefore of this\nDarknesse in Religion, are the Romane, and the Presbyterian Clergy.\n\n\n\n\nInfallibility\n\nTo this head, I referre also all those Doctrines, that serve them to\nkeep the possession of this spirituall Soveraignty after it is gotten.\nAs first, that the Pope In His Publique Capacity Cannot Erre. For who\nis there, that beleeving this to be true, will not readily obey him in\nwhatsoever he commands?\n\n\n\n\nSubjection Of Bishops\n\nSecondly, that all other Bishops, in what Common-wealth soever, have\nnot their Right, neither immediately from God, nor mediately from their\nCivill Soveraigns, but from the Pope, is a Doctrine, by which there\ncomes to be in every Christian Common-wealth many potent men, (for so\nare Bishops,) that have their dependance on the Pope, and owe obedience\nto him, though he be a forraign Prince; by which means he is able, (as\nhe hath done many times) to raise a Civill War against the State\nthat submits not it self to be governed according to his pleasure and\nInterest.\n\n\n\n\nExemptions Of The Clergy\n\nThirdly, the exemption of these, and of all other Priests, and of all\nMonkes, and Fryers, from the Power of the Civill Laws. For by this\nmeans, there is a great part of every Common-wealth, that enjoy the\nbenefit of the Laws, and are protected by the Power of the Civill State,\nwhich neverthelesse pay no part of the Publique expence; nor are\nlyable to the penalties, as other Subjects, due to their crimes; and\nconsequently, stand not in fear of any man, but the Pope; and adhere to\nhim onely, to uphold his universall Monarchy.\n\n\n\n\nThe Names Of Sacerdotes, And Sacrifices\n\nFourthly, the giving to their Priests (which is no more in the New\nTestament but Presbyters, that is, Elders) the name of Sacerdotes, that\nis, Sacrificers, which was the title of the Civill Soveraign, and his\npublique Ministers, amongst the Jews, whilest God was their King. Also,\nthe making the Lords Supper a Sacrifice, serveth to make the People\nbeleeve the Pope hath the same power over all Christian, that Moses\nand Aaron had over the Jews; that is to say, all power, both Civill and\nEcclesiasticall, as the High Priest then had.\n\n\n\n\nThe Sacramentation Of Marriage\n\nFiftly, the teaching that Matrimony is a Sacrament, giveth to the\nClergy the Judging of the lawfulnesse of Marriages; and thereby, of what\nChildren are Legitimate; and consequently, of the Right of Succession to\nhaereditary Kingdomes.\n\n\n\n\nThe Single Life Of Priests\n\nSixtly, the Deniall of Marriage to Priests, serveth to assure this Power\nof the pope over Kings. For if a King be a Priest, he cannot Marry, and\ntransmit his Kingdome to his Posterity; If he be not a Priest then the\nPope pretendeth this Authority Ecclesiasticall over him, and over his\npeople.\n\n\n\n\nAuricular Confession\n\nSeventhly, from Auricular Confession, they obtain, for the assurance of\ntheir Power, better intelligence of the designs of Princes, and great\npersons in the Civill State, than these can have of the designs of the\nState Ecclesiasticall.\n\n\n\n\nCanonization Of Saints, And Declaring Of Martyrs\n\nEighthly, by the Canonization of Saints, and declaring who are Martyrs,\nthey assure their Power, in that they induce simple men into an\nobstinacy against the Laws and Commands of their Civill Soveraigns even\nto death, if by the Popes excommunication, they be declared Heretiques\nor Enemies to the Church; that is, (as they interpret it,) to the Pope.\n\n\n\n\nTransubstantiation, Penance, Absolution\n\nNinthly, they assure the same, by the Power they ascribe to every\nPriest, of making Christ; and by the Power of ordaining Pennance; and of\nRemitting, and Retaining of sins.\n\n\n\n\nPurgatory, Indulgences, Externall Works\n\nTenthly, by the Doctrine of Purgatory, of Justification by externall\nworks, and of Indulgences, the Clergy is enriched.\n\n\n\n\nDaemonology And Exorcism\n\nEleventhly, by their Daemonology, and the use of Exorcisme, and other\nthings appertaining thereto, they keep (or thinke they keep) the People\nmore in awe of their Power.\n\n\n\n\nSchool-Divinity\n\nLastly, the Metaphysiques, Ethiques, and Politiques of Aristotle, the\nfrivolous Distinctions, barbarous Terms, and obscure Language of the\nSchoolmen, taught in the Universities, (which have been all erected and\nregulated by the Popes Authority,) serve them to keep these Errors\nfrom being detected, and to make men mistake the Ignis Fatuus of Vain\nPhilosophy, for the Light of the Gospell.\n\n\n\n\nThe Authors Of Spirituall Darknesse, Who They Be\n\nTo these, if they sufficed not, might be added other of their dark\nDoctrines, the profit whereof redoundeth manifestly, to the setting up\nof an unlawfull Power over the lawfull Soveraigns of Christian People;\nor for the sustaining of the same, when it is set up; or to the worldly\nRiches, Honour, and Authority of those that sustain it. And therefore by\nthe aforesaid rule, of Cui Bono, we may justly pronounce for the Authors\nof all this Spirituall Darknesse, the Pope, and Roman Clergy, and\nall those besides that endeavour to settle in the mindes of men this\nerroneous Doctrine, that the Church now on Earth, is that Kingdome of\nGod mentioned in the Old and New Testament.\n\nBut the Emperours, and other Christian Soveraigns, under whose\nGovernment these Errours, and the like encroachments of Ecclesiastiques\nupon their Office, at first crept in, to the disturbance of their\npossessions, and of the tranquillity of their Subjects, though they\nsuffered the same for want of foresight of the Sequel, and of insight\ninto the designs of their Teachers, may neverthelesse bee esteemed\naccessories to their own, and the Publique dammage; For without\ntheir Authority there could at first no seditious Doctrine have been\npubliquely preached. I say they might have hindred the same in the\nbeginning: But when the people were once possessed by those spirituall\nmen, there was no humane remedy to be applyed, that any man could\ninvent: And for the remedies that God should provide, who never faileth\nin his good time to destroy all the Machinations of men against the\nTruth, wee are to attend his good pleasure, that suffereth many times\nthe prosperity of his enemies, together with their ambition, to grow\nto such a height, as the violence thereof openeth the eyes, which the\nwarinesse of their predecessours had before sealed up, and makes men\nby too much grasping let goe all, as Peters net was broken, by the\nstruggling of too great a multitude of Fishes; whereas the Impatience\nof those, that strive to resist such encroachment, before their Subjects\neyes were opened, did but encrease the power they resisted. I doe not\ntherefore blame the Emperour Frederick for holding the stirrop to our\ncountryman Pope Adrian; for such was the disposition of his subjects\nthen, as if hee had not doe it, hee was not likely to have succeeded in\nthe Empire: But I blame those, that in the beginning, when their power\nwas entire, by suffering such Doctrines to be forged in the Universities\nof their own Dominions, have holden the Stirrop to all the succeeding\nPopes, whilest they mounted into the Thrones of all Christian\nSoveraigns, to ride, and tire, both them, and their people, at their\npleasure.\n\nBut as the Inventions of men are woven, so also are they ravelled out;\nthe way is the same, but the order is inverted: The web begins at the\nfirst Elements of Power, which are Wisdom, Humility, Sincerity, and\nother vertues of the Apostles, whom the people converted, obeyed, out\nof Reverence, not by Obligation: Their Consciences were free, and their\nWords and Actions subject to none but the Civill Power. Afterwards the\nPresbyters (as the Flocks of Christ encreased) assembling to consider\nwhat they should teach, and thereby obliging themselves to teach nothing\nagainst the Decrees of their Assemblies, made it to be thought the\npeople were thereby obliged to follow their Doctrine, and when\nthey refused, refused to keep them company, (that was then called\nExcommunication,) not as being Infidels, but as being disobedient: And\nthis was the first knot upon their Liberty. And the number of Presbyters\nencreasing, the Presbyters of the chief City or Province, got themselves\nan authority over the parochiall Presbyters, and appropriated to\nthemselves the names of Bishops: And this was a second knot on Christian\nLiberty. Lastly, the Bishop of Rome, in regard of the Imperiall City,\ntook upon him an Authority (partly by the wills of the Emperours\nthemselves, and by the title of Pontifex Maximus, and at last when the\nEmperours were grown weak, by the priviledges of St. Peter) over all\nother Bishops of the Empire: Which was the third and last knot, and the\nwhole Synthesis and Construction of the Pontificall Power.\n\nAnd therefore the Analysis, or Resolution is by the same way; but\nbeginning with the knot that was last tyed; as wee may see in the\ndissolution of the praeterpoliticall Church Government in England.\n\nFirst, the Power of the Popes was dissolved totally by Queen Elizabeth;\nand the Bishops, who before exercised their Functions in Right of the\nPope, did afterwards exercise the same in Right of the Queen and her\nSuccessours; though by retaining the phrase of Jure Divino, they were\nthought to demand it by immediate Right from God: And so was untyed the\nfirst knot. After this, the Presbyterians lately in England obtained the\nputting down of Episcopacy: And so was the second knot dissolved:\nAnd almost at the same time, the Power was taken also from the\nPresbyterians: And so we are reduced to the Independency of the\nPrimitive Christians to follow Paul, or Cephas, or Apollos, every man\nas he liketh best: Which, if it be without contention, and without\nmeasuring the Doctrine of Christ, by our affection to the Person of his\nMinister, (the fault which the Apostle reprehended in the Corinthians,)\nis perhaps the best: First, because there ought to be no Power over the\nConsciences of men, but of the Word it selfe, working Faith in every\none, not alwayes according to the purpose of them that Plant and Water,\nbut of God himself, that giveth the Increase: and secondly, because it\nis unreasonable in them, who teach there is such danger in every little\nErrour, to require of a man endued with Reason of his own, to follow the\nReason of any other man, or of the most voices of many other men; Which\nis little better, then to venture his Salvation at crosse and pile. Nor\nought those Teachers to be displeased with this losse of their antient\nAuthority: For there is none should know better then they, that power is\npreserved by the same Vertues by which it is acquired; that is to\nsay, by Wisdome, Humility, Clearnesse of Doctrine, and sincerity of\nConversation; and not by suppression of the Naturall Sciences, and\nof the Morality of Naturall Reason; nor by obscure Language; nor by\nArrogating to themselves more Knowledge than they make appear; nor by\nPious Frauds; nor by such other faults, as in the Pastors of Gods Church\nare not only Faults, but also scandalls, apt to make men stumble one\ntime or other upon the suppression of their Authority.\n\n\n\n\nComparison Of The Papacy With The Kingdome Of Fayries\n\nBut after this Doctrine, \"that the Church now Militant, is the Kingdome\nof God spoken of in the Old and New Testament,\" was received in\nthe World; the ambition, and canvasing for the Offices that belong\nthereunto, and especially for that great Office of being Christs\nLieutenant, and the Pompe of them that obtained therein the principal\nPublique Charges, became by degrees so evident, that they lost the\ninward Reverence due to the Pastorall Function: in so much as the Wisest\nmen, of them that had any power in the Civill State, needed nothing but\nthe authority of their Princes, to deny them any further Obedience. For,\nfrom the time that the Bishop of Rome had gotten to be acknowledged for\nBishop Universall, by pretence of Succession to St. Peter, their whole\nHierarchy, or Kingdome of Darknesse, may be compared not unfitly to\nthe Kingdome of Fairies; that is, to the old wives Fables in England,\nconcerning Ghosts and Spirits, and the feats they play in the night. And\nif a man consider the originall of this great Ecclesiasticall Dominion,\nhe will easily perceive, that the Papacy, is no other, than the Ghost of\nthe deceased Romane Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof: For\nso did the Papacy start up on a Sudden out of the Ruines of that Heathen\nPower.\n\nThe Language also, which they use, both in the Churches, and in their\nPublique Acts, being Latine, which is not commonly used by any Nation\nnow in the world, what is it but the Ghost of the Old Romane Language.\n\nThe Fairies in what Nation soever they converse, have but one Universall\nKing, which some Poets of ours call King Oberon; but the Scripture calls\nBeelzebub, Prince of Daemons. The Ecclesiastiques likewise, in whose\nDominions soever they be found, acknowledge but one Universall King, the\nPope.\n\nThe Ecclesiastiques are Spirituall men, and Ghostly Fathers. The\nFairies are Spirits, and Ghosts. Fairies and Ghosts inhabite Darknesse,\nSolitudes, and Graves. The Ecclesiastiques walke in Obscurity of\nDoctrine, in Monasteries, Churches, and Churchyards.\n\nThe Ecclesiastiques have their Cathedral Churches; which, in what Towne\nsoever they be erected, by vertue of Holy Water, and certain Charmes\ncalled Exorcismes, have the power to make those Townes, cities, that is\nto say, Seats of Empire. The Fairies also have their enchanted Castles,\nand certain Gigantique Ghosts, that domineer over the Regions round\nabout them.\n\nThe fairies are not to be seized on; and brought to answer for the hurt\nthey do. So also the Ecclesiastiques vanish away from the Tribunals of\nCivill Justice.\n\nThe Ecclesiastiques take from young men, the use of Reason, by certain\nCharms compounded of Metaphysiques, and Miracles, and Traditions, and\nAbused Scripture, whereby they are good for nothing else, but to execute\nwhat they command them. The Fairies likewise are said to take young\nChildren out of their Cradles, and to change them into Naturall Fools,\nwhich Common people do therefore call Elves, and are apt to mischief.\n\nIn what Shop, or Operatory the Fairies make their Enchantment, the old\nWives have not determined. But the Operatories of the Clergy, are well\nenough known to be the Universities, that received their Discipline from\nAuthority Pontificall.\n\nWhen the Fairies are displeased with any body, they are said to\nsend their Elves, to pinch them. The Ecclesiastiques, when they are\ndispleased with any Civill State, make also their Elves, that is,\nSuperstitious, Enchanted Subjects, to pinch their Princes, by preaching\nSedition; or one Prince enchanted with promises, to pinch another.\n\nThe Fairies marry not; but there be amongst them Incubi, that have\ncopulation with flesh and bloud. The Priests also marry not.\n\nThe Ecclesiastiques take the Cream of the Land, by Donations of ignorant\nmen, that stand in aw of them, and by Tythes: So also it is in the Fable\nof Fairies, that they enter into the Dairies, and Feast upon the Cream,\nwhich they skim from the Milk.\n\nWhat kind of Money is currant in the Kingdome of Fairies, is not\nrecorded in the Story. But the Ecclesiastiques in their Receipts accept\nof the same Money that we doe; though when they are to make any Payment,\nit is in Canonizations, Indulgences, and Masses.\n\nTo this, and such like resemblances between the Papacy, and the Kingdome\nof Fairies, may be added this, that as the Fairies have no existence,\nbut in the Fancies of ignorant people, rising from the Traditions of old\nWives, or old Poets: so the Spirituall Power of the Pope (without the\nbounds of his own Civill Dominion) consisteth onely in the Fear that\nSeduced people stand in, of their Excommunication; upon hearing of false\nMiracles, false Traditions, and false Interpretations of the Scripture.\n\nIt was not therefore a very difficult matter, for Henry 8. by his\nExorcisme; nor for Qu. Elizabeth by hers, to cast them out. But who\nknows that this Spirit of Rome, now gone out, and walking by Missions\nthrough the dry places of China, Japan, and the Indies, that yeeld him\nlittle fruit, may not return, or rather an Assembly of Spirits worse\nthan he, enter, and inhabite this clean swept house, and make the End\nthereof worse than the beginning? For it is not the Romane Clergy onely,\nthat pretends the Kingdome of God to be of this World, and thereby to\nhave a Power therein, distinct from that of the Civill State. And\nthis is all I had a designe to say, concerning the Doctrine of the\nPOLITIQUES. Which when I have reviewed, I shall willingly expose it to\nthe censure of my Countrey.\n\n\n\n\nA REVIEW, AND CONCLUSION\n\n\nFrom the contrariety of some of the Naturall Faculties of the Mind, one\nto another, as also of one Passion to another, and from their reference\nto Conversation, there has been an argument taken, to inferre an\nimpossibility that any one man should be sufficiently disposed to all\nsorts of Civill duty. The Severity of Judgment, they say, makes men\nCensorious, and unapt to pardon the Errours and Infirmities of other\nmen: and on the other side, Celerity of Fancy, makes the thoughts lesse\nsteddy than is necessary, to discern exactly between Right and Wrong.\nAgain, in all Deliberations, and in all Pleadings, the faculty of solid\nReasoning, is necessary: for without it, the Resolutions of men are\nrash, and their Sentences unjust: and yet if there be not powerfull\nEloquence, which procureth attention and Consent, the effect of Reason\nwill be little. But these are contrary Faculties; the former being\ngrounded upon principles of Truth; the other upon Opinions already\nreceived, true, or false; and upon the Passions and Interests of men,\nwhich are different, and mutable.\n\nAnd amongst the Passions, Courage, (by which I mean the Contempt of\nWounds, and violent Death) enclineth men to private Revenges, and\nsometimes to endeavour the unsetling of the Publique Peace; And\nTimorousnesse, many times disposeth to the desertion of the Publique\nDefence. Both these they say cannot stand together in the same person.\n\nAnd to consider the contrariety of mens Opinions, and Manners in\ngenerall, It is they say, impossible to entertain a constant Civill\nAmity with all those, with whom the Businesse of the world constrains\nus to converse: Which Businesse consisteth almost in nothing else but a\nperpetuall contention for Honor, Riches, and Authority.\n\nTo which I answer, that these are indeed great difficulties, but not\nImpossibilities: For by Education, and Discipline, they may bee, and\nare sometimes reconciled. Judgment, and Fancy may have place in the\nsame man; but by turnes; as the end which he aimeth at requireth. As the\nIsraelites in Egypt, were sometimes fastened to their labour of making\nBricks, and other times were ranging abroad to gather Straw: So also may\nthe Judgment sometimes be fixed upon one certain Consideration, and\nthe Fancy at another time wandring about the world. So also Reason,\nand Eloquence, (though not perhaps in the Naturall Sciences, yet in the\nMorall) may stand very well together. For wheresoever there is place for\nadorning and preferring of Errour, there is much more place for adorning\nand preferring of Truth, if they have it to adorn. Nor is there any\nrepugnancy between fearing the Laws, and not fearing a publique Enemy;\nnor between abstaining from Injury, and pardoning it in others. There is\ntherefore no such Inconsistence of Humane Nature, with Civill Duties,\nas some think. I have known cleernesse of Judgment, and largenesse of\nFancy; strength of Reason, and gracefull Elocution; a Courage for the\nWarre, and a Fear for the Laws, and all eminently in one man; and that\nwas my most noble and honored friend Mr. Sidney Godolphin; who hating no\nman, nor hated of any, was unfortunately slain in the beginning of the\nlate Civill warre, in the Publique quarrel, by an indiscerned, and an\nundiscerning hand.\n\nTo the Laws of Nature, declared in the 15. Chapter, I would have this\nadded, \"That every man is bound by Nature, as much as in him lieth, to\nprotect in Warre, the Authority, by which he is himself protected in\ntime of Peace.\" For he that pretendeth a Right of Nature to preserve\nhis owne body, cannot pretend a Right of Nature to destroy him, by whose\nstrength he is preserved: It is a manifest contradiction of himselfe.\nAnd though this Law may bee drawn by consequence, from some of those\nthat are there already mentioned; yet the Times require to have it\ninculcated, and remembred.\n\nAnd because I find by divers English Books lately printed, that the\nCivill warres have not yet sufficiently taught men, in what point of\ntime it is, that a Subject becomes obliged to the Conquerour; nor what\nis Conquest; nor how it comes about, that it obliges men to obey his\nLaws: Therefore for farther satisfaction of men therein, I say, the\npoint of time, wherein a man becomes subject of a Conquerour, is that\npoint, wherein having liberty to submit to him, he consenteth, either by\nexpresse words, or by other sufficient sign, to be his Subject. When it\nis that a man hath the liberty to submit, I have showed before in the\nend of the 21. Chapter; namely, that for him that hath no obligation to\nhis former Soveraign but that of an ordinary Subject, it is then, when\nthe means of his life is within the Guards and Garrisons of the Enemy;\nfor it is then, that he hath no longer Protection from him, but is\nprotected by the adverse party for his Contribution. Seeing\ntherefore such contribution is every where, as a thing inevitable,\n(notwithstanding it be an assistance to the Enemy,) esteemed lawfull;\nas totall Submission, which is but an assistance to the Enemy, cannot\nbe esteemed unlawfull. Besides, if a man consider that they who submit,\nassist the Enemy but with part of their estates, whereas they that\nrefuse, assist him with the whole, there is no reason to call their\nSubmission, or Composition an Assistance; but rather a Detriment to the\nEnemy. But if a man, besides the obligation of a Subject, hath taken\nupon him a new obligation of a Souldier, then he hath not the liberty\nto submit to a new Power, as long as the old one keeps the field, and\ngiveth him means of subsistence, either in his Armies, or Garrisons:\nfor in this case, he cannot complain of want of Protection, and means to\nlive as a Souldier: But when that also failes, a Souldier also may seek\nhis Protection wheresoever he has most hope to have it; and may lawfully\nsubmit himself to his new Master. And so much for the Time when he may\ndo it lawfully, if hee will. If therefore he doe it, he is undoubtedly\nbound to be a true Subject: For a Contract lawfully made, cannot\nlawfully be broken.\n\nBy this also a man may understand, when it is, that men may be said to\nbe Conquered; and in what the nature of Conquest, and the Right of a\nConquerour consisteth: For this Submission is it implyeth them all.\nConquest, is not the Victory it self; but the Acquisition by Victory,\nof a Right, over the persons of men. He therefore that is slain, is\nOvercome, but not Conquered; He that is taken, and put into prison, or\nchaines, is not Conquered, though Overcome; for he is still an Enemy,\nand may save himself if hee can: But he that upon promise of Obedience,\nhath his Life and Liberty allowed him, is then Conquered, and a Subject;\nand not before. The Romanes used to say, that their Generall had\nPacified such a Province, that is to say, in English, Conquered it; and\nthat the Countrey was Pacified by Victory, when the people of it\nhad promised Imperata Facere, that is, To Doe What The Romane People\nCommanded Them: this was to be Conquered. But this promise may be either\nexpresse, or tacite: Expresse, by Promise: Tacite, by other signes. As\nfor example, a man that hath not been called to make such an expresse\nPromise, (because he is one whose power perhaps is not considerable;)\nyet if he live under their Protection openly, hee is understood to\nsubmit himselfe to the Government: But if he live there secretly, he is\nlyable to any thing that may bee done to a Spie, and Enemy of the State.\nI say not, hee does any Injustice, (for acts of open Hostility bear not\nthat name); but that he may be justly put to death. Likewise, if a man,\nwhen his Country is conquered, be out of it, he is not Conquered, nor\nSubject: but if at his return, he submit to the Government, he is bound\nto obey it. So that Conquest (to define it) is the Acquiring of the\nRight of Soveraignty by Victory. Which Right, is acquired, in the\npeoples Submission, by which they contract with the Victor, promising\nObedience, for Life and Liberty.\n\nIn the 29th Chapter I have set down for one of the causes of the\nDissolutions of Common-wealths, their Imperfect Generation, consisting\nin the want of an Absolute and Arbitrary Legislative Power; for want\nwhereof, the Civill Soveraign is fain to handle the Sword of Justice\nunconstantly, and as if it were too hot for him to hold: One reason\nwhereof (which I have not there mentioned) is this, That they will all\nof them justifie the War, by which their Power was at first gotten,\nand whereon (as they think) their Right dependeth, and not on the\nPossession. As if, for example, the Right of the Kings of England did\ndepend on the goodnesse of the cause of William the Conquerour, and upon\ntheir lineall, and directest Descent from him; by which means, there\nwould perhaps be no tie of the Subjects obedience to their Soveraign\nat this day in all the world: wherein whilest they needlessely think to\njustifie themselves, they justifie all the successefull Rebellions that\nAmbition shall at any time raise against them, and their Successors.\nTherefore I put down for one of the most effectuall seeds of the Death\nof any State, that the Conquerours require not onely a Submission of\nmens actions to them for the future, but also an Approbation of all\ntheir actions past; when there is scarce a Common-wealth in the world,\nwhose beginnings can in conscience be justified.\n\nAnd because the name of Tyranny, signifieth nothing more, nor lesse,\nthan the name of Soveraignty, be it in one, or many men, saving that\nthey that use the former word, are understood to bee angry with them\nthey call Tyrants; I think the toleration of a professed hatred of\nTyranny, is a Toleration of hatred to Common-wealth in general, and\nanother evill seed, not differing much from the former. For to the\nJustification of the Cause of a Conqueror, the Reproach of the Cause\nof the Conquered, is for the most part necessary: but neither of them\nnecessary for the Obligation of the Conquered. And thus much I have\nthought fit to say upon the Review of the first and second part of this\nDiscourse.\n\nIn the 35th Chapter, I have sufficiently declared out of the Scripture,\nthat in the Common-wealth of the Jewes, God himselfe was made the\nSoveraign, by Pact with the People; who were therefore called his\nPeculiar People, to distinguish them from the rest of the world, over\nwhom God reigned not by their Consent, but by his own Power: And that\nin this Kingdome Moses was Gods Lieutenant on Earth; and that it was he\nthat told them what Laws God appointed to doe Execution; especially\nin Capitall Punishments; not then thinking it a matter of so necessary\nconsideration, as I find it since. Wee know that generally in all\nCommon-wealths, the Execution of Corporeall Punishments, was either put\nupon the Guards, or other Souldiers of the Soveraign Power; or given\nto those, in whom want of means, contempt of honour, and hardnesse of\nheart, concurred, to make them sue for such an Office. But amongst the\nIsraelites it was a Positive Law of God their Soveraign, that he that\nwas convicted of a capitall Crime, should be stoned to death by the\nPeople; and that the Witnesses should cast the first Stone, and after\nthe Witnesses, then the rest of the People. This was a Law that designed\nwho were to be the Executioners; but not that any one should throw a\nStone at him before Conviction and Sentence, where the Congregation\nwas Judge. The Witnesses were neverthelesse to be heard before they\nproceeded to Execution, unlesse the Fact were committed in the presence\nof the Congregation it self, or in sight of the lawfull Judges; for\nthen there needed no other Witnesses but the Judges themselves.\nNeverthelesse, this manner of proceeding being not throughly understood,\nhath given occasion to a dangerous opinion, that any man may kill\nanother, is some cases, by a Right of Zeal; as if the Executions done\nupon Offenders in the Kingdome of God in old time, proceeded not from\nthe Soveraign Command, but from the Authority of Private Zeal: which, if\nwe consider the texts that seem to favour it, is quite contrary.\n\nFirst, where the Levites fell upon the People, that had made and\nworshipped the Golden Calfe, and slew three thousand of them; it was by\nthe Commandement of Moses, from the mouth of God; as is manifest, Exod.\n32.27. And when the Son of a woman of Israel had blasphemed God, they\nthat heard it, did not kill him, but brought him before Moses, who\nput him under custody, till God should give Sentence against him; as\nappears, Levit. 25.11, 12. Again, (Numbers 25.6, 7.) when Phinehas\nkilled Zimri and Cosbi, it was not by right of Private Zeale: Their\nCrime was committed in the sight of the Assembly; there needed\nno Witnesse; the Law was known, and he the heir apparent to the\nSoveraignty; and which is the principall point, the Lawfulnesse of his\nAct depended wholly upon a subsequent Ratification by Moses, whereof he\nhad no cause to doubt. And this Presumption of a future Ratification, is\nsometimes necessary to the safety [of] a Common-wealth; as in a sudden\nRebellion, any man that can suppresse it by his own Power in the\nCountrey where it begins, may lawfully doe it, and provide to have it\nRatified, or Pardoned, whilest it is in doing, or after it is done. Also\nNumb. 35.30. it is expressely said, \"Whosoever shall kill the Murtherer,\nshall kill him upon the word of Witnesses:\" but Witnesses suppose\na formall Judicature, and consequently condemn that pretence of Jus\nZelotarum. The Law of Moses concerning him that enticeth to Idolatry,\n(that is to say, in the Kingdome of God to a renouncing of his\nAllegiance) (Deut. 13.8.) forbids to conceal him, and commands the\nAccuser to cause him to be put to death, and to cast the first stone at\nhim; but not to kill him before he be Condemned. And (Deut. 17. ver.4,\n5, 6.) the Processe against Idolatry is exactly set down: For God there\nspeaketh to the People, as Judge, and commandeth them, when a man is\nAccused of Idolatry, to Enquire diligently of the Fact, and finding it\ntrue, then to Stone him; but still the hand of the Witnesse throweth\nthe first stone. This is not Private Zeal, but Publique Condemnation. In\nlike manner when a Father hath a rebellious Son, the Law is (Deut. 21.\n18.) that he shall bring him before the Judges of the Town, and all the\npeople of the Town shall Stone him. Lastly, by pretence of these Laws\nit was, that St. Steven was Stoned, and not by pretence of Private Zeal:\nfor before hee was carried away to Execution, he had Pleaded his Cause\nbefore the High Priest. There is nothing in all this, nor in any other\npart of the Bible, to countenance Executions by Private Zeal; which\nbeing oftentimes but a conjunction of Ignorance and Passion, is against\nboth the Justice and Peace of a Common-wealth.\n\nIn the 36th Chapter I have said, that it is not declared in what\nmanner God spake supernaturally to Moses: Not that he spake not to him\nsometimes by Dreams and Visions, and by a supernaturall Voice, as\nto other Prophets: For the manner how he spake unto him from the\nMercy-seat, is expressely set down (Numbers 7.89.) in these words,\n\"From that time forward, when Moses entred into the Tabernacle of the\nCongregation to speak with God, he heard a Voice which spake unto him\nfrom over the Mercy-Seate, which is over the Arke of the Testimony, from\nbetween the Cherubins he spake unto him.\" But it is not declared in\nwhat consisted the praeeminence of the manner of Gods speaking to Moses,\nabove that of his speaking to other Prophets, as to Samuel, and to\nAbraham, to whom he also spake by a Voice, (that is, by Vision) Unlesse\nthe difference consist in the cleernesse of the Vision. For Face\nto Face, and Mouth to Mouth, cannot be literally understood of the\nInfinitenesse, and Incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature.\n\nAnd as to the whole Doctrine, I see not yet, but the principles of\nit are true and proper; and the Ratiocination solid. For I ground the\nCivill Right of Soveraigns, and both the Duty and Liberty of Subjects,\nupon the known naturall Inclinations of Mankind, and upon the Articles\nof the Law of Nature; of which no man, that pretends but reason enough\nto govern his private family, ought to be ignorant. And for the Power\nEcclesiasticall of the same Soveraigns, I ground it on such Texts, as\nare both evident in themselves, and consonant to the Scope of the whole\nScripture. And therefore am perswaded, that he that shall read it with\na purpose onely to be informed, shall be informed by it. But for those\nthat by Writing, or Publique Discourse, or by their eminent actions,\nhave already engaged themselves to the maintaining of contrary opinions,\nthey will not bee so easily satisfied. For in such cases, it is naturall\nfor men, at one and the same time, both to proceed in reading, and to\nlose their attention, in the search of objections to that they had read\nbefore: Of which, in a time wherein the interests of men are changed\n(seeing much of that Doctrine, which serveth to the establishing of a\nnew Government, must needs be contrary to that which conduced to the\ndissolution of the old,) there cannot choose but be very many.\n\nIn that part which treateth of a Christian Common-wealth, there are\nsome new Doctrines, which, it may be, in a State where the contrary were\nalready fully determined, were a fault for a Subject without leave to\ndivulge, as being an usurpation of the place of a Teacher. But in this\ntime, that men call not onely for Peace, but also for Truth, to offer\nsuch Doctrines as I think True, and that manifestly tend to Peace and\nLoyalty, to the consideration of those that are yet in deliberation, is\nno more, but to offer New Wine, to bee put into New Cask, that bothe may\nbe preserved together. And I suppose, that then, when Novelty can breed\nno trouble, nor disorder in a State, men are not generally so much\ninclined to the reverence of Antiquity, as to preferre Ancient Errors,\nbefore New and well proved Truth.\n\nThere is nothing I distrust more than my Elocution; which neverthelesse\nI am confident (excepting the Mischances of the Presse) is not obscure.\nThat I have neglected the Ornament of quoting ancient Poets, Orators,\nand Philosophers, contrary to the custome of late time, (whether I have\ndone well or ill in it,) proceedeth from my judgment, grounded on many\nreasons. For first, all Truth of Doctrine dependeth either upon Reason,\nor upon Scripture; both which give credit to many, but never receive it\nfrom any Writer. Secondly, the matters in question are not of Fact, but\nof Right, wherein there is no place for Witnesses. There is scarce any\nof those old Writers, that contradicteth not sometimes both himself,\nand others; which makes their Testimonies insufficient. Fourthly,\nsuch Opinions as are taken onely upon Credit of Antiquity, are not\nintrinsically the Judgment of those that cite them, but Words that\npasse (like gaping) from mouth to mouth. Fiftly, it is many times with a\nfraudulent Designe that men stick their corrupt Doctrine with the Cloves\nof other mens Wit. Sixtly, I find not that the Ancients they cite, took\nit for an Ornament, to doe the like with those that wrote before them.\nSeventhly, it is an argument of Indigestion, when Greek and Latine\nSentences unchewed come up again, as they use to doe, unchanged. Lastly,\nthough I reverence those men of Ancient time, that either have written\nTruth perspicuously, or set us in a better way to find it out our\nselves; yet to the Antiquity it self I think nothing due: For if we will\nreverence the Age, the Present is the Oldest. If the Antiquity of the\nWriter, I am not sure, that generally they to whom such honor is given,\nwere more Ancient when they wrote, than I am that am Writing: But if it\nbee well considered, the praise of Ancient Authors, proceeds not from\nthe reverence of the Dead, but from the competition, and mutuall envy of\nthe Living.\n\nTo conclude, there is nothing in this whole Discourse, nor in that I\nwrit before of the same Subject in Latine, as far as I can perceive,\ncontrary either to the Word of God, or to good Manners; or to the\ndisturbance of the Publique Tranquillity. Therefore I think it may be\nprofitably printed, and more profitably taught in the Universities, in\ncase they also think so, to whom the judgment of the same belongeth.\nFor seeing the Universities are the Fountains of Civill, and Morall\nDoctrine, from whence the Preachers, and the Gentry, drawing such water\nas they find, use to sprinkle the same (both from the Pulpit, and in\ntheir Conversation) upon the People, there ought certainly to be\ngreat care taken, to have it pure, both from the Venime of Heathen\nPoliticians, and from the Incantation of Deceiving Spirits. And by that\nmeans the most men, knowing their Duties, will be the less subject to\nserve the Ambition of a few discontented persons, in their purposes\nagainst the State; and be the lesse grieved with the Contributions\nnecessary for their Peace, and Defence; and the Governours themselves\nhave the lesse cause, to maintain at the Common charge any greater\nArmy, than is necessary to make good the Publique Liberty, against the\nInvasions and Encroachments of forraign Enemies.\n\nAnd thus I have brought to an end my Discourse of Civill and\nEcclesiasticall Government, occasioned by the disorders of the present\ntime, without partiality, without application, and without other\ndesigne, than to set before mens eyes the mutuall Relation between\nProtection and Obedience; of which the condition of Humane Nature, and\nthe Laws Divine, (both Naturall and Positive) require an inviolable\nobservation. And though in the revolution of States, there can be no\nvery good Constellation for Truths of this nature to be born under, (as\nhaving an angry aspect from the dissolvers of an old Government, and\nseeing but the backs of them that erect a new;) yet I cannot think\nit will be condemned at this time, either by the Publique Judge of\nDoctrine, or by any that desires the continuance of Publique Peace. And\nin this hope I return to my interrupted Speculation of Bodies Naturall;\nwherein, (if God give me health to finish it,) I hope the Novelty will\nas much please, as in the Doctrine of this Artificiall Body it useth to\noffend. For such Truth, as opposeth no man profit, nor pleasure, is to\nall men welcome.\n\n\n\nFINIS"