042_Leviathan

- 1651
Contents

  By Thomas Hobbes

1651

  LEVIATHAN OR THE MATTER,FORME, & POWER OF A COMMON-WEALTH<br />
  ECCLESIASTICAL AND CIVILL

  Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury <br /> Printed for Andrew Crooke, <br />at
  the Green Dragon <br />in St. Paul&rsquo;s Churchyard,<br /> 1651.
  <br /> <br />

  <br /> <br />
    This E-text was prepared from the Pelican Classics edition of Leviathan,
    which in turn was prepared from the first edition. I have tried to
    follow as closely as possible the original, and to give the flavour of
    the text that Hobbes himself proof-read, but the following differences
    were unavoidable.
  <br />
    Hobbes used capitals and italics very extensively, for emphasis, for
    proper names, for quotations, and sometimes, it seems, just because.
  <br />
    The original has very extensive margin notes, which are used to show
    where he introduces the definitions of words and concepts, to give in
    short the subject that a paragraph or section is dealing with, and to
    give references to his quotations, largely but not exclusively biblical.
    To some degree, these margin notes seem to have been intended to serve
    in place of an index, the original having none. They are all in italics.
  <br />
    He also used italics for words in other languages than English, and
    there are a number of Greek words, in the Greek alphabet, in the text.
  <br />
    To deal with these within the limits of plain vanilla ASCII, I have done
    the following in this E-text.
  <br />
    I have restricted my use of full capitalization to those places where
    Hobbes used it, except in the chapter headings, which I have fully
    capitalized, where Hobbes used a mixture of full capitalization and
    italics.
  <br />
    Where it is clear that the italics are to indicate the text is quoting,
    I have introduced quotation marks. Within quotation marks I have
    retained the capitalization that Hobbes used.
  <br />
    Where italics seem to be used for emphasis, or for proper names, or just
    because, I have capitalized the initial letter of the words. This has
    the disadvantage that they are not then distinguished from those that
    Hobbes capitalized in plain text, but the extent of his italics would
    make the text very ugly if I was to use an underscore or slash.
  <br />
    Where the margin notes are either to introduce the paragraph subject, or
    to show where he introduces word definitions, I have included them as
    headers to the paragraph, again with all words having initial capitals,
    and on a shortened line.
  <br />
    For margin references to quotes, I have included them in the text, in
    brackets immediately next to the quotation. Where Hobbes included
    references in the main text, I have left them as he put them, except to
    change his square brackets to round.
  <br />
    For the Greek alphabet, I have simply substituted the nearest ordinary
    letters that I can, and I have used initial capitals for foreign
    language words.
  <br />
    Neither Thomas Hobbes nor his typesetters seem to have had many
    inhibitions about spelling and punctuation. I have tried to reproduce
    both exactly, with the exception of the introduction of quotation marks.
  <br />
    In preparing the text, I have found that it has much more meaning if I
    read it with sub-vocalization, or aloud, rather than trying to read
    silently. Hobbes&rsquo; use of emphasis and his eccentric punctuation and
    construction seem then to work.

  TO MY MOST HONOR&rsquo;D FRIEND Mr. FRANCIS GODOLPHIN of GODOLPHIN
<br />
  HONOR&rsquo;D SIR.
<br />
  Your most worthy Brother Mr SIDNEY GODOLPHIN, when he lived, was pleas&rsquo;d
  to think my studies something, and otherwise to oblige me, as you know,
  with reall testimonies of his good opinion, great in themselves, and the
  greater for the worthinesse of his person. For there is not any vertue
  that disposeth a man, either to the service of God, or to the service of
  his Country, to Civill Society, or private Friendship, that did not
  manifestly appear in his conversation, not as acquired by necessity, or
  affected upon occasion, but inhaerent, and shining in a generous
  constitution of his nature. Therefore in honour and gratitude to him, and
  with devotion to your selfe, I humbly Dedicate unto you this my discourse
  of Common-wealth. I know not how the world will receive it, nor how it may
  reflect on those that shall seem to favour it. For in a way beset with
  those that contend on one side for too great Liberty, and on the other
  side for too much Authority, &rsquo;tis hard to passe between the points of both
  unwounded. But yet, me thinks, the endeavour to advance the Civill Power,
  should not be by the Civill Power condemned; nor private men, by
  reprehending it, declare they think that Power too great. Besides, I speak
  not of the men, but (in the Abstract) of the Seat of Power, (like to those
  simple and unpartiall creatures in the Roman Capitol, that with their
  noyse defended those within it, not because they were they, but there)
  offending none, I think, but those without, or such within (if there be
  any such) as favour them. That which perhaps may most offend, are certain
  Texts of Holy Scripture, alledged by me to other purpose than ordinarily
  they use to be by others. But I have done it with due submission, and also
  (in order to my Subject) necessarily; for they are the Outworks of the
  Enemy, from whence they impugne the Civill Power. If notwithstanding this,
  you find my labour generally decryed, you may be pleased to excuse your
  selfe, and say that I am a man that love my own opinions, and think all
  true I say, that I honoured your Brother, and honour you, and have
  presum&rsquo;d on that, to assume the Title (without your knowledge) of being,
  as I am,
<br />
  Sir,
<br />
  Your most humble, and most obedient servant, Thomas Hobbes.
<br />
  Paris APRILL 15/25 1651.

  THE INTRODUCTION
  Nature (the art whereby God hath made and governes the world) is by the
  art of man, as in many other things, so in this also imitated, that it can
  make an Artificial Animal. For seeing life is but a motion of Limbs, the
  begining whereof is in some principall part within; why may we not say,
  that all Automata (Engines that move themselves by springs and wheeles as
  doth a watch) have an artificiall life? For what is the Heart, but a
  Spring; and the Nerves, but so many Strings; and the Joynts, but so many
  Wheeles, giving motion to the whole Body, such as was intended by the
  Artificer? Art goes yet further, imitating that Rationall and most
  excellent worke of Nature, Man. For by Art is created that great LEVIATHAN
  called a COMMON-WEALTH, or STATE, (in latine CIVITAS) which is but an
  Artificiall Man; though of greater stature and strength than the Naturall,
  for whose protection and defence it was intended; and in which, the
  Soveraignty is an Artificiall Soul, as giving life and motion to the whole
  body; The Magistrates, and other Officers of Judicature and Execution,
  artificiall Joynts; Reward and Punishment (by which fastned to the seat of
  the Soveraignty, every joynt and member is moved to performe his duty) are
  the Nerves, that do the same in the Body Naturall; The Wealth and Riches
  of all the particular members, are the Strength; Salus Populi (the Peoples
  Safety) its Businesse; Counsellors, by whom all things needfull for it to
  know, are suggested unto it, are the Memory; Equity and Lawes, an
  artificiall Reason and Will; Concord, Health; Sedition, Sicknesse; and
  Civill War, Death. Lastly, the Pacts and Covenants, by which the parts of
  this Body Politique were at first made, set together, and united, resemble
  that Fiat, or the Let Us Make Man, pronounced by God in the Creation.
<br />
  To describe the Nature of this Artificiall man, I will consider
<br />
  First the Matter thereof, and the Artificer; both which is Man.
<br />
  Secondly, How, and by what Covenants it is made; what are the Rights and
  just Power or Authority of a Soveraigne; and what it is that Preserveth
  and Dissolveth it.
<br />
  Thirdly, what is a Christian Common-Wealth.
<br />
  Lastly, what is the Kingdome of Darkness.
<br />
  Concerning the first, there is a saying much usurped of late, That
  Wisedome is acquired, not by reading of Books, but of Men. Consequently
  whereunto, those persons, that for the most part can give no other proof
  of being wise, take great delight to shew what they think they have read
  in men, by uncharitable censures of one another behind their backs. But
  there is another saying not of late understood, by which they might learn
  truly to read one another, if they would take the pains; and that is,
  Nosce Teipsum, Read Thy Self: which was not meant, as it is now used, to
  countenance, either the barbarous state of men in power, towards their
  inferiors; or to encourage men of low degree, to a sawcie behaviour
  towards their betters; But to teach us, that for the similitude of the
  thoughts, and Passions of one man, to the thoughts, and Passions of
  another, whosoever looketh into himselfe, and considereth what he doth,
  when he does Think, Opine, Reason, Hope, Feare, &c, and upon what
  grounds; he shall thereby read and know, what are the thoughts, and
  Passions of all other men, upon the like occasions. I say the similitude
  of Passions, which are the same in all men, Desire, Feare, Hope, &c;
  not the similitude or The Objects of the Passions, which are the things
  Desired, Feared, Hoped, &c: for these the constitution individuall,
  and particular education do so vary, and they are so easie to be kept from
  our knowledge, that the characters of mans heart, blotted and confounded
  as they are, with dissembling, lying, counterfeiting, and erroneous
  doctrines, are legible onely to him that searcheth hearts. And though by
  mens actions wee do discover their designee sometimes; yet to do it
  without comparing them with our own, and distinguishing all circumstances,
  by which the case may come to be altered, is to decypher without a key,
  and be for the most part deceived, by too much trust, or by too much
  diffidence; as he that reads, is himselfe a good or evill man.
<br />
  But let one man read another by his actions never so perfectly, it serves
  him onely with his acquaintance, which are but few. He that is to govern a
  whole Nation, must read in himselfe, not this, or that particular man; but
  Man-kind; which though it be hard to do, harder than to learn any
  Language, or Science; yet, when I shall have set down my own reading
  orderly, and perspicuously, the pains left another, will be onely to
  consider, if he also find not the same in himselfe. For this kind of
  Doctrine, admitteth no other Demonstration.

  PART I.<br />
  OF MAN

  CHAPTER I.<br />OF SENSE
  Concerning the Thoughts of man, I will consider them first Singly, and
  afterwards in Trayne, or dependance upon one another. Singly, they are
  every one a Representation or Apparence, of some quality, or other
  Accident of a body without us; which is commonly called an Object. Which
  Object worketh on the Eyes, Eares, and other parts of mans body; and by
  diversity of working, produceth diversity of Apparences.
<br />
  The Originall of them all, is that which we call Sense; (For there is no
  conception in a mans mind, which hath not at first, totally, or by parts,
  been begotten upon the organs of Sense.) The rest are derived from that
  originall.
<br />
  To know the naturall cause of Sense, is not very necessary to the business
  now in hand; and I have els-where written of the same at large.
  Nevertheless, to fill each part of my present method, I will briefly
  deliver the same in this place.
<br />
  The cause of Sense, is the Externall Body, or Object, which presseth the
  organ proper to each Sense, either immediatly, as in the Tast and Touch;
  or mediately, as in Seeing, Hearing, and Smelling: which pressure, by the
  mediation of Nerves, and other strings, and membranes of the body,
  continued inwards to the Brain, and Heart, causeth there a resistance, or
  counter-pressure, or endeavour of the heart, to deliver it self: which
  endeavour because Outward, seemeth to be some matter without. And this
  Seeming, or Fancy, is that which men call sense; and consisteth, as to the
  Eye, in a Light, or Colour Figured; To the Eare, in a Sound; To the
  Nostrill, in an Odour; To the Tongue and Palat, in a Savour; and to the
  rest of the body, in Heat, Cold, Hardnesse, Softnesse, and such other
  qualities, as we discern by Feeling. All which qualities called Sensible,
  are in the object that causeth them, but so many several motions of the
  matter, by which it presseth our organs diversly. Neither in us that are
  pressed, are they anything els, but divers motions; (for motion, produceth
  nothing but motion.) But their apparence to us is Fancy, the same waking,
  that dreaming. And as pressing, rubbing, or striking the Eye, makes us
  fancy a light; and pressing the Eare, produceth a dinne; so do the bodies
  also we see, or hear, produce the same by their strong, though unobserved
  action, For if those Colours, and Sounds, were in the Bodies, or Objects
  that cause them, they could not bee severed from them, as by glasses, and
  in Ecchoes by reflection, wee see they are; where we know the thing we
  see, is in one place; the apparence, in another. And though at some
  certain distance, the reall, and very object seem invested with the fancy
  it begets in us; Yet still the object is one thing, the image or fancy is
  another. So that Sense in all cases, is nothing els but originall fancy,
  caused (as I have said) by the pressure, that is, by the motion, of
  externall things upon our Eyes, Eares, and other organs thereunto
  ordained.
<br />
  But the Philosophy-schooles, through all the Universities of Christendome,
  grounded upon certain Texts of Aristotle, teach another doctrine; and say,
  For the cause of Vision, that the thing seen, sendeth forth on every side
  a Visible Species(in English) a Visible Shew, Apparition, or Aspect, or a
  Being Seen; the receiving whereof into the Eye, is Seeing. And for the
  cause of Hearing, that the thing heard, sendeth forth an Audible Species,
  that is, an Audible Aspect, or Audible Being Seen; which entring at the
  Eare, maketh Hearing. Nay for the cause of Understanding also, they say
  the thing Understood sendeth forth Intelligible Species, that is, an
  Intelligible Being Seen; which comming into the Understanding, makes us
  Understand. I say not this, as disapproving the use of Universities: but
  because I am to speak hereafter of their office in a Common-wealth, I must
  let you see on all occasions by the way, what things would be amended in
  them; amongst which the frequency of insignificant Speech is one.

  CHAPTER II.<br />OF IMAGINATION
  That when a thing lies still, unlesse somewhat els stirre it, it will lye
  still for ever, is a truth that no man doubts of. But that when a thing is
  in motion, it will eternally be in motion, unless somewhat els stay it,
  though the reason be the same, (namely, that nothing can change it selfe,)
  is not so easily assented to. For men measure, not onely other men, but
  all other things, by themselves: and because they find themselves subject
  after motion to pain, and lassitude, think every thing els growes weary of
  motion, and seeks repose of its own accord; little considering, whether it
  be not some other motion, wherein that desire of rest they find in
  themselves, consisteth. From hence it is, that the Schooles say, Heavy
  bodies fall downwards, out of an appetite to rest, and to conserve their
  nature in that place which is most proper for them; ascribing appetite,
  and Knowledge of what is good for their conservation, (which is more than
  man has) to things inanimate absurdly.
<br />
  When a Body is once in motion, it moveth (unless something els hinder it)
  eternally; and whatsoever hindreth it, cannot in an instant, but in time,
  and by degrees quite extinguish it: And as wee see in the water, though
  the wind cease, the waves give not over rowling for a long time after; so
  also it happeneth in that motion, which is made in the internall parts of
  a man, then, when he Sees, Dreams, &c. For after the object is
  removed, or the eye shut, wee still retain an image of the thing seen,
  though more obscure than when we see it. And this is it, that Latines call
  Imagination, from the image made in seeing; and apply the same, though
  improperly, to all the other senses. But the Greeks call it Fancy; which
  signifies Apparence, and is as proper to one sense, as to another.
  Imagination therefore is nothing but Decaying Sense; and is found in men,
  and many other living Creatures, as well sleeping, as waking.

  Memory
  The decay of Sense in men waking, is not the decay of the motion made in
  sense; but an obscuring of it, in such manner, as the light of the Sun
  obscureth the light of the Starres; which starrs do no less exercise their
  vertue by which they are visible, in the day, than in the night. But
  because amongst many stroaks, which our eyes, eares, and other organs
  receive from externall bodies, the predominant onely is sensible;
  therefore the light of the Sun being predominant, we are not affected with
  the action of the starrs. And any object being removed from our eyes,
  though the impression it made in us remain; yet other objects more present
  succeeding, and working on us, the Imagination of the past is obscured,
  and made weak; as the voyce of a man is in the noyse of the day. From
  whence it followeth, that the longer the time is, after the sight, or
  Sense of any object, the weaker is the Imagination. For the continuall
  change of mans body, destroyes in time the parts which in sense were
  moved: So that the distance of time, and of place, hath one and the same
  effect in us. For as at a distance of place, that which wee look at,
  appears dimme, and without distinction of the smaller parts; and as Voyces
  grow weak, and inarticulate: so also after great distance of time, our
  imagination of the Past is weak; and wee lose( for example) of Cities wee
  have seen, many particular Streets; and of Actions, many particular
  Circumstances. This Decaying Sense, when wee would express the thing it
  self, (I mean Fancy it selfe,) wee call Imagination, as I said before; But
  when we would express the Decay, and signifie that the Sense is fading,
  old, and past, it is called Memory. So that Imagination and Memory, are
  but one thing, which for divers considerations hath divers names.
<br />
  Much memory, or memory of many things, is called Experience. Againe,
  Imagination being only of those things which have been formerly perceived
  by Sense, either all at once, or by parts at severall times; The former,
  (which is the imagining the whole object, as it was presented to the
  sense) is Simple Imagination; as when one imagineth a man, or horse, which
  he hath seen before. The other is Compounded; as when from the sight of a
  man at one time, and of a horse at another, we conceive in our mind a
  Centaure. So when a man compoundeth the image of his own person, with the
  image of the actions of an other man; as when a man imagins himselfe a
  Hercules, or an Alexander, (which happeneth often to them that are much
  taken with reading of Romants) it is a compound imagination, and properly
  but a Fiction of the mind. There be also other Imaginations that rise in
  men, (though waking) from the great impression made in sense; As from
  gazing upon the Sun, the impression leaves an image of the Sun before our
  eyes a long time after; and from being long and vehemently attent upon
  Geometricall Figures, a man shall in the dark, (though awake) have the
  Images of Lines, and Angles before his eyes: which kind of Fancy hath no
  particular name; as being a thing that doth not commonly fall into mens
  discourse.

  Dreams
  The imaginations of them that sleep, are those we call Dreams. And these
  also (as all other Imaginations) have been before, either totally, or by
  parcells in the Sense. And because in sense, the Brain, and Nerves, which
  are the necessary Organs of sense, are so benummed in sleep, as not easily
  to be moved by the action of Externall Objects, there can happen in sleep,
  no Imagination; and therefore no Dreame, but what proceeds from the
  agitation of the inward parts of mans body; which inward parts, for the
  connexion they have with the Brayn, and other Organs, when they be
  distempered, do keep the same in motion; whereby the Imaginations there
  formerly made, appeare as if a man were waking; saving that the Organs of
  Sense being now benummed, so as there is no new object, which can master
  and obscure them with a more vigorous impression, a Dreame must needs be
  more cleare, in this silence of sense, than are our waking thoughts. And
  hence it cometh to pass, that it is a hard matter, and by many thought
  impossible to distinguish exactly between Sense and Dreaming. For my part,
  when I consider, that in Dreames, I do not often, nor constantly think of
  the same Persons, Places, Objects, and Actions that I do waking; nor
  remember so long a trayne of coherent thoughts, Dreaming, as at other
  times; And because waking I often observe the absurdity of Dreames, but
  never dream of the absurdities of my waking Thoughts; I am well satisfied,
  that being awake, I know I dreame not; though when I dreame, I think my
  selfe awake.
<br />
  And seeing dreames are caused by the distemper of some of the inward parts
  of the Body; divers distempers must needs cause different Dreams. And
  hence it is, that lying cold breedeth Dreams of Feare, and raiseth the
  thought and Image of some fearfull object (the motion from the brain to
  the inner parts, and from the inner parts to the Brain being reciprocall:)
  and that as Anger causeth heat in some parts of the Body, when we are
  awake; so when we sleep, the over heating of the same parts causeth Anger,
  and raiseth up in the brain the Imagination of an Enemy. In the same
  manner; as naturall kindness, when we are awake causeth desire; and desire
  makes heat in certain other parts of the body; so also, too much heat in
  those parts, while wee sleep, raiseth in the brain an imagination of some
  kindness shewn. In summe, our Dreams are the reverse of our waking
  Imaginations; The motion when we are awake, beginning at one end; and when
  we Dream, at another.

  Apparitions Or Visions
  The most difficult discerning of a mans Dream, from his waking thoughts,
  is then, when by some accident we observe not that we have slept: which is
  easie to happen to a man full of fearfull thoughts; and whose conscience
  is much troubled; and that sleepeth, without the circumstances, of going
  to bed, or putting off his clothes, as one that noddeth in a chayre. For
  he that taketh pains, and industriously layes himselfe to sleep, in case
  any uncouth and exorbitant fancy come unto him, cannot easily think it
  other than a Dream. We read of Marcus Brutes, (one that had his life given
  him by Julius Caesar, and was also his favorite, and notwithstanding
  murthered him,) how at Phillipi, the night before he gave battell to
  Augustus Caesar, he saw a fearfull apparition, which is commonly related
  by Historians as a Vision: but considering the circumstances, one may
  easily judge to have been but a short Dream. For sitting in his tent,
  pensive and troubled with the horrour of his rash act, it was not hard for
  him, slumbering in the cold, to dream of that which most affrighted him;
  which feare, as by degrees it made him wake; so also it must needs make
  the Apparition by degrees to vanish: And having no assurance that he
  slept, he could have no cause to think it a Dream, or any thing but a
  Vision. And this is no very rare Accident: for even they that be perfectly
  awake, if they be timorous, and supperstitious, possessed with fearfull
  tales, and alone in the dark, are subject to the like fancies, and believe
  they see spirits and dead mens Ghosts walking in Churchyards; whereas it
  is either their Fancy onely, or els the knavery of such persons, as make
  use of such superstitious feare, to pass disguised in the night, to places
  they would not be known to haunt.
<br />
  From this ignorance of how to distinguish Dreams, and other strong
  Fancies, from vision and Sense, did arise the greatest part of the
  Religion of the Gentiles in time past, that worshipped Satyres, Fawnes,
  nymphs, and the like; and now adayes the opinion than rude people have of
  Fayries, Ghosts, and Goblins; and of the power of Witches. For as for
  Witches, I think not that their witch craft is any reall power; but yet
  that they are justly punished, for the false beliefe they have, that they
  can do such mischiefe, joyned with their purpose to do it if they can;
  their trade being neerer to a new Religion, than to a Craft or Science.
  And for Fayries, and walking Ghosts, the opinion of them has I think been
  on purpose, either taught, or not confuted, to keep in credit the use of
  Exorcisme, of Crosses, of holy Water, and other such inventions of Ghostly
  men. Neverthelesse, there is no doubt, but God can make unnaturall
  Apparitions. But that he does it so often, as men need to feare such
  things, more than they feare the stay, or change, of the course of Nature,
  which he also can stay, and change, is no point of Christian faith. But
  evill men under pretext that God can do any thing, are so bold as to say
  any thing when it serves their turn, though they think it untrue; It is
  the part of a wise man, to believe them no further, than right reason
  makes that which they say, appear credible. If this superstitious fear of
  Spirits were taken away, and with it, Prognostiques from Dreams, false
  Prophecies, and many other things depending thereon, by which, crafty
  ambitious persons abuse the simple people, men would be much more fitted
  than they are for civill Obedience.
<br />
  And this ought to be the work of the Schooles; but they rather nourish
  such doctrine. For (not knowing what Imagination, or the Senses are), what
  they receive, they teach: some saying, that Imaginations rise of
  themselves, and have no cause: Others that they rise most commonly from
  the Will; and that Good thoughts are blown (inspired) into a man, by God;
  and evill thoughts by the Divell: or that Good thoughts are powred
  (infused) into a man, by God; and evill ones by the Divell. Some say the
  Senses receive the Species of things, and deliver them to the
  Common-sense; and the Common Sense delivers them over to the Fancy, and
  the Fancy to the Memory, and the Memory to the Judgement, like handing of
  things from one to another, with many words making nothing understood.

  Understanding
  The Imagination that is raysed in man (or any other creature indued with
  the faculty of imagining) by words, or other voluntary signes, is that we
  generally call Understanding; and is common to Man and Beast. For a dogge
  by custome will understand the call, or the rating of his Master; and so
  will many other Beasts. That Understanding which is peculiar to man, is
  the Understanding not onely his will; but his conceptions and thoughts, by
  the sequell and contexture of the names of things into Affirmations,
  Negations, and other formes of Speech: And of this kinde of Understanding
  I shall speak hereafter.

  CHAPTER III.<br />OF THE CONSEQUENCE OR TRAYNE OF IMAGINATIONS
  By Consequence, or Trayne of Thoughts, I understand that succession of one
  Thought to another, which is called (to distinguish it from Discourse in
  words) Mentall Discourse.
<br />
  When a man thinketh on any thing whatsoever, His next Thought after, is
  not altogether so casuall as it seems to be. Not every Thought to every
  Thought succeeds indifferently. But as wee have no Imagination, whereof we
  have not formerly had Sense, in whole, or in parts; so we have no
  Transition from one Imagination to another, whereof we never had the like
  before in our Senses. The reason whereof is this. All Fancies are Motions
  within us, reliques of those made in the Sense: And those motions that
  immediately succeeded one another in the sense, continue also together
  after Sense: In so much as the former comming again to take place, and be
  praedominant, the later followeth, by coherence of the matter moved, is
  such manner, as water upon a plain Table is drawn which way any one part
  of it is guided by the finger. But because in sense, to one and the same
  thing perceived, sometimes one thing, sometimes another succeedeth, it
  comes to passe in time, that in the Imagining of any thing, there is no
  certainty what we shall Imagine next; Onely this is certain, it shall be
  something that succeeded the same before, at one time or another.

  Trayne Of Thoughts Unguided
  This Trayne of Thoughts, or Mentall Discourse, is of two sorts. The first
  is Unguided, Without Designee, and inconstant; Wherein there is no
  Passionate Thought, to govern and direct those that follow, to it self, as
  the end and scope of some desire, or other passion: In which case the
  thoughts are said to wander, and seem impertinent one to another, as in a
  Dream. Such are Commonly the thoughts of men, that are not onely without
  company, but also without care of any thing; though even then their
  Thoughts are as busie as at other times, but without harmony; as the sound
  which a Lute out of tune would yeeld to any man; or in tune, to one that
  could not play. And yet in this wild ranging of the mind, a man may
  oft-times perceive the way of it, and the dependance of one thought upon
  another. For in a Discourse of our present civill warre, what could seem
  more impertinent, than to ask (as one did) what was the value of a Roman
  Penny? Yet the Cohaerence to me was manifest enough. For the Thought of
  the warre, introduced the Thought of the delivering up the King to his
  Enemies; The Thought of that, brought in the Thought of the delivering up
  of Christ; and that again the Thought of the 30 pence, which was the price
  of that treason: and thence easily followed that malicious question; and
  all this in a moment of time; for Thought is quick.

  Trayne Of Thoughts Regulated
  The second is more constant; as being Regulated by some desire, and
  designee. For the impression made by such things as wee desire, or feare,
  is strong, and permanent, or, (if it cease for a time,) of quick return:
  so strong it is sometimes, as to hinder and break our sleep. From Desire,
  ariseth the Thought of some means we have seen produce the like of that
  which we ayme at; and from the thought of that, the thought of means to
  that mean; and so continually, till we come to some beginning within our
  own power. And because the End, by the greatnesse of the impression, comes
  often to mind, in case our thoughts begin to wander, they are quickly
  again reduced into the way: which observed by one of the seven wise men,
  made him give men this praecept, which is now worne out, Respice Finem;
  that is to say, in all your actions, look often upon what you would have,
  as the thing that directs all your thoughts in the way to attain it.

  Remembrance
  The Trayn of regulated Thoughts is of two kinds; One, when of an effect
  imagined, wee seek the causes, or means that produce it: and this is
  common to Man and Beast. The other is, when imagining any thing
  whatsoever, wee seek all the possible effects, that can by it be produced;
  that is to say, we imagine what we can do with it, when wee have it. Of
  which I have not at any time seen any signe, but in man onely; for this is
  a curiosity hardly incident to the nature of any living creature that has
  no other Passion but sensuall, such as are hunger, thirst, lust, and
  anger. In summe, the Discourse of the Mind, when it is governed by
  designee, is nothing but Seeking, or the faculty of Invention, which the
  Latines call Sagacitas, and Solertia; a hunting out of the causes, of some
  effect, present or past; or of the effects, of some present or past cause,
  sometimes a man seeks what he hath lost; and from that place, and time,
  wherein hee misses it, his mind runs back, from place to place, and time
  to time, to find where, and when he had it; that is to say, to find some
  certain, and limited time and place, in which to begin a method of
  seeking. Again, from thence, his thoughts run over the same places and
  times, to find what action, or other occasion might make him lose it. This
  we call Remembrance, or Calling to mind: the Latines call it
  Reminiscentia, as it were a Re-Conning of our former actions.
<br />
  Sometimes a man knows a place determinate, within the compasse whereof his
  is to seek; and then his thoughts run over all the parts thereof, in the
  same manner, as one would sweep a room, to find a jewell; or as a Spaniel
  ranges the field, till he find a sent; or as a man should run over the
  alphabet, to start a rime.

  Prudence
  Sometime a man desires to know the event of an action; and then he
  thinketh of some like action past, and the events thereof one after
  another; supposing like events will follow like actions. As he that
  foresees what wil become of a Criminal, re-cons what he has seen follow on
  the like Crime before; having this order of thoughts, The Crime, the
  Officer, the Prison, the Judge, and the Gallowes. Which kind of thoughts,
  is called Foresight, and Prudence, or Providence; and sometimes Wisdome;
  though such conjecture, through the difficulty of observing all
  circumstances, be very fallacious. But this is certain; by how much one
  man has more experience of things past, than another; by so much also he
  is more Prudent, and his expectations the seldomer faile him. The Present
  onely has a being in Nature; things Past have a being in the Memory onely,
  but things To Come have no being at all; the Future being but a fiction of
  the mind, applying the sequels of actions Past, to the actions that are
  Present; which with most certainty is done by him that has most
  Experience; but not with certainty enough. And though it be called
  Prudence, when the Event answereth our Expectation; yet in its own nature,
  it is but Presumption. For the foresight of things to come, which is
  Providence, belongs onely to him by whose will they are to come. From him
  onely, and supernaturally, proceeds Prophecy. The best Prophet naturally
  is the best guesser; and the best guesser, he that is most versed and
  studied in the matters he guesses at: for he hath most Signes to guesse
  by.

  Signes
  A Signe, is the Event Antecedent, of the Consequent; and contrarily, the
  Consequent of the Antecedent, when the like Consequences have been
  observed, before: And the oftner they have been observed, the lesse
  uncertain is the Signe. And therefore he that has most experience in any
  kind of businesse, has most Signes, whereby to guesse at the Future time,
  and consequently is the most prudent: And so much more prudent than he
  that is new in that kind of business, as not to be equalled by any
  advantage of naturall and extemporary wit: though perhaps many young men
  think the contrary.
<br />
  Neverthelesse it is not Prudence that distinguisheth man from beast. There
  be beasts, that at a year old observe more, and pursue that which is for
  their good, more prudently, than a child can do at ten.

  Conjecture Of The Time Past
  As Prudence is a Praesumtion of the Future, contracted from the Experience
  of time Past; So there is a Praesumtion of things Past taken from other
  things (not future but) past also. For he that hath seen by what courses
  and degrees, a flourishing State hath first come into civill warre, and
  then to ruine; upon the sights of the ruines of any other State, will
  guesse, the like warre, and the like courses have been there also. But his
  conjecture, has the same incertainty almost with the conjecture of the
  Future; both being grounded onely upon Experience.
<br />
  There is no other act of mans mind, that I can remember, naturally planted
  in him, so, as to need no other thing, to the exercise of it, but to be
  born a man, and live with the use of his five Senses. Those other
  Faculties, of which I shall speak by and by, and which seem proper to man
  onely, are acquired, and encreased by study and industry; and of most men
  learned by instruction, and discipline; and proceed all from the invention
  of Words, and Speech. For besides Sense, and Thoughts, and the Trayne of
  thoughts, the mind of man has no other motion; though by the help of
  Speech, and Method, the same Facultyes may be improved to such a height,
  as to distinguish men from all other living Creatures.
<br />
  Whatsoever we imagine, is Finite. Therefore there is no Idea, or
  conception of anything we call Infinite. No man can have in his mind an
  Image of infinite magnitude; nor conceive the ends, and bounds of the
  thing named; having no Conception of the thing, but of our own inability.
  And therefore the Name of GOD is used, not to make us conceive him; (for
  he is Incomprehensible; and his greatnesse, and power are unconceivable;)
  but that we may honour him. Also because whatsoever (as I said before,) we
  conceive, has been perceived first by sense, either all at once, or by
  parts; a man can have no thought, representing any thing, not subject to
  sense. No man therefore can conceive any thing, but he must conceive it in
  some place; and indued with some determinate magnitude; and which may be
  divided into parts; nor that any thing is all in this place, and all in
  another place at the same time; nor that two, or more things can be in
  one, and the same place at once: for none of these things ever have, or
  can be incident to Sense; but are absurd speeches, taken upon credit
  (without any signification at all,) from deceived Philosophers, and
  deceived, or deceiving Schoolemen.

  CHAPTER IV.<br />OF SPEECH

  Originall Of Speech
  The Invention of Printing, though ingenious, compared with the invention
  of Letters, is no great matter. But who was the first that found the use
  of Letters, is not known. He that first brought them into Greece, men say
  was Cadmus, the sonne of Agenor, King of Phaenicia. A profitable Invention
  for continuing the memory of time past, and the conjunction of mankind,
  dispersed into so many, and distant regions of the Earth; and with all
  difficult, as proceeding from a watchfull observation of the divers
  motions of the Tongue, Palat, Lips, and other organs of Speech; whereby to
  make as many differences of characters, to remember them. But the most
  noble and profitable invention of all other, was that of Speech,
  consisting of Names or Apellations, and their Connexion; whereby men
  register their Thoughts; recall them when they are past; and also declare
  them one to another for mutuall utility and conversation; without which,
  there had been amongst men, neither Common-wealth, nor Society, nor
  Contract, nor Peace, no more than amongst Lyons, Bears, and Wolves. The
  first author of Speech was GOD himselfe, that instructed Adam how to name
  such creatures as he presented to his sight; For the Scripture goeth no
  further in this matter. But this was sufficient to direct him to adde more
  names, as the experience and use of the creatures should give him
  occasion; and to joyn them in such manner by degrees, as to make himselfe
  understood; and so by succession of time, so much language might be
  gotten, as he had found use for; though not so copious, as an Orator or
  Philosopher has need of. For I do not find any thing in the Scripture, out
  of which, directly or by consequence can be gathered, that Adam was taught
  the names of all Figures, Numbers, Measures, Colours, Sounds, Fancies,
  Relations; much less the names of Words and Speech, as Generall, Speciall,
  Affirmative, Negative, Interrogative, Optative, Infinitive, all which are
  usefull; and least of all, of Entity, Intentionality, Quiddity, and other
  significant words of the School.
<br />
  But all this language gotten, and augmented by Adam and his posterity, was
  again lost at the tower of Babel, when by the hand of God, every man was
  stricken for his rebellion, with an oblivion of his former language. And
  being hereby forced to disperse themselves into severall parts of the
  world, it must needs be, that the diversity of Tongues that now is,
  proceeded by degrees from them, in such manner, as need (the mother of all
  inventions) taught them; and in tract of time grew every where more
  copious.

  The Use Of Speech
  The generall use of Speech, is to transferre our Mentall Discourse, into
  Verbal; or the Trayne of our Thoughts, into a Trayne of Words; and that
  for two commodities; whereof one is, the Registring of the Consequences of
  our Thoughts; which being apt to slip out of our memory, and put us to a
  new labour, may again be recalled, by such words as they were marked by.
  So that the first use of names, is to serve for Markes, or Notes of
  remembrance. Another is, when many use the same words, to signifie (by
  their connexion and order,) one to another, what they conceive, or think
  of each matter; and also what they desire, feare, or have any other
  passion for, and for this use they are called Signes. Speciall uses of
  Speech are these; First, to Register, what by cogitation, wee find to be
  the cause of any thing, present or past; and what we find things present
  or past may produce, or effect: which in summe, is acquiring of Arts.
  Secondly, to shew to others that knowledge which we have attained; which
  is, to Counsell, and Teach one another. Thirdly, to make known to others
  our wills, and purposes, that we may have the mutuall help of one another.
  Fourthly, to please and delight our selves, and others, by playing with
  our words, for pleasure or ornament, innocently.

  Abuses Of Speech
  To these Uses, there are also foure correspondent Abuses. First, when men
  register their thoughts wrong, by the inconstancy of the signification of
  their words; by which they register for their conceptions, that which they
  never conceived; and so deceive themselves. Secondly, when they use words
  metaphorically; that is, in other sense than that they are ordained for;
  and thereby deceive others. Thirdly, when by words they declare that to be
  their will, which is not. Fourthly, when they use them to grieve one
  another: for seeing nature hath armed living creatures, some with teeth,
  some with horns, and some with hands, to grieve an enemy, it is but an
  abuse of Speech, to grieve him with the tongue, unlesse it be one whom wee
  are obliged to govern; and then it is not to grieve, but to correct and
  amend.
<br />
  The manner how Speech serveth to the remembrance of the consequence of
  causes and effects, consisteth in the imposing of Names, and the Connexion
  of them.

  Names Proper & Common Universall
  Of Names, some are Proper, and singular to one onely thing; as Peter,
  John, This Man, This Tree: and some are Common to many things; as Man,
  Horse, Tree; every of which though but one Name, is nevertheless the name
  of divers particular things; in respect of all which together, it is
  called an Universall; there being nothing in the world Universall but
  Names; for the things named, are every one of them Individual and
  Singular.
<br />
  One Universall name is imposed on many things, for their similitude in
  some quality, or other accident: And whereas a Proper Name bringeth to
  mind one thing onely; Universals recall any one of those many.
<br />
  And of Names Universall, some are of more, and some of lesse extent; the
  larger comprehending the lesse large: and some again of equall extent,
  comprehending each other reciprocally. As for example, the Name Body is of
  larger signification than the word Man, and conprehendeth it; and the
  names Man and Rationall, are of equall extent, comprehending mutually one
  another. But here wee must take notice, that by a Name is not alwayes
  understood, as in Grammar, one onely word; but sometimes by circumlocution
  many words together. For all these words, Hee That In His Actions
  Observeth The Lawes Of His Country, make but one Name, equivalent to this
  one word, Just.
<br />
  By this imposition of Names, some of larger, some of stricter
  signification, we turn the reckoning of the consequences of things
  imagined in the mind, into a reckoning of the consequences of
  Appellations. For example, a man that hath no use of Speech at all, (such,
  as is born and remains perfectly deafe and dumb,) if he set before his
  eyes a triangle, and by it two right angles, (such as are the corners of a
  square figure,) he may by meditation compare and find, that the three
  angles of that triangle, are equall to those two right angles that stand
  by it. But if another triangle be shewn him different in shape from the
  former, he cannot know without a new labour, whether the three angles of
  that also be equall to the same. But he that hath the use of words, when
  he observes, that such equality was consequent, not to the length of the
  sides, nor to any other particular thing in his triangle; but onely to
  this, that the sides were straight, and the angles three; and that that
  was all, for which he named it a Triangle; will boldly conclude
  Universally, that such equality of angles is in all triangles whatsoever;
  and register his invention in these generall termes, Every Triangle Hath
  Its Three Angles Equall To Two Right Angles. And thus the consequence
  found in one particular, comes to be registred and remembred, as a
  Universall rule; and discharges our mentall reckoning, of time and place;
  and delivers us from all labour of the mind, saving the first; and makes
  that which was found true Here, and Now, to be true in All Times and
  Places.
<br />
  But the use of words in registring our thoughts, is in nothing so evident
  as in Numbering. A naturall foole that could never learn by heart the
  order of numerall words, as One, Two, and Three, may observe every stroak
  of the Clock, and nod to it, or say one, one, one; but can never know what
  houre it strikes. And it seems, there was a time when those names of
  number were not in use; and men were fayn to apply their fingers of one or
  both hands, to those things they desired to keep account of; and that
  thence it proceeded, that now our numerall words are but ten, in any
  Nation, and in some but five, and then they begin again. And he that can
  tell ten, if he recite them out of order, will lose himselfe, and not know
  when he has done: Much lesse will he be able to add, and substract, and
  performe all other operations of Arithmetique. So that without words,
  there is no possibility of reckoning of Numbers; much lesse of Magnitudes,
  of Swiftnesse, of Force, and other things, the reckonings whereof are
  necessary to the being, or well-being of man-kind.
<br />
  When two Names are joyned together into a Consequence, or Affirmation; as
  thus, A Man Is A Living Creature; or thus, If He Be A Man, He Is A Living
  Creature, If the later name Living Creature, signifie all that the former
  name Man signifieth, then the affirmation, or consequence is True;
  otherwise False. For True and False are attributes of Speech, not of
  things. And where Speech in not, there is neither Truth nor Falshood.
  Errour there may be, as when wee expect that which shall not be; or
  suspect what has not been: but in neither case can a man be charged with
  Untruth.
<br />
  Seeing then that Truth consisteth in the right ordering of names in our
  affirmations, a man that seeketh precise Truth, had need to remember what
  every name he uses stands for; and to place it accordingly; or els he will
  find himselfe entangled in words, as a bird in lime-twiggs; the more he
  struggles, the more belimed. And therefore in Geometry, (which is the
  onely Science that it hath pleased God hitherto to bestow on mankind,) men
  begin at settling the significations of their words; which settling of
  significations, they call Definitions; and place them in the beginning of
  their reckoning.
<br />
  By this it appears how necessary it is for any man that aspires to true
  Knowledge, to examine the Definitions of former Authors; and either to
  correct them, where they are negligently set down; or to make them
  himselfe. For the errours of Definitions multiply themselves, according as
  the reckoning proceeds; and lead men into absurdities, which at last they
  see, but cannot avoyd, without reckoning anew from the beginning; in which
  lyes the foundation of their errours. From whence it happens, that they
  which trust to books, do as they that cast up many little summs into a
  greater, without considering whether those little summes were rightly cast
  up or not; and at last finding the errour visible, and not mistrusting
  their first grounds, know not which way to cleere themselves; but spend
  time in fluttering over their bookes; as birds that entring by the
  chimney, and finding themselves inclosed in a chamber, flitter at the
  false light of a glasse window, for want of wit to consider which way they
  came in. So that in the right Definition of Names, lyes the first use of
  Speech; which is the Acquisition of Science: And in wrong, or no
  Definitions&rsquo; lyes the first abuse; from which proceed all false and
  senslesse Tenets; which make those men that take their instruction from
  the authority of books, and not from their own meditation, to be as much
  below the condition of ignorant men, as men endued with true Science are
  above it. For between true Science, and erroneous Doctrines, Ignorance is
  in the middle. Naturall sense and imagination, are not subject to
  absurdity. Nature it selfe cannot erre: and as men abound in copiousnesse
  of language; so they become more wise, or more mad than ordinary. Nor is
  it possible without Letters for any man to become either excellently wise,
  or (unless his memory be hurt by disease, or ill constitution of organs)
  excellently foolish. For words are wise mens counters, they do but reckon
  by them: but they are the mony of fooles, that value them by the authority
  of an Aristotle, a Cicero, or a Thomas, or any other Doctor whatsoever, if
  but a man.

  Subject To Names
  Subject To Names, is whatsoever can enter into, or be considered in an
  account; and be added one to another to make a summe; or substracted one
  from another, and leave a remainder. The Latines called Accounts of mony
  Rationes, and accounting, Ratiocinatio: and that which we in bills or
  books of account call Items, they called Nomina; that is, Names: and
  thence it seems to proceed, that they extended the word Ratio, to the
  faculty of Reckoning in all other things. The Greeks have but one word
  Logos, for both Speech and Reason; not that they thought there was no
  Speech without Reason; but no Reasoning without Speech: And the act of
  reasoning they called syllogisme; which signifieth summing up of the
  consequences of one saying to another. And because the same things may
  enter into account for divers accidents; their names are (to shew that
  diversity) diversly wrested, and diversified. This diversity of names may
  be reduced to foure generall heads.
<br />
  First, a thing may enter into account for Matter, or Body; as Living,
  Sensible, Rationall, Hot, Cold, Moved, Quiet; with all which names the
  word Matter, or Body is understood; all such, being names of Matter.
<br />
  Secondly, it may enter into account, or be considered, for some accident
  or quality, which we conceive to be in it; as for Being Moved, for Being
  So Long, for Being Hot, &c; and then, of the name of the thing it
  selfe, by a little change or wresting, wee make a name for that accident,
  which we consider; and for Living put into account Life; for Moved,
  Motion; for Hot, Heat; for Long, Length, and the like. And all such Names,
  are the names of the accidents and properties, by which one Matter, and
  Body is distinguished from another. These are called Names Abstract;
  Because Severed (not from Matter, but) from the account of Matter.
<br />
  Thirdly, we bring into account, the Properties of our own bodies, whereby
  we make such distinction: as when any thing is Seen by us, we reckon not
  the thing it selfe; but the Sight, the Colour, the Idea of it in the
  fancy: and when any thing is Heard, wee reckon it not; but the Hearing, or
  Sound onely, which is our fancy or conception of it by the Eare: and such
  are names of fancies.
<br />
  Fourthly, we bring into account, consider, and give names, to Names
  themselves, and to Speeches: For, Generall, Universall, Speciall,
  Oequivocall, are names of Names. And Affirmation, Interrogation,
  Commandement, Narration, Syllogisme, Sermon, Oration, and many other such,
  are names of Speeches.

  Use Of Names Positive
  And this is all the variety of Names Positive; which are put to mark
  somewhat which is in Nature, or may be feigned by the mind of man, as
  Bodies that are, or may be conceived to be; or of bodies, the Properties
  that are, or may be feigned to be; or Words and Speech.

  Negative Names With Their Uses
  There be also other Names, called Negative; which are notes to signifie
  that a word is not the name of the thing in question; as these words
  Nothing, No Man, Infinite, Indocible, Three Want Foure, and the like;
  which are nevertheless of use in reckoning, or in correcting of reckoning;
  and call to mind our past cogitations, though they be not names of any
  thing; because they make us refuse to admit of Names not rightly used.

  Words Insignificant
  All other names, are but insignificant sounds; and those of two sorts.
  One, when they are new, and yet their meaning not explained by Definition;
  whereof there have been aboundance coyned by Schoole-men, and pusled
  Philosophers.
<br />
  Another, when men make a name of two Names, whose significations are
  contradictory and inconsistent; as this name, an Incorporeall Body, or
  (which is all one) an Incorporeall Substance, and a great number more. For
  whensoever any affirmation is false, the two names of which it is
  composed, put together and made one, signifie nothing at all. For example
  if it be a false affirmation to say A Quadrangle Is Round, the word Round
  Quadrangle signifies nothing; but is a meere sound. So likewise if it be
  false, to say that vertue can be powred, or blown up and down; the words
  In-powred Vertue, In-blown Vertue, are as absurd and insignificant, as a
  Round Quadrangle. And therefore you shall hardly meet with a senselesse
  and insignificant word, that is not made up of some Latin or Greek names.
  A Frenchman seldome hears our Saviour called by the name of Parole, but by
  the name of Verbe often; yet Verbe and Parole differ no more, but that one
  is Latin, the other French.

  Understanding
  When a man upon the hearing of any Speech, hath those thoughts which the
  words of that Speech, and their connexion, were ordained and constituted
  to signifie; Then he is said to understand it; Understanding being nothing
  els, but conception caused by Speech. And therefore if Speech be peculiar
  to man (as for ought I know it is,) then is Understanding peculiar to him
  also. And therefore of absurd and false affirmations, in case they be
  universall, there can be no Understanding; though many think they
  understand, then, when they do but repeat the words softly, or con them in
  their mind.
<br />
  What kinds of Speeches signifie the Appetites, Aversions, and Passions of
  mans mind; and of their use and abuse, I shall speak when I have spoken of
  the Passions.

  Inconstant Names
  The names of such things as affect us, that is, which please, and
  displease us, because all men be not alike affected with the same thing,
  nor the same man at all times, are in the common discourses of men, of
  Inconstant signification. For seeing all names are imposed to signifie our
  conceptions; and all our affections are but conceptions; when we conceive
  the same things differently, we can hardly avoyd different naming of them.
  For though the nature of that we conceive, be the same; yet the diversity
  of our reception of it, in respect of different constitutions of body, and
  prejudices of opinion, gives everything a tincture of our different
  passions. And therefore in reasoning, a man bust take heed of words; which
  besides the signification of what we imagine of their nature, disposition,
  and interest of the speaker; such as are the names of Vertues, and Vices;
  For one man calleth Wisdome, what another calleth Feare; and one Cruelty,
  what another Justice; one Prodigality, what another Magnanimity; one
  Gravity, what another Stupidity, &c. And therefore such names can
  never be true grounds of any ratiocination. No more can Metaphors, and
  Tropes of speech: but these are less dangerous, because they profess their
  inconstancy; which the other do not.

  CHAPTER V.<br />OF REASON, AND SCIENCE.

  Reason What It Is
  When a man Reasoneth, hee does nothing els but conceive a summe totall,
  from Addition of parcels; or conceive a Remainder, from Substraction of
  one summe from another: which (if it be done by Words,) is conceiving of
  the consequence of the names of all the parts, to the name of the whole;
  or from the names of the whole and one part, to the name of the other
  part. And though in some things, (as in numbers,) besides Adding and
  Substracting, men name other operations, as Multiplying and Dividing; yet
  they are the same; for Multiplication, is but Addition together of things
  equall; and Division, but Substracting of one thing, as often as we can.
  These operations are not incident to Numbers onely, but to all manner of
  things that can be added together, and taken one out of another. For as
  Arithmeticians teach to adde and substract in Numbers; so the
  Geometricians teach the same in Lines, Figures (solid and superficiall,)
  Angles, Proportions, Times, degrees of Swiftnesse, Force, Power, and the
  like; The Logicians teach the same in Consequences Of Words; adding
  together Two Names, to make an Affirmation; and Two Affirmations, to make
  a syllogisme; and Many syllogismes to make a Demonstration; and from the
  Summe, or Conclusion of a syllogisme, they substract one Proposition, to
  finde the other. Writers of Politiques, adde together Pactions, to find
  mens Duties; and Lawyers, Lawes and Facts, to find what is Right and Wrong
  in the actions of private men. In summe, in what matter soever there is
  place for Addition and Substraction, there also is place for Reason; and
  where these have no place, there Reason has nothing at all to do.

  Reason Defined
  Out of all which we may define, (that is to say determine,) what that is,
  which is meant by this word Reason, when wee reckon it amongst the
  Faculties of the mind. For Reason, in this sense, is nothing but Reckoning
  (that is, Adding and Substracting) of the Consequences of generall names
  agreed upon, for the Marking and Signifying of our thoughts; I say Marking
  them, when we reckon by our selves; and Signifying, when we demonstrate,
  or approve our reckonings to other men.

  Right Reason Where
  And as in Arithmetique, unpractised men must, and Professors themselves
  may often erre, and cast up false; so also in any other subject of
  Reasoning, the ablest, most attentive, and most practised men, may deceive
  themselves, and inferre false Conclusions; Not but that Reason it selfe is
  always Right Reason, as well as Arithmetique is a certain and infallible
  art: But no one mans Reason, nor the Reason of any one number of men,
  makes the certaintie; no more than an account is therefore well cast up,
  because a great many men have unanimously approved it. And therfore, as
  when there is a controversy in an account, the parties must by their own
  accord, set up for right Reason, the Reason of some Arbitrator, or Judge,
  to whose sentence they will both stand, or their controversie must either
  come to blowes, or be undecided, for want of a right Reason constituted by
  Nature; so is it also in all debates of what kind soever: And when men
  that think themselves wiser than all others, clamor and demand right
  Reason for judge; yet seek no more, but that things should be determined,
  by no other mens reason but their own, it is as intolerable in the society
  of men, as it is in play after trump is turned, to use for trump on every
  occasion, that suite whereof they have most in their hand. For they do
  nothing els, that will have every of their passions, as it comes to bear
  sway in them, to be taken for right Reason, and that in their own
  controversies: bewraying their want of right Reason, by the claym they lay
  to it.

  The Use Of Reason
  The Use and End of Reason, is not the finding of the summe, and truth of
  one, or a few consequences, remote from the first definitions, and settled
  significations of names; but to begin at these; and proceed from one
  consequence to another. For there can be no certainty of the last
  Conclusion, without a certainty of all those Affirmations and Negations,
  on which it was grounded, and inferred. As when a master of a family, in
  taking an account, casteth up the summs of all the bills of expence, into
  one sum; and not regarding how each bill is summed up, by those that give
  them in account; nor what it is he payes for; he advantages himselfe no
  more, than if he allowed the account in grosse, trusting to every of the
  accountants skill and honesty; so also in Reasoning of all other things,
  he that takes up conclusions on the trust of Authors, and doth not fetch
  them from the first Items in every Reckoning, (which are the
  significations of names settled by definitions), loses his labour; and
  does not know any thing; but onely beleeveth.

  Of Error And Absurdity
  When a man reckons without the use of words, which may be done in
  particular things, (as when upon the sight of any one thing, wee
  conjecture what was likely to have preceded, or is likely to follow upon
  it;) if that which he thought likely to follow, followes not; or that
  which he thought likely to have preceded it, hath not preceded it, this is
  called ERROR; to which even the most prudent men are subject. But when we
  Reason in Words of generall signification, and fall upon a generall
  inference which is false; though it be commonly called Error, it is indeed
  an ABSURDITY, or senseless Speech. For Error is but a deception, in
  presuming that somewhat is past, or to come; of which, though it were not
  past, or not to come; yet there was no impossibility discoverable. But
  when we make a generall assertion, unlesse it be a true one, the
  possibility of it is unconceivable. And words whereby we conceive nothing
  but the sound, are those we call Absurd, insignificant, and Non-sense. And
  therefore if a man should talk to me of a Round Quadrangle; or Accidents
  Of Bread In Cheese; or Immaterial Substances; or of A Free Subject; A Free
  Will; or any Free, but free from being hindred by opposition, I should not
  say he were in an Errour; but that his words were without meaning; that is
  to say, Absurd.
<br />
  I have said before, (in the second chapter,) that a Man did excell all
  other Animals in this faculty, that when he conceived any thing
  whatsoever, he was apt to enquire the consequences of it, and what effects
  he could do with it. And now I adde this other degree of the same
  excellence, that he can by words reduce the consequences he findes to
  generall Rules, called Theoremes, or Aphorismes; that is, he can Reason,
  or reckon, not onely in number; but in all other things, whereof one may
  be added unto, or substracted from another.
<br />
  But this priviledge, is allayed by another; and that is, by the priviledge
  of Absurdity; to which no living creature is subject, but man onely. And
  of men, those are of all most subject to it, that professe Philosophy. For
  it is most true that Cicero sayth of them somewhere; that there can be
  nothing so absurd, but may be found in the books of Philosophers. And the
  reason is manifest. For there is not one of them that begins his
  ratiocination from the Definitions, or Explications of the names they are
  to use; which is a method that hath been used onely in Geometry; whose
  Conclusions have thereby been made indisputable.

  Causes Of Absurditie
  The first cause of Absurd conclusions I ascribe to the want of Method; in
  that they begin not their Ratiocination from Definitions; that is, from
  settled significations of their words: as if they could cast account,
  without knowing the value of the numerall words, One, Two, and Three.
<br />
  And whereas all bodies enter into account upon divers considerations,
  (which I have mentioned in the precedent chapter;) these considerations
  being diversly named, divers absurdities proceed from the confusion, and
  unfit connexion of their names into assertions. And therefore
<br />
  The second cause of Absurd assertions, I ascribe to the giving of names of
  Bodies, to Accidents; or of Accidents, to Bodies; As they do, that say,
  Faith Is Infused, or Inspired; when nothing can be Powred, or Breathed
  into any thing, but body; and that, Extension is Body; that Phantasmes are
  Spirits, &c.
<br />
  The third I ascribe to the giving of the names of the Accidents of Bodies
  Without Us, to the Accidents of our Own Bodies; as they do that say, the
  Colour Is In The Body; The Sound Is In The Ayre, &c.
<br />
  The fourth, to the giving of the names of Bodies, to Names, or Speeches;
  as they do that say, that There Be Things Universall; that A Living
  Creature Is Genus, or A Generall Thing, &c.
<br />
  The fifth, to the giving of the names of Accidents, to Names and Speeches;
  as they do that say, The Nature Of A Thing Is In Its Definition; A Mans
  Command Is His Will; and the like.
<br />
  The sixth, to the use of Metaphors, Tropes, and other Rhetoricall figures,
  in stead of words proper. For though it be lawfull to say, (for example)
  in common speech, The Way Goeth, Or Leadeth Hither, Or Thither, The
  Proverb Sayes This Or That (whereas wayes cannot go, nor Proverbs speak;)
  yet in reckoning, and seeking of truth, such speeches are not to be
  admitted.
<br />
  The seventh, to names that signifie nothing; but are taken up, and learned
  by rote from the Schooles, as Hypostatical, Transubstantiate,
  Consubstantiate, Eternal-now, and the like canting of Schoole-men.
<br />
  To him that can avoyd these things, it is not easie to fall into any
  absurdity, unlesse it be by the length of an account; wherein he may
  perhaps forget what went before. For all men by nature reason alike, and
  well, when they have good principles. For who is so stupid, as both to
  mistake in Geometry, and also to persist in it, when another detects his
  error to him?

  Science
  By this it appears that Reason is not as Sense, and Memory, borne with us;
  nor gotten by Experience onely; as Prudence is; but attayned by Industry;
  first in apt imposing of Names; and secondly by getting a good and orderly
  Method in proceeding from the Elements, which are Names, to Assertions
  made by Connexion of one of them to another; and so to syllogismes, which
  are the Connexions of one Assertion to another, till we come to a
  knowledge of all the Consequences of names appertaining to the subject in
  hand; and that is it, men call SCIENCE. And whereas Sense and Memory are
  but knowledge of Fact, which is a thing past, and irrevocable; Science is
  the knowledge of Consequences, and dependance of one fact upon another: by
  which, out of that we can presently do, we know how to do something els
  when we will, or the like, another time; Because when we see how any thing
  comes about, upon what causes, and by what manner; when the like causes
  come into our power, wee see how to make it produce the like effects.
<br />
  Children therefore are not endued with Reason at all, till they have
  attained the use of Speech: but are called Reasonable Creatures, for the
  possibility apparent of having the use of Reason in time to come. And the
  most part of men, though they have the use of Reasoning a little way, as
  in numbring to some degree; yet it serves them to little use in common
  life; in which they govern themselves, some better, some worse, according
  to their differences of experience, quicknesse of memory, and inclinations
  to severall ends; but specially according to good or evill fortune, and
  the errors of one another. For as for Science, or certain rules of their
  actions, they are so farre from it, that they know not what it is.
  Geometry they have thought Conjuring: but for other Sciences, they who
  have not been taught the beginnings, and some progresse in them, that they
  may see how they be acquired and generated, are in this point like
  children, that having no thought of generation, are made believe by the
  women, that their brothers and sisters are not born, but found in the
  garden.
<br />
  But yet they that have no Science, are in better, and nobler condition
  with their naturall Prudence; than men, that by mis-reasoning, or by
  trusting them that reason wrong, fall upon false and absurd generall
  rules. For ignorance of causes, and of rules, does not set men so farre
  out of their way, as relying on false rules, and taking for causes of what
  they aspire to, those that are not so, but rather causes of the contrary.
<br />
  To conclude, The Light of humane minds is Perspicuous Words, but by exact
  definitions first snuffed, and purged from ambiguity; Reason is the Pace;
  Encrease of Science, the Way; and the Benefit of man-kind, the End. And on
  the contrary, Metaphors, and senslesse and ambiguous words, are like Ignes
  Fatui; and reasoning upon them, is wandering amongst innumerable
  absurdities; and their end, contention, and sedition, or contempt.

  Prudence & Sapience, With Their Difference
  As, much Experience, is Prudence; so, is much Science, Sapience. For
  though wee usually have one name of Wisedome for them both; yet the
  Latines did always distinguish between Prudentia and Sapientia, ascribing
  the former to Experience, the later to Science. But to make their
  difference appeare more cleerly, let us suppose one man endued with an
  excellent naturall use, and dexterity in handling his armes; and another
  to have added to that dexterity, an acquired Science, of where he can
  offend, or be offended by his adversarie, in every possible posture, or
  guard: The ability of the former, would be to the ability of the later, as
  Prudence to Sapience; both usefull; but the later infallible. But they
  that trusting onely to the authority of books, follow the blind blindly,
  are like him that trusting to the false rules of the master of fence,
  ventures praesumptuously upon an adversary, that either kills, or
  disgraces him.

  Signes Of Science
  The signes of Science, are some, certain and infallible; some, uncertain.
  Certain, when he that pretendeth the Science of any thing, can teach the
  same; that is to say, demonstrate the truth thereof perspicuously to
  another: Uncertain, when onely some particular events answer to his
  pretence, and upon many occasions prove so as he sayes they must. Signes
  of prudence are all uncertain; because to observe by experience, and
  remember all circumstances that may alter the successe, is impossible. But
  in any businesse, whereof a man has not infallible Science to proceed by;
  to forsake his own natural judgement, and be guided by generall sentences
  read in Authors, and subject to many exceptions, is a signe of folly, and
  generally scorned by the name of Pedantry. And even of those men
  themselves, that in Councells of the Common-wealth, love to shew their
  reading of Politiques and History, very few do it in their domestique
  affaires, where their particular interest is concerned; having Prudence
  enough for their private affaires: but in publique they study more the
  reputation of their owne wit, than the successe of anothers businesse.

  CHAPTER VI.<br />OF THE INTERIOUR BEGINNINGS OF VOLUNTARY MOTIONS
  COMMONLY CALLED THE PASSIONS, AND THE SPEECHES BY WHICH THEY ARE
  EXPRESSED.

  Motion Vitall And Animal
  There be in Animals, two sorts of Motions peculiar to them: One called
  Vitall; begun in generation, and continued without interruption through
  their whole life; such as are the Course of the Bloud, the Pulse, the
  Breathing, the Concoctions, Nutrition, Excretion, &c; to which Motions
  there needs no help of Imagination: The other in Animal Motion, otherwise
  called Voluntary Motion; as to Go, to Speak, to Move any of our limbes, in
  such manner as is first fancied in our minds. That Sense, is Motion in the
  organs and interiour parts of mans body, caused by the action of the
  things we See, Heare, &c.; And that Fancy is but the Reliques of the
  same Motion, remaining after Sense, has been already sayd in the first and
  second Chapters. And because Going, Speaking, and the like Voluntary
  motions, depend alwayes upon a precedent thought of Whither, Which Way,
  and What; it is evident, that the Imagination is the first internall
  beginning of all Voluntary Motion. And although unstudied men, doe not
  conceive any motion at all to be there, where the thing moved is
  invisible; or the space it is moved in, is (for the shortnesse of it)
  insensible; yet that doth not hinder, but that such Motions are. For let a
  space be never so little, that which is moved over a greater space,
  whereof that little one is part, must first be moved over that. These
  small beginnings of Motion, within the body of Man, before they appear in
  walking, speaking, striking, and other visible actions, are commonly
  called ENDEAVOUR.

  Endeavour; Appetite; Desire; Hunger; Thirst; Aversion
  This Endeavour, when it is toward something which causes it, is called
  APPETITE, or DESIRE; the later, being the generall name; and the other,
  oftentimes restrayned to signifie the Desire of Food, namely Hunger and
  Thirst. And when the Endeavour is fromward something, it is generally
  called AVERSION. These words Appetite, and Aversion we have from the
  Latines; and they both of them signifie the motions, one of approaching,
  the other of retiring. So also do the Greek words for the same, which are
  orme and aphorme. For nature it selfe does often presse upon men those
  truths, which afterwards, when they look for somewhat beyond Nature, they
  stumble at. For the Schooles find in meere Appetite to go, or move, no
  actuall Motion at all: but because some Motion they must acknowledge, they
  call it Metaphoricall Motion; which is but an absurd speech; for though
  Words may be called metaphoricall; Bodies, and Motions cannot.
<br />
  That which men Desire, they are also sayd to LOVE; and to HATE those
  things, for which they have Aversion. So that Desire, and Love, are the
  same thing; save that by Desire, we alwayes signifie the Absence of the
  object; by Love, most commonly the Presence of the same. So also by
  Aversion, we signifie the Absence; and by Hate, the Presence of the
  Object.
<br />
  Of Appetites, and Aversions, some are born with men; as Appetite of food,
  Appetite of excretion, and exoneration, (which may also and more properly
  be called Aversions, from somewhat they feele in their Bodies;) and some
  other Appetites, not many. The rest, which are Appetites of particular
  things, proceed from Experience, and triall of their effects upon
  themselves, or other men. For of things wee know not at all, or believe
  not to be, we can have no further Desire, than to tast and try. But
  Aversion wee have for things, not onely which we know have hurt us; but
  also that we do not know whether they will hurt us, or not.

  Contempt
  Those things which we neither Desire, nor Hate, we are said to Contemne:
  CONTEMPT being nothing els but an immobility, or contumacy of the Heart,
  in resisting the action of certain things; and proceeding from that the
  Heart is already moved otherwise, by either more potent objects; or from
  want of experience of them.
<br />
  And because the constitution of a mans Body, is in continuall mutation; it
  is impossible that all the same things should alwayes cause in him the
  same Appetites, and aversions: much lesse can all men consent, in the
  Desire of almost any one and the same Object.

  Good Evill
  But whatsoever is the object of any mans Appetite or Desire; that is it,
  which he for his part calleth Good: And the object of his Hate, and
  Aversion, evill; And of his contempt, Vile, and Inconsiderable. For these
  words of Good, evill, and Contemptible, are ever used with relation to the
  person that useth them: There being nothing simply and absolutely so; nor
  any common Rule of Good and evill, to be taken from the nature of the
  objects themselves; but from the Person of the man (where there is no
  Common-wealth;) or, (in a Common-wealth,) From the Person that
  representeth it; or from an Arbitrator or Judge, whom men disagreeing
  shall by consent set up, and make his sentence the Rule thereof.

  Pulchrum Turpe; Delightfull Profitable; Unpleasant Unprofitable
  The Latine Tongue has two words, whose significations approach to those of
  Good and Evill; but are not precisely the same; And those are Pulchrum and
  Turpe. Whereof the former signifies that, which by some apparent signes
  promiseth Good; and the later, that, which promiseth evill. But in our
  Tongue we have not so generall names to expresse them by. But for
  Pulchrum, we say in some things, Fayre; in other Beautifull, or Handsome,
  or Gallant, or Honourable, or Comely, or Amiable; and for Turpe, Foule,
  Deformed, Ugly, Base, Nauseous, and the like, as the subject shall
  require; All which words, in their proper places signifie nothing els, but
  the Mine, or Countenance, that promiseth Good and evill. So that of Good
  there be three kinds; Good in the Promise, that is Pulchrum; Good in
  Effect, as the end desired, which is called Jucundum, Delightfull; and
  Good as the Means, which is called Utile, Profitable; and as many of
  evill: For evill, in Promise, is that they call Turpe; evill in Effect,
  and End, is Molestum, Unpleasant, Troublesome; and evill in the Means,
  Inutile, Unprofitable, Hurtfull.

  Delight Displeasure
  As, in Sense, that which is really within us, is (As I have sayd before)
  onely Motion, caused by the action of externall objects, but in apparence;
  to the Sight, Light and Colour; to the Eare, Sound; to the Nostrill,
  Odour, &c: so, when the action of the same object is continued from
  the Eyes, Eares, and other organs to the Heart; the real effect there is
  nothing but Motion, or Endeavour; which consisteth in Appetite, or
  Aversion, to, or from the object moving. But the apparence, or sense of
  that motion, is that wee either call DELIGHT, or TROUBLE OF MIND.

  Pleasure Offence
  This Motion, which is called Appetite, and for the apparence of it
  Delight, and Pleasure, seemeth to be, a corroboration of Vitall motion,
  and a help thereunto; and therefore such things as caused Delight, were
  not improperly called Jucunda, (A Juvando,) from helping or fortifying;
  and the contrary, Molesta, Offensive, from hindering, and troubling the
  motion vitall.
<br />
  Pleasure therefore, (or Delight,) is the apparence, or sense of Good; and
  Molestation or Displeasure, the apparence, or sense of evill. And
  consequently all Appetite, Desire, and Love, is accompanied with some
  Delight more or lesse; and all Hatred, and Aversion, with more or lesse
  Displeasure and Offence.

  Pleasures Of Sense; Pleasures Of The Mind; Joy Paine Griefe
  Of Pleasures, or Delights, some arise from the sense of an object Present;
  And those may be called Pleasures Of Sense, (The word Sensuall, as it is
  used by those onely that condemn them, having no place till there be
  Lawes.) Of this kind are all Onerations and Exonerations of the body; as
  also all that is pleasant, in the Sight, Hearing, Smell, Tast, Or Touch;
  Others arise from the Expectation, that proceeds from foresight of the
  End, or Consequence of things; whether those things in the Sense Please or
  Displease: And these are Pleasures Of The Mind of him that draweth those
  consequences; and are generally called JOY. In the like manner,
  Displeasures, are some in the Sense, and called PAYNE; others, in the
  Expectation of consequences, and are called GRIEFE.
<br />
  These simple Passions called Appetite, Desire, Love, Aversion, Hate, Joy,
  and griefe, have their names for divers considerations diversified. As
  first, when they one succeed another, they are diversly called from the
  opinion men have of the likelihood of attaining what they desire.
  Secondly, from the object loved or hated. Thirdly, from the consideration
  of many of them together. Fourthly, from the Alteration or succession it
  selfe.
<br />
  Hope&mdash; For Appetite with an opinion of attaining, is called HOPE.
<br />
  Despaire&mdash; The same, without such opinion, DESPAIRE.
<br />
  Feare&mdash; Aversion, with opinion of Hurt from the object, FEARE.
<br />
  Courage&mdash; The same, with hope of avoyding that Hurt by resistance,
  COURAGE.
<br />
  Anger&mdash; Sudden Courage, ANGER.
<br />
  Confidence&mdash; Constant Hope, CONFIDENCE of our selves.
<br />
  Diffidence&mdash; Constant Despayre, DIFFIDENCE of our selves.
<br />
  Indignation&mdash; Anger for great hurt done to another, when we conceive
  the same to be done by Injury, INDIGNATION.
<br />
  Benevolence&mdash; Desire of good to another, BENEVOLENCE, GOOD WILL,
  CHARITY. If to man generally, GOOD NATURE.
<br />
  Covetousnesse&mdash; Desire of Riches, COVETOUSNESSE: a name used alwayes
  in signification of blame; because men contending for them, are displeased
  with one anothers attaining them; though the desire in it selfe, be to be
  blamed, or allowed, according to the means by which those Riches are
  sought.
<br />
  Ambition&mdash; Desire of Office, or precedence, AMBITION: a name used
  also in the worse sense, for the reason before mentioned.
<br />
  Pusillanimity&mdash; Desire of things that conduce but a little to our
  ends; And fear of things that are but of little hindrance, PUSILLANIMITY.
<br />
  Magnanimity&mdash; Contempt of little helps, and hindrances, MAGNANIMITY.
<br />
  Valour&mdash; Magnanimity, in danger of Death, or Wounds, VALOUR,
  FORTITUDE.
<br />
  Liberality&mdash; Magnanimity in the use of Riches, LIBERALITY
<br />
  Miserablenesse&mdash; Pusillanimity, in the same WRETCHEDNESSE,
  MISERABLENESSE; or PARSIMONY; as it is liked or disliked.
<br />
  Kindnesse&mdash; Love of Persons for society, KINDNESSE.
<br />
  Naturall Lust&mdash; Love of Persons for Pleasing the sense onely, NATURAL
  LUST.
<br />
  Luxury&mdash; Love of the same, acquired from Rumination, that is
  Imagination of Pleasure past, LUXURY.
<br />
  The Passion Of Love; Jealousie&mdash; Love of one singularly, with desire
  to be singularly beloved, THE PASSION OF LOVE. The same, with fear that
  the love is not mutuall, JEALOUSIE.
<br />
  Revengefulnesse&mdash; Desire, by doing hurt to another, to make him
  condemn some fact of his own, REVENGEFULNESSE.
<br />
  Curiosity&mdash; Desire, to know why, and how, CURIOSITY; such as is in no
  living creature but Man; so that Man is distinguished, not onely by his
  Reason; but also by this singular Passion from other Animals; in whom the
  appetite of food, and other pleasures of Sense, by praedominance, take
  away the care of knowing causes; which is a Lust of the mind, that by a
  perseverance of delight in the continuall and indefatigable generation of
  Knowledge, exceedeth the short vehemence of any carnall Pleasure.
<br />
  Religion Superstition; True Religion&mdash; Feare of power invisible,
  feigned by the mind, or imagined from tales publiquely allowed, RELIGION;
  not allowed, superstition. And when the power imagined is truly such as we
  imagine, TRUE RELIGION.
<br />
  Panique Terrour&mdash; Feare, without the apprehension of why, or what,
  PANIQUE TERROR; called so from the fables that make Pan the author of
  them; whereas in truth there is always in him that so feareth, first, some
  apprehension of the cause, though the rest run away by example; every one
  supposing his fellow to know why. And therefore this Passion happens to
  none but in a throng, or multitude of people.
<br />
  Admiration&mdash; Joy, from apprehension of novelty, ADMIRATION; proper to
  man, because it excites the appetite of knowing the cause.
<br />
  Glory Vaine-glory&mdash; Joy, arising from imagination of a man&rsquo;s own
  power and ability, is that exultation of the mind which is called
  GLORYING: which, if grounded upon the experience of his own former
  actions, is the same with Confidence: but if grounded on the flattery of
  others, or onely supposed by himselfe, for delight in the consequences of
  it, is called VAINE-GLORY: which name is properly given; because a
  well-grounded Confidence begetteth attempt; whereas the supposing of power
  does not, and is therefore rightly called Vaine.
<br />
  Dejection&mdash; Griefe, from opinion of want of power, is called
  dejection of mind.
<br />
  The Vaine-glory which consisteth in the feigning or supposing of abilities
  in ourselves, which we know are not, is most incident to young men, and
  nourished by the Histories or Fictions of Gallant Persons; and is
  corrected often times by Age, and Employment.
<br />
  Sudden Glory Laughter&mdash; Sudden glory, is the passion which maketh
  those Grimaces called LAUGHTER; and is caused either by some sudden act of
  their own, that pleaseth them; or by the apprehension of some deformed
  thing in another, by comparison whereof they suddenly applaud themselves.
  And it is incident most to them, that are conscious of the fewest
  abilities in themselves; who are forced to keep themselves in their own
  favour, by observing the imperfections of other men. And therefore much
  Laughter at the defects of others is a signe of Pusillanimity. For of
  great minds, one of the proper workes is, to help and free others from
  scorn; and compare themselves onely with the most able.
<br />
  Sudden Dejection Weeping&mdash; On the contrary, Sudden Dejection is the
  passion that causeth WEEPING; and is caused by such accidents, as suddenly
  take away some vehement hope, or some prop of their power: and they are
  most subject to it, that rely principally on helps externall, such as are
  Women, and Children. Therefore, some Weep for the loss of Friends; Others
  for their unkindnesse; others for the sudden stop made to their thoughts
  of revenge, by Reconciliation. But in all cases, both Laughter and
  Weeping, are sudden motions; Custome taking them both away. For no man
  Laughs at old jests; or Weeps for an old calamity.
<br />
  Shame Blushing&mdash; Griefe, for the discovery of some defect of ability
  is SHAME, or the passion that discovereth itself in BLUSHING; and
  consisteth in the apprehension of some thing dishonourable; and in young
  men, is a signe of the love of good reputation; and commendable: in old
  men it is a signe of the same; but because it comes too late, not
  commendable.
<br />
  Impudence&mdash; The Contempt of good reputation is called IMPUDENCE.
<br />
  Pitty&mdash; Griefe, for the calamity of another is PITTY; and ariseth
  from the imagination that the like calamity may befall himselfe; and
  therefore is called also COMPASSION, and in the phrase of this present
  time a FELLOW-FEELING: and therefore for Calamity arriving from great
  wickedness, the best men have the least Pitty; and for the same Calamity,
  those have least Pitty, that think themselves least obnoxious to the same.
<br />
  Cruelty&mdash; Contempt, or little sense of the calamity of others, is
  that which men call CRUELTY; proceeding from Security of their own
  fortune. For, that any man should take pleasure in other mens&rsquo; great
  harmes, without other end of his own, I do not conceive it possible.
<br />
  Emulation Envy&mdash; Griefe, for the success of a Competitor in wealth,
  honour, or other good, if it be joyned with Endeavour to enforce our own
  abilities to equal or exceed him, is called EMULATION: but joyned with
  Endeavour to supplant or hinder a Competitor, ENVIE.
<br />
  Deliberation&mdash; When in the mind of man, Appetites and Aversions,
  Hopes and Feares, concerning one and the same thing, arise alternately;
  and divers good and evill consequences of the doing, or omitting the thing
  propounded, come successively into our thoughts; so that sometimes we have
  an Appetite to it, sometimes an Aversion from it; sometimes Hope to be
  able to do it; sometimes Despaire, or Feare to attempt it; the whole sum
  of Desires, Aversions, Hopes and Feares, continued till the thing be
  either done, or thought impossible, is that we call DELIBERATION.
<br />
  Therefore of things past, there is no Deliberation; because manifestly
  impossible to be changed: nor of things known to be impossible, or thought
  so; because men know, or think such Deliberation vaine. But of things
  impossible, which we think possible, we may Deliberate; not knowing it is
  in vain. And it is called DELIBERATION; because it is a putting an end to
  the Liberty we had of doing, or omitting, according to our own Appetite,
  or Aversion.
<br />
  This alternate succession of Appetites, Aversions, Hopes and Feares is no
  less in other living Creatures than in Man; and therefore Beasts also
  Deliberate.
<br />
  Every Deliberation is then sayd to End when that whereof they Deliberate,
  is either done, or thought impossible; because till then wee retain the
  liberty of doing, or omitting, according to our Appetite, or Aversion.

  The Will
  In Deliberation, the last Appetite, or Aversion, immediately adhaering to
  the action, or to the omission thereof, is that wee call the WILL; the
  Act, (not the faculty,) of Willing. And Beasts that have Deliberation must
  necessarily also have Will. The Definition of the Will, given commonly by
  the Schooles, that it is a Rationall Appetite, is not good. For if it
  were, then could there be no Voluntary Act against Reason. For a Voluntary
  Act is that, which proceedeth from the Will, and no other. But if in stead
  of a Rationall Appetite, we shall say an Appetite resulting from a
  precedent Deliberation, then the Definition is the same that I have given
  here. Will, therefore, Is The Last Appetite In Deliberating. And though we
  say in common Discourse, a man had a Will once to do a thing, that
  neverthelesse he forbore to do; yet that is properly but an Inclination,
  which makes no Action Voluntary; because the action depends not of it, but
  of the last Inclination, or Appetite. For if the intervenient Appetites
  make any action Voluntary, then by the same reason all intervenient
  Aversions should make the same action Involuntary; and so one and the same
  action should be both Voluntary & Involuntary.
<br />
  By this it is manifest, that not onely actions that have their beginning
  from Covetousness, Ambition, Lust, or other Appetites to the thing
  propounded; but also those that have their beginning from Aversion, or
  Feare of those consequences that follow the omission, are Voluntary
  Actions.

  Formes Of Speech, In Passion
  The formes of Speech by which the Passions are expressed, are partly the
  same, and partly different from those, by which we express our Thoughts.
  And first generally all Passions may be expressed Indicatively; as, I
  Love, I Feare, I Joy, I Deliberate, I Will, I Command: but some of them
  have particular expressions by themselves, which nevertheless are not
  affirmations, unless it be when they serve to make other inferences,
  besides that of the Passion they proceed from. Deliberation is expressed
  Subjunctively; which is a speech proper to signifie suppositions, with
  their consequences; as, If This Be Done, Then This Will Follow; and
  differs not from the language of Reasoning, save that Reasoning is in
  generall words, but Deliberation for the most part is of Particulars. The
  language of Desire, and Aversion, is Imperative; as, Do This, Forbear
  That; which when the party is obliged to do, or forbear, is Command;
  otherwise Prayer; or els Counsell. The language of Vaine-Glory, of
  Indignation, Pitty and Revengefulness, Optative: but of the Desire to
  know, there is a peculiar expression called Interrogative; as, What Is It,
  When Shall It, How Is It Done, and Why So? Other language of the Passions
  I find none: for Cursing, Swearing, Reviling, and the like, do not
  signifie as Speech; but as the actions of a tongue accustomed.
<br />
  These forms of Speech, I say, are expressions, or voluntary significations
  of our Passions: but certain signes they be not; because they may be used
  arbitrarily, whether they that use them, have such Passions or not. The
  best signes of Passions present, are either in the countenance, motions of
  the body, actions, and ends, or aims, which we otherwise know the man to
  have.

  Good And Evill Apparent
  And because in Deliberation the Appetites and Aversions are raised by
  foresight of the good and evill consequences, and sequels of the action
  whereof we Deliberate; the good or evill effect thereof dependeth on the
  foresight of a long chain of consequences, of which very seldome any man
  is able to see to the end. But for so far as a man seeth, if the Good in
  those consequences be greater than the evill, the whole chain is that
  which Writers call Apparent or Seeming Good. And contrarily, when the
  evill exceedeth the good, the whole is Apparent or Seeming Evill: so that
  he who hath by Experience, or Reason, the greatest and surest prospect of
  Consequences, Deliberates best himself; and is able, when he will, to give
  the best counsel unto others.

  Felicity
  Continual Successe in obtaining those things which a man from time to time
  desireth, that is to say, continual prospering, is that men call FELICITY;
  I mean the Felicity of this life. For there is no such thing as perpetual
  Tranquillity of mind, while we live here; because Life itself is but
  Motion, and can never be without Desire, nor without Feare, no more than
  without Sense. What kind of Felicity God hath ordained to them that
  devoutly honour him, a man shall no sooner know, than enjoy; being joys,
  that now are as incomprehensible, as the word of School-men, Beatifical
  Vision, is unintelligible.

  Praise Magnification
  The form of speech whereby men signifie their opinion of the Goodnesse of
  anything is PRAISE. That whereby they signifie the power and greatness of
  anything is MAGNIFYING. And that whereby they signifie the opinion they
  have of a man&rsquo;s felicity is by the Greeks called Makarismos, for which we
  have no name in our tongue. And thus much is sufficient for the present
  purpose to have been said of the passions.

  CHAPTER VII.<br />OF THE ENDS OR RESOLUTIONS OF DISCOURSE
  Of all Discourse, governed by desire of Knowledge, there is at last an
  End, either by attaining, or by giving over. And in the chain of
  Discourse, wheresoever it be interrupted, there is an End for that time.

  Judgement, or Sentence Final; Doubt
  If the Discourse be meerly Mentall, it consisteth of thoughts that the
  thing will be, and will not be; or that it has been, and has not been,
  alternately. So that wheresoever you break off the chayn of a mans
  Discourse, you leave him in a Praesumption of It Will Be, or, It Will Not
  Be; or it Has Been, or, Has Not Been. All which is Opinion. And that which
  is alternate Appetite, in Deliberating concerning Good and Evil, the same
  is alternate Opinion in the Enquiry of the truth of Past, and Future. And
  as the last Appetite in Deliberation is called the Will, so the last
  Opinion in search of the truth of Past, and Future, is called the
  JUDGEMENT, or Resolute and Final Sentence of him that Discourseth. And as
  the whole chain of Appetites alternate, in the question of Good or Bad is
  called Deliberation; so the whole chain of Opinions alternate, in the
  question of True, or False is called DOUBT.
<br />
  No Discourse whatsoever, can End in absolute knowledge of Fact, past, or
  to come. For, as for the knowledge of Fact, it is originally, Sense; and
  ever after, Memory. And for the knowledge of consequence, which I have
  said before is called Science, it is not Absolute, but Conditionall. No
  man can know by Discourse, that this, or that, is, has been, or will be;
  which is to know absolutely: but onely, that if This be, That is; if This
  has been, That has been; if This shall be, That shall be: which is to know
  conditionally; and that not the consequence of one thing to another; but
  of one name of a thing, to another name of the same thing.

  Science Opinion Conscience
  And therefore, when the Discourse is put into Speech, and begins with the
  Definitions of Words, and proceeds by Connexion of the same into general
  Affirmations, and of these again into Syllogismes, the end or last sum is
  called the Conclusion; and the thought of the mind by it signified is that
  conditional Knowledge, or Knowledge of the consequence of words, which is
  commonly called Science. But if the first ground of such Discourse be not
  Definitions, or if the Definitions be not rightly joyned together into
  Syllogismes, then the End or Conclusion is again OPINION, namely of the
  truth of somewhat said, though sometimes in absurd and senslesse words,
  without possibility of being understood. When two, or more men, know of
  one and the same fact, they are said to be CONSCIOUS of it one to another;
  which is as much as to know it together. And because such are fittest
  witnesses of the facts of one another, or of a third, it was, and ever
  will be reputed a very Evill act, for any man to speak against his
  Conscience; or to corrupt or force another so to do: Insomuch that the
  plea of Conscience, has been always hearkened unto very diligently in all
  times. Afterwards, men made use of the same word metaphorically, for the
  knowledge of their own secret facts, and secret thoughts; and therefore it
  is Rhetorically said that the Conscience is a thousand witnesses. And last
  of all, men, vehemently in love with their own new opinions, (though never
  so absurd,) and obstinately bent to maintain them, gave those their
  opinions also that reverenced name of Conscience, as if they would have it
  seem unlawful, to change or speak against them; and so pretend to know
  they are true, when they know at most but that they think so.

  Beliefe Faith
  When a mans Discourse beginneth not at Definitions, it beginneth either at
  some other contemplation of his own, and then it is still called Opinion;
  Or it beginneth at some saying of another, of whose ability to know the
  truth, and of whose honesty in not deceiving, he doubteth not; and then
  the Discourse is not so much concerning the Thing, as the Person; And the
  Resolution is called BELEEFE, and FAITH: Faith, In the man; Beleefe, both
  Of the man, and Of the truth of what he sayes. So then in Beleefe are two
  opinions; one of the saying of the man; the other of his vertue. To Have
  Faith In, or Trust To, or Beleeve A Man, signifie the same thing; namely,
  an opinion of the veracity of the man: But to Beleeve What Is Said,
  signifieth onely an opinion of the truth of the saying. But wee are to
  observe that this Phrase, I Beleeve In; as also the Latine, Credo In; and
  the Greek, Pisteno Eis, are never used but in the writings of Divines. In
  stead of them, in other writings are put, I Beleeve Him; I Have Faith In
  Him; I Rely On Him: and in Latin, Credo Illi; Fido Illi: and in Greek,
  Pisteno Anto: and that this singularity of the Ecclesiastical use of the
  word hath raised many disputes about the right object of the Christian
  Faith.
<br />
  But by Beleeving In, as it is in the Creed, is meant, not trust in the
  Person; but Confession and acknowledgement of the Doctrine. For not onely
  Christians, but all manner of men do so believe in God, as to hold all for
  truth they heare him say, whether they understand it, or not; which is all
  the Faith and trust can possibly be had in any person whatsoever: But they
  do not all believe the Doctrine of the Creed.
<br />
  From whence we may inferre, that when wee believe any saying whatsoever it
  be, to be true, from arguments taken, not from the thing it selfe, or from
  the principles of naturall Reason, but from the Authority, and good
  opinion wee have, of him that hath sayd it; then is the speaker, or person
  we believe in, or trust in, and whose word we take, the object of our
  Faith; and the Honour done in Believing, is done to him onely. And
  consequently, when wee Believe that the Scriptures are the word of God,
  having no immediate revelation from God himselfe, our Beleefe, Faith, and
  Trust is in the Church; whose word we take, and acquiesce therein. And
  they that believe that which a Prophet relates unto them in the name of
  God, take the word of the Prophet, do honour to him, and in him trust, and
  believe, touching the truth of what he relateth, whether he be a true, or
  a false Prophet. And so it is also with all other History. For if I should
  not believe all that is written By Historians, of the glorious acts of
  Alexander, or Caesar; I do not think the Ghost of Alexander, or Caesar,
  had any just cause to be offended; or any body else, but the Historian. If
  Livy say the Gods made once a Cow speak, and we believe it not; wee
  distrust not God therein, but Livy. So that it is evident, that whatsoever
  we believe, upon no other reason, than what is drawn from authority of men
  onely, and their writings; whether they be sent from God or not, is Faith
  in men onely.

  CHAPTER VIII.<br />OF THE VERTUES COMMONLY CALLED INTELLECTUAL, AND THEIR
  CONTRARY DEFECTS

  Intellectuall Vertue Defined
  Vertue generally, in all sorts of subjects, is somewhat that is valued for
  eminence; and consisteth in comparison. For if all things were equally in
  all men, nothing would be prized. And by Vertues INTELLECTUALL, are always
  understood such abilityes of the mind, as men praise, value, and desire
  should be in themselves; and go commonly under the name of a Good Witte;
  though the same word Witte, be used also, to distinguish one certain
  ability from the rest.

  Wit, Naturall, Or Acquired
  These Vertues are of two sorts; Naturall, and Acquired. By Naturall, I
  mean not, that which a man hath from his Birth: for that is nothing else
  but Sense; wherein men differ so little one from another, and from brute
  Beasts, as it is not to be reckoned amongst Vertues. But I mean, that
  Witte, which is gotten by Use onely, and Experience; without Method,
  Culture, or Instruction. This NATURALL WITTE, consisteth principally in
  two things; Celerity Of Imagining, (that is, swift succession of one
  thought to another;) and Steddy Direction to some approved end. On the
  Contrary a slow Imagination, maketh that Defect, or fault of the mind,
  which is commonly called DULNESSE, Stupidity, and sometimes by other names
  that signifie slownesse of motion, or difficulty to be moved.

  Good Wit, Or Fancy; Good Judgement; Discretion
  And this difference of quicknesse, is caused by the difference of mens
  passions; that love and dislike, some one thing, some another: and
  therefore some mens thoughts run one way, some another: and are held to,
  and observe differently the things that passe through their imagination.
  And whereas in his succession of mens thoughts, there is nothing to
  observe in the things they think on, but either in what they be Like One
  Another, or in what they be Unlike, or What They Serve For, or How They
  Serve To Such A Purpose; Those that observe their similitudes, in case
  they be such as are but rarely observed by others, are sayd to have a Good
  Wit; by which, in this occasion, is meant a Good Fancy. But they that
  observe their differences, and dissimilitudes; which is called
  Distinguishing, and Discerning, and Judging between thing and thing; in
  case, such discerning be not easie, are said to have a Good Judgement: and
  particularly in matter of conversation and businesse; wherein, times,
  places, and persons are to be discerned, this Vertue is called DISCRETION.
  The former, that is, Fancy, without the help of Judgement, is not
  commended as a Vertue: but the later which is Judgement, and Discretion,
  is commended for it selfe, without the help of Fancy. Besides the
  Discretion of times, places, and persons, necessary to a good Fancy, there
  is required also an often application of his thoughts to their End; that
  is to say, to some use to be made of them. This done; he that hath this
  Vertue, will be easily fitted with similitudes, that will please, not
  onely by illustration of his discourse, and adorning it with new and apt
  metaphors; but also, by the rarity or their invention. But without
  Steddinesse, and Direction to some End, a great Fancy is one kind of
  Madnesse; such as they have, that entring into any discourse, are snatched
  from their purpose, by every thing that comes in their thought, into so
  many, and so long digressions, and parentheses, that they utterly lose
  themselves: Which kind of folly, I know no particular name for: but the
  cause of it is, sometimes want of experience; whereby that seemeth to a
  man new and rare, which doth not so to others: sometimes Pusillanimity; by
  which that seems great to him, which other men think a trifle: and
  whatsoever is new, or great, and therefore thought fit to be told,
  withdrawes a man by degrees from the intended way of his discourse.
<br />
  In a good Poem, whether it be Epique, or Dramatique; as also in Sonnets,
  Epigrams, and other Pieces, both Judgement and Fancy are required: But the
  Fancy must be more eminent; because they please for the Extravagancy; but
  ought not to displease by Indiscretion.
<br />
  In a good History, the Judgement must be eminent; because the goodnesse
  consisteth, in the Method, in the Truth, and in the Choyse of the actions
  that are most profitable to be known. Fancy has no place, but onely in
  adorning the stile.
<br />
  In Orations of Prayse, and in Invectives, the Fancy is praedominant;
  because the designe is not truth, but to Honour or Dishonour; which is
  done by noble, or by vile comparisons. The Judgement does but suggest what
  circumstances make an action laudable, or culpable.
<br />
  In Hortatives, and Pleadings, as Truth, or Disguise serveth best to the
  Designe in hand; so is the Judgement, or the Fancy most required.
<br />
  In Demonstration, in Councell, and all rigourous search of Truth,
  Judgement does all; except sometimes the understanding have need to be
  opened by some apt similitude; and then there is so much use of Fancy. But
  for Metaphors, they are in this case utterly excluded. For seeing they
  openly professe deceipt; to admit them into Councell, or Reasoning, were
  manifest folly.
<br />
  And in any Discourse whatsoever, if the defect of Discretion be apparent,
  how extravagant soever the Fancy be, the whole discourse will be taken for
  a signe of want of wit; and so will it never when the Discretion is
  manifest, though the Fancy be never so ordinary.
<br />
  The secret thoughts of a man run over all things, holy, prophane, clean,
  obscene, grave, and light, without shame, or blame; which verball
  discourse cannot do, farther than the Judgement shall approve of the Time,
  Place, and Persons. An Anatomist, or a Physitian may speak, or write his
  judgement of unclean things; because it is not to please, but profit: but
  for another man to write his extravagant, and pleasant fancies of the
  same, is as if a man, from being tumbled into the dirt, should come and
  present himselfe before good company. And &rsquo;tis the want of Discretion that
  makes the difference. Again, in profest remissnesse of mind, and familiar
  company, a man may play with the sounds, and aequivocal significations of
  words; and that many times with encounters of extraordinary Fancy: but in
  a Sermon, or in publique, or before persons unknown, or whom we ought to
  reverence, there is no Gingling of words that will not be accounted folly:
  and the difference is onely in the want of Discretion. So that where Wit
  is wanting, it is not Fancy that is wanting, but Discretion. Judgement
  therefore without Fancy is Wit, but Fancy without Judgement not.

  Prudence
  When the thoughts of a man, that has a designe in hand, running over a
  multitude of things, observes how they conduce to that designe; or what
  designe they may conduce into; if his observations be such as are not
  easie, or usuall, This wit of his is called PRUDENCE; and dependeth on
  much Experience, and Memory of the like things, and their consequences
  heretofore. In which there is not so much difference of Men, as there is
  in their Fancies and Judgements; Because the Experience of men equall in
  age, is not much unequall, as to the quantity; but lyes in different
  occasions; every one having his private designes. To govern well a family,
  and a kingdome, are not different degrees of Prudence; but different sorts
  of businesse; no more then to draw a picture in little, or as great, or
  greater then the life, are different degrees of Art. A plain husband-man
  is more Prudent in affaires of his own house, then a Privy Counseller in
  the affaires of another man.

  Craft
  To Prudence, if you adde the use of unjust, or dishonest means, such as
  usually are prompted to men by Feare, or Want; you have that Crooked
  Wisdome, which is called CRAFT; which is a signe of Pusillanimity. For
  Magnanimity is contempt of unjust, or dishonest helps. And that which the
  Latines Call Versutia, (translated into English, Shifting,) and is a
  putting off of a present danger or incommodity, by engaging into a
  greater, as when a man robbs one to pay another, is but a shorter sighted
  Craft, called Versutia, from Versura, which signifies taking mony at
  usurie, for the present payment of interest.

  Acquired Wit
  As for Acquired Wit, (I mean acquired by method and instruction,) there is
  none but Reason; which is grounded on the right use of Speech; and
  produceth the Sciences. But of Reason and Science, I have already spoken
  in the fifth and sixth Chapters.
<br />
  The causes of this difference of Witts, are in the Passions: and the
  difference of Passions, proceedeth partly from the different Constitution
  of the body, and partly from different Education. For if the difference
  proceeded from the temper of the brain, and the organs of Sense, either
  exterior or interior, there would be no lesse difference of men in their
  Sight, Hearing, or other Senses, than in their Fancies, and Discretions.
  It proceeds therefore from the Passions; which are different, not onely
  from the difference of mens complexions; but also from their difference of
  customes, and education.
<br />
  The Passions that most of all cause the differences of Wit, are
  principally, the more or lesse Desire of Power, of Riches, of Knowledge,
  and of Honour. All which may be reduced to the first, that is Desire of
  Power. For Riches, Knowledge and Honour are but severall sorts of Power.

  Giddinesse Madnesse
  And therefore, a man who has no great Passion for any of these things; but
  is as men terme it indifferent; though he may be so farre a good man, as
  to be free from giving offence; yet he cannot possibly have either a great
  Fancy, or much Judgement. For the Thoughts, are to the Desires, as Scouts,
  and Spies, to range abroad, and find the way to the things Desired: All
  Stedinesse of the minds motion, and all quicknesse of the same, proceeding
  from thence. For as to have no Desire, is to be Dead: so to have weak
  Passions, is Dulnesse; and to have Passions indifferently for every thing,
  GIDDINESSE, and Distraction; and to have stronger, and more vehement
  Passions for any thing, than is ordinarily seen in others, is that which
  men call MADNESSE.
<br />
  Whereof there be almost as many kinds, as of the Passions themselves.
  Sometimes the extraordinary and extravagant Passion, proceedeth from the
  evill constitution of the organs of the Body, or harme done them; and
  sometimes the hurt, and indisposition of the Organs, is caused by the
  vehemence, or long continuance of the Passion. But in both cases the
  Madnesse is of one and the same nature.
<br />
  The Passion, whose violence, or continuance maketh Madnesse, is either
  great Vaine-Glory; which is commonly called Pride, and Selfe-Conceipt; or
  great Dejection of mind.

  Rage
  Pride, subjecteth a man to Anger, the excesse whereof, is the Madnesse
  called RAGE, and FURY. And thus it comes to passe that excessive desire of
  Revenge, when it becomes habituall, hurteth the organs, and becomes Rage:
  That excessive love, with jealousie, becomes also Rage: Excessive opinion
  of a mans own selfe, for divine inspiration, for wisdome, learning, forme,
  and the like, becomes Distraction, and Giddinesse: the same, joyned with
  Envy, Rage: Vehement opinion of the truth of any thing, contradicted by
  others, Rage.

  Melancholy
  Dejection, subjects a man to causelesse fears; which is a Madnesse
  commonly called MELANCHOLY, apparent also in divers manners; as in
  haunting of solitudes, and graves; in superstitious behaviour; and in
  fearing some one, some another particular thing. In summe, all Passions
  that produce strange and unusuall behaviour, are called by the generall
  name of Madnesse. But of the severall kinds of Madnesse, he that would
  take the paines, might enrowle a legion. And if the Excesses be madnesse,
  there is no doubt but the Passions themselves, when they tend to Evill,
  are degrees of the same.
<br />
  (For example,) Though the effect of folly, in them that are possessed of
  an opinion of being inspired, be not visible alwayes in one man, by any
  very extravagant action, that proceedeth from such Passion; yet when many
  of them conspire together, the Rage of the whole multitude is visible
  enough. For what argument of Madnesse can there be greater, than to
  clamour, strike, and throw stones at our best friends? Yet this is
  somewhat lesse than such a multitude will do. For they will clamour, fight
  against, and destroy those, by whom all their lifetime before, they have
  been protected, and secured from injury. And if this be Madnesse in the
  multitude, it is the same in every particular man. For as in the middest
  of the sea, though a man perceive no sound of that part of the water next
  him; yet he is well assured, that part contributes as much, to the Roaring
  of the Sea, as any other part, of the same quantity: so also, thought wee
  perceive no great unquietnesse, in one, or two men; yet we may be well
  assured, that their singular Passions, are parts of the Seditious roaring
  of a troubled Nation. And if there were nothing else that bewrayed their
  madnesse; yet that very arrogating such inspiration to themselves, is
  argument enough. If some man in Bedlam should entertaine you with sober
  discourse; and you desire in taking leave, to know what he were, that you
  might another time requite his civility; and he should tell you, he were
  God the Father; I think you need expect no extravagant action for argument
  of his Madnesse.
<br />
  This opinion of Inspiration, called commonly, Private Spirit, begins very
  often, from some lucky finding of an Errour generally held by others; and
  not knowing, or not remembring, by what conduct of reason, they came to so
  singular a truth, (as they think it, though it be many times an untruth
  they light on,) they presently admire themselves; as being in the speciall
  grace of God Almighty, who hath revealed the same to them supernaturally,
  by his Spirit.
<br />
  Again, that Madnesse is nothing else, but too much appearing Passion, may
  be gathered out of the effects of Wine, which are the same with those of
  the evill disposition of the organs. For the variety of behaviour in men
  that have drunk too much, is the same with that of Mad-men: some of them
  Raging, others Loving, others laughing, all extravagantly, but according
  to their severall domineering Passions: For the effect of the wine, does
  but remove Dissimulation; and take from them the sight of the deformity of
  their Passions. For, (I believe) the most sober men, when they walk alone
  without care and employment of the mind, would be unwilling the vanity and
  Extravagance of their thoughts at that time should be publiquely seen:
  which is a confession, that Passions unguided, are for the most part meere
  Madnesse.
<br />
  The opinions of the world, both in antient and later ages, concerning the
  cause of madnesse, have been two. Some, deriving them from the Passions;
  some, from Daemons, or Spirits, either good, or bad, which they thought
  might enter into a man, possesse him, and move his organs is such strange,
  and uncouth manner, as mad-men use to do. The former sort therefore,
  called such men, Mad-men: but the Later, called them sometimes
  Daemoniacks, (that is, possessed with spirits;) sometimes Energumeni,
  (that is agitated, or moved with spirits;) and now in Italy they are
  called not onely Pazzi, Mad-men; but also Spiritati, men possest.
<br />
  There was once a great conflux of people in Abdera, a City of the Greeks,
  at the acting of the Tragedy of Andromeda, upon an extream hot day:
  whereupon, a great many of the spectators falling into Fevers, had this
  accident from the heat, and from The Tragedy together, that they did
  nothing but pronounce Iambiques, with the names of Perseus and Andromeda;
  which together with the Fever, was cured, by the comming on of Winter: And
  this madnesse was thought to proceed from the Passion imprinted by the
  Tragedy. Likewise there raigned a fit of madnesse in another Graecian
  city, which seized onely the young Maidens; and caused many of them to
  hang themselves. This was by most then thought an act of the Divel. But
  one that suspected, that contempt of life in them, might proceed from some
  Passion of the mind, and supposing they did not contemne also their
  honour, gave counsell to the Magistrates, to strip such as so hang&rsquo;d
  themselves, and let them hang out naked. This the story sayes cured that
  madnesse. But on the other side, the same Graecians, did often ascribe
  madnesse, to the operation of the Eumenides, or Furyes; and sometimes of
  Ceres, Phoebus, and other Gods: so much did men attribute to Phantasmes,
  as to think them aereal living bodies; and generally to call them Spirits.
  And as the Romans in this, held the same opinion with the Greeks: so also
  did the Jewes; For they calle mad-men Prophets, or (according as they
  thought the spirits good or bad) Daemoniacks; and some of them called both
  Prophets, and Daemoniacks, mad-men; and some called the same man both
  Daemoniack, and mad-man. But for the Gentiles, &rsquo;tis no wonder; because
  Diseases, and Health; Vices, and Vertues; and many naturall accidents,
  were with them termed, and worshipped as Daemons. So that a man was to
  understand by Daemon, as well (sometimes) an Ague, as a Divell. But for
  the Jewes to have such opinion, is somewhat strange. For neither Moses,
  nor Abraham pretended to Prophecy by possession of a Spirit; but from the
  voyce of God; or by a Vision or Dream: Nor is there any thing in his Law,
  Morall, or Ceremoniall, by which they were taught, there was any such
  Enthusiasme; or any Possession. When God is sayd, (Numb. 11. 25.) to take
  from the Spirit that was in Moses, and give it to the 70. Elders, the
  Spirit of God (taking it for the substance of God) is not divided. The
  Scriptures by the Spirit of God in man, mean a mans spirit, enclined to
  Godlinesse. And where it is said (Exod. 28. 3.) &ldquo;Whom I have filled with
  the Spirit of wisdome to make garments for Aaron,&rdquo; is not meant a spirit
  put into them, that can make garments; but the wisdome of their own
  spirits in that kind of work. In the like sense, the spirit of man, when
  it produceth unclean actions, is ordinarily called an unclean spirit; and
  so other spirits, though not alwayes, yet as often as the vertue or vice
  so stiled, is extraordinary, and Eminent. Neither did the other Prophets
  of the old Testament pretend Enthusiasme; or, that God spake in them; but
  to them by Voyce, Vision, or Dream; and the Burthen Of The Lord was not
  Possession, but Command. How then could the Jewes fall into this opinion
  of possession? I can imagine no reason, but that which is common to all
  men; namely, the want of curiosity to search naturall causes; and their
  placing Felicity, in the acquisition of the grosse pleasures of the
  Senses, and the things that most immediately conduce thereto. For they
  that see any strange, and unusuall ability, or defect in a mans mind;
  unlesse they see withall, from what cause it may probably proceed, can
  hardly think it naturall; and if not naturall, they must needs thinke it
  supernaturall; and then what can it be, but that either God, or the Divell
  is in him? And hence it came to passe, when our Saviour (Mark 3.21.) was
  compassed about with the multitude, those of the house doubted he was mad,
  and went out to hold him: but the Scribes said he had Belzebub, and that
  was it, by which he cast out divels; as if the greater mad-man had awed
  the lesser. And that (John 10. 20.) some said, &ldquo;He hath a Divell, and is
  mad;&rdquo; whereas others holding him for a Prophet, sayd, &ldquo;These are not the
  words of one that hath a Divell.&rdquo; So in the old Testament he that came to
  anoynt Jehu, (2 Kings 9.11.) was a Prophet; but some of the company asked
  Jehu, &ldquo;What came that mad-man for?&rdquo; So that in summe, it is manifest, that
  whosoever behaved himselfe in extraordinary manner, was thought by the
  Jewes to be possessed either with a good, or evill spirit; except by the
  Sadduces, who erred so farre on the other hand, as not to believe there
  were at all any spirits, (which is very neere to direct Atheisme;) and
  thereby perhaps the more provoked others, to terme such men Daemoniacks,
  rather than mad-men.
<br />
  But why then does our Saviour proceed in the curing of them, as if they
  were possest; and not as if they were mad. To which I can give no other
  kind of answer, but that which is given to those that urge the Scripture
  in like manner against the opinion of the motion of the Earth. The
  Scripture was written to shew unto men the kingdome of God; and to prepare
  their mindes to become his obedient subjects; leaving the world, and the
  Philosophy thereof, to the disputation of men, for the exercising of their
  naturall Reason. Whether the Earths, or Suns motion make the day, and
  night; or whether the Exorbitant actions of men, proceed from Passion, or
  from the Divell, (so we worship him not) it is all one, as to our
  obedience, and subjection to God Almighty; which is the thing for which
  the Scripture was written. As for that our Saviour speaketh to the
  disease, as to a person; it is the usuall phrase of all that cure by words
  onely, as Christ did, (and Inchanters pretend to do, whether they speak to
  a Divel or not.) For is not Christ also said (Math. 8.26.) to have rebuked
  the winds? Is not he said also (Luk. 4. 39.) to rebuke a Fever? Yet this
  does not argue that a Fever is a Divel. And whereas many of these Divels
  are said to confesse Christ; it is not necessary to interpret those places
  otherwise, than that those mad-men confessed him. And whereas our Saviour
  (Math. 12. 43.) speaketh of an unclean Spirit, that having gone out of a
  man, wandreth through dry places, seeking rest, and finding none; and
  returning into the same man, with seven other spirits worse than himselfe;
  It is manifestly a Parable, alluding to a man, that after a little
  endeavour to quit his lusts, is vanquished by the strength of them; and
  becomes seven times worse than he was. So that I see nothing at all in the
  Scripture, that requireth a beliefe, that Daemoniacks were any other thing
  but Mad-men.

  Insignificant Speech
  There is yet another fault in the Discourses of some men; which may also
  be numbred amongst the sorts of Madnesse; namely, that abuse of words,
  whereof I have spoken before in the fifth chapter, by the Name of
  Absurdity. And that is, when men speak such words, as put together, have
  in them no signification at all; but are fallen upon by some, through
  misunderstanding of the words they have received, and repeat by rote; by
  others, from intention to deceive by obscurity. And this is incident to
  none but those, that converse in questions of matters incomprehensible, as
  the Schoole-men; or in questions of abstruse Philosophy. The common sort
  of men seldome speak Insignificantly, and are therefore, by those other
  Egregious persons counted Idiots. But to be assured their words are
  without any thing correspondent to them in the mind, there would need some
  Examples; which if any man require, let him take a Schoole-man into his
  hands, and see if he can translate any one chapter concerning any
  difficult point; as the Trinity; the Deity; the nature of Christ;
  Transubstantiation; Free-will. &c. into any of the moderne tongues, so
  as to make the same intelligible; or into any tolerable Latine, such as
  they were acquainted withall, that lived when the Latine tongue was
  Vulgar. What is the meaning of these words. &ldquo;The first cause does not
  necessarily inflow any thing into the second, by force of the Essential
  subordination of the second causes, by which it may help it to worke?&rdquo;
  They are the Translation of the Title of the sixth chapter of Suarez first
  Booke, Of The Concourse, Motion, And Help Of God. When men write whole
  volumes of such stuffe, are they not Mad, or intend to make others so? And
  particularly, in the question of Transubstantiation; where after certain
  words spoken, they that say, the White-nesse, Round-nesse, Magni-tude,
  Quali-ty, Corruptibili-ty, all which are incorporeall, &c. go out of
  the Wafer, into the Body of our blessed Saviour, do they not make those
  Nesses, Tudes and Ties, to be so many spirits possessing his body? For by
  Spirits, they mean alwayes things, that being incorporeall, are
  neverthelesse moveable from one place to another. So that this kind of
  Absurdity, may rightly be numbred amongst the many sorts of Madnesse; and
  all the time that guided by clear Thoughts of their worldly lust, they
  forbear disputing, or writing thus, but Lucide Intervals. And thus much of
  the Vertues and Defects Intellectuall.

  CHAPTER IX.<br />OF THE SEVERALL SUBJECTS OF KNOWLEDGE
  There are of KNOWLEDGE two kinds; whereof one is Knowledge Of Fact: the
  other Knowledge Of The Consequence Of One Affirmation To Another. The
  former is nothing else, but Sense and Memory, and is Absolute Knowledge;
  as when we see a Fact doing, or remember it done: And this is the
  Knowledge required in a Witnesse. The later is called Science; and is
  Conditionall; as when we know, that, If The Figure Showne Be A Circle,
  Then Any Straight Line Through The Centre Shall Divide It Into Two Equall
  Parts. And this is the Knowledge required in a Philosopher; that is to
  say, of him that pretends to Reasoning.
<br />
  The Register of Knowledge Of Fact is called History. Whereof there be two
  sorts: one called Naturall History; which is the History of such Facts, or
  Effects of Nature, as have no Dependance on Mans Will; Such as are the
  Histories of Metals, Plants, Animals, Regions, and the like. The other, is
  Civill History; which is the History of the Voluntary Actions of men in
  Common-wealths.
<br />
  The Registers of Science, are such Books as contain the Demonstrations of
  Consequences of one Affirmation, to another; and are commonly called Books
  of Philosophy; whereof the sorts are many, according to the diversity of
  the Matter; And may be divided in such manner as I have divided them in
  the following Table.

I. Science, that is, Knowledge of Consequences; which is called also PHILOSOPHY

 A.  Consequences from Accidents of Bodies Naturall; which is
    called NATURALL PHILOSOPHY
    1.  Consequences from the Accidents common to all Bodies Naturall;
       which are Quantity, and Motion.
       a.  Consequences from Quantity, and Motion Indeterminate;
          which, being the Principles or first foundation of
          Philosophy, is called Philosophia Prima
          PHILOSOPHIA PRIMA
       b.  Consequences from Motion, and Quantity Determined
          1) Consequences from Quantity, and Motion Determined
             a) By Figure, By Number
               1] Mathematiques,
                  GEOMETRY
                  ARITHMETIQUE
          2) Consequences from the Motion, and Quantity of Bodies in
             Speciall
             a) Consequences from the Motion, and Quantity of the
                great parts of the World, as the Earth and Stars,
                1] Cosmography
                   ASTRONOMY
                   GEOGRAPHY
             b) Consequences from the Motion of Speciall kinds, and
                Figures of Body,
                1] Mechaniques, Doctrine of Weight
                   Science of
                   ENGINEERS
                   ARCHITECTURE
                   NAVIGATION
    2.  PHYSIQUES, or Consequences from Qualities
       a.  Consequences from the Qualities of Bodies Transient, such
          as sometimes appear, sometimes vanish
          METEOROLOGY
       b.  Consequences from the Qualities of Bodies Permanent
          1) Consequences from the Qualities of the Starres
             a) Consequences from the Light of the Starres.  Out of
                this, and the Motion of the Sunne, is made the
                Science of
                SCIOGRAPHY
             b) Consequences from the Influence of the Starres,
                ASTROLOGY
          2) Consequences of the Qualities from Liquid Bodies that
             fill the space between the Starres; such as are the
             Ayre, or substance aetherial.
          3) Consequences from Qualities of Bodies Terrestrial
             a) Consequences from parts of the Earth that are
                without Sense,
                1] Consequences from Qualities of Minerals, as
                   Stones, Metals, &c

. 2] Consequences from the Qualities of Vegetables

             b) Consequences from Qualities of Animals
                1] Consequences from Qualities of Animals in
                   Generall
                   a] Consequences from Vision,
                      OPTIQUES
                   b] Consequences from Sounds,
                      MUSIQUE
                   c] Consequences from the rest of the senses
                2] Consequences from Qualities of Men in Speciall
                   a] Consequences from Passions of Men,
                      ETHIQUES
                   b] Consequences from Speech,
                      i) In Magnifying, Vilifying, etc.
                         POETRY
                      ii) In Persuading,
                          RHETORIQUE
                      iii) In Reasoning,
                           LOGIQUE
                      iv) In Contracting,
                          The Science of
                          JUST and UNJUST
 B.  Consequences from the Accidents of Politique Bodies; which is
    called POLITIQUES, and CIVILL PHILOSOPHY
    1.  Of Consequences from the Institution of COMMON-WEALTHS, to
       the Rights, and Duties of the Body Politique, or Soveraign.
    2.  Of Consequences from the same, to the Duty and Right of
       the Subjects.

  CHAPTER X.<br />OF POWER, WORTH, DIGNITY, HONOUR AND WORTHINESS

  Power
  The POWER of a Man, (to take it Universally,) is his present means, to
  obtain some future apparent Good. And is either Originall, or
  Instrumentall.
<br />
  Naturall Power, is the eminence of the Faculties of Body, or Mind: as
  extraordinary Strength, Forme, Prudence, Arts, Eloquence, Liberality,
  Nobility. Instrumentall are those Powers, which acquired by these, or by
  fortune, are means and Instruments to acquire more: as Riches, Reputation,
  Friends, and the Secret working of God, which men call Good Luck. For the
  nature of Power, is in this point, like to Fame, increasing as it
  proceeds; or like the motion of heavy bodies, which the further they go,
  make still the more hast.
<br />
  The Greatest of humane Powers, is that which is compounded of the Powers
  of most men, united by consent, in one person, Naturall, or civill, that
  has the use of all their Powers depending on his will; such as is the
  Power of a Common-wealth: or depending on the wills of each particular;
  such as is the Power of a Faction, or of divers factions leagued.
  Therefore to have servants, is Power; To have Friends, is Power: for they
  are strengths united.
<br />
  Also Riches joyned with liberality, is Power; because it procureth
  friends, and servants: Without liberality, not so; because in this case
  they defend not; but expose men to Envy, as a Prey.
<br />
  Reputation of power, is Power; because it draweth with it the adhaerance
  of those that need protection.
<br />
  So is Reputation of love of a mans Country, (called Popularity,) for the
  same Reason.
<br />
  Also, what quality soever maketh a man beloved, or feared of many; or the
  reputation of such quality, is Power; because it is a means to have the
  assistance, and service of many.
<br />
  Good successe is Power; because it maketh reputation of Wisdome, or good
  fortune; which makes men either feare him, or rely on him.
<br />
  Affability of men already in power, is encrease of Power; because it
  gaineth love.
<br />
  Reputation of Prudence in the conduct of Peace or War, is Power; because
  to prudent men, we commit the government of our selves, more willingly
  than to others.
<br />
  Nobility is Power, not in all places, but onely in those Common-wealths,
  where it has Priviledges: for in such priviledges consisteth their Power.
<br />
  Eloquence is Power; because it is seeming Prudence.
<br />
  Forme is Power; because being a promise of Good, it recommendeth men to
  the favour of women and strangers.
<br />
  The Sciences, are small Power; because not eminent; and therefore, not
  acknowledged in any man; nor are at all, but in a few; and in them, but of
  a few things. For Science is of that nature, as none can understand it to
  be, but such as in a good measure have attayned it.
<br />
  Arts of publique use, as Fortification, making of Engines, and other
  Instruments of War; because they conferre to Defence, and Victory, are
  Power; And though the true Mother of them, be Science, namely the
  Mathematiques; yet, because they are brought into the Light, by the hand
  of the Artificer, they be esteemed (the Midwife passing with the vulgar
  for the Mother,) as his issue.

  Worth
  The Value, or WORTH of a man, is as of all other things, his Price; that
  is to say, so much as would be given for the use of his Power: and
  therefore is not absolute; but a thing dependant on the need and judgement
  of another. An able conductor of Souldiers, is of great Price in time of
  War present, or imminent; but in Peace not so. A learned and uncorrupt
  Judge, is much Worth in time of Peace; but not so much in War. And as in
  other things, so in men, not the seller, but the buyer determines the
  Price. For let a man (as most men do,) rate themselves as the highest
  Value they can; yet their true Value is no more than it is esteemed by
  others.
<br />
  The manifestation of the Value we set on one another, is that which is
  commonly called Honouring, and Dishonouring. To Value a man at a high
  rate, is to Honour him; at a low rate, is to Dishonour him. But high, and
  low, in this case, is to be understood by comparison to the rate that each
  man setteth on himselfe.

  Dignity
  The publique worth of a man, which is the Value set on him by the
  Common-wealth, is that which men commonly call DIGNITY. And this Value of
  him by the Common-wealth, is understood, by offices of Command,
  Judicature, publike Employment; or by Names and Titles, introduced for
  distinction of such Value.

  To Honour and Dishonour
  To pray to another, for ayde of any kind, is to HONOUR; because a signe we
  have an opinion he has power to help; and the more difficult the ayde is,
  the more is the Honour.
<br />
  To obey, is to Honour; because no man obeyes them, whom they think have no
  power to help, or hurt them. And consequently to disobey, is to Dishonour.
<br />
  To give great gifts to a man, is to Honour him; because &rsquo;tis buying of
  Protection, and acknowledging of Power. To give little gifts, is to
  Dishonour; because it is but Almes, and signifies an opinion of the need
  of small helps. To be sedulous in promoting anothers good; also to
  flatter, is to Honour; as a signe we seek his protection or ayde. To
  neglect, is to Dishonour.
<br />
  To give way, or place to another, in any Commodity, is to Honour; being a
  confession of greater power. To arrogate, is to Dishonour.
<br />
  To shew any signe of love, or feare of another, is to Honour; for both to
  love, and to feare, is to value. To contemne, or lesse to love or feare
  then he expects, is to Dishonour; for &rsquo;tis undervaluing.
<br />
  To praise, magnifie, or call happy, is to Honour; because nothing but
  goodnesse, power, and felicity is valued. To revile, mock, or pitty, is to
  Dishonour.
<br />
  To speak to another with consideration, to appear before him with decency,
  and humility, is to Honour him; as signes of fear to offend. To speak to
  him rashly, to do anything before him obscenely, slovenly, impudently, is
  to Dishonour.
<br />
  To believe, to trust, to rely on another, is to Honour him; signe of
  opinion of his vertue and power. To distrust, or not believe, is to
  Dishonour.
<br />
  To hearken to a mans counsell, or discourse of what kind soever, is to
  Honour; as a signe we think him wise, or eloquent, or witty. To sleep, or
  go forth, or talk the while, is to Dishonour.
<br />
  To do those things to another, which he takes for signes of Honour, or
  which the Law or Custome makes so, is to Honour; because in approving the
  Honour done by others, he acknowledgeth the power which others
  acknowledge. To refuse to do them, is to Dishonour.
<br />
  To agree with in opinion, is to Honour; as being a signe of approving his
  judgement, and wisdome. To dissent, is Dishonour; and an upbraiding of
  errour; and (if the dissent be in many things) of folly.
<br />
  To imitate, is to Honour; for it is vehemently to approve. To imitate ones
  Enemy, is to Dishonour.
<br />
  To honour those another honours, is to Honour him; as a signe of
  approbation of his judgement. To honour his Enemies, is to Dishonour him.
<br />
  To employ in counsell, or in actions of difficulty, is to Honour; as a
  signe of opinion of his wisdome, or other power. To deny employment in the
  same cases, to those that seek it, is to Dishonour.
<br />
  All these wayes of Honouring, are naturall; and as well within, as without
  Common-wealths. But in Common-wealths, where he, or they that have the
  supreme Authority, can make whatsoever they please, to stand for signes of
  Honour, there be other Honours.
<br />
  A Soveraigne doth Honour a Subject, with whatsoever Title, or Office, or
  Employment, or Action, that he himselfe will have taken for a signe of his
  will to Honour him.
<br />
  The King of Persia, Honoured Mordecay, when he appointed he should be
  conducted through the streets in the Kings Garment, upon one of the Kings
  Horses, with a Crown on his head, and a Prince before him, proclayming,
  &ldquo;Thus shall it be done to him that the King will honour.&rdquo; And yet another
  King of Persia, or the same another time, to one that demanded for some
  great service, to weare one of the Kings robes, gave him leave so to do;
  but with his addition, that he should weare it as the Kings foole; and
  then it was Dishonour. So that of Civill Honour; such as are Magistracy,
  Offices, Titles; and in some places Coats, and Scutchions painted: and men
  Honour such as have them, as having so many signes of favour in the
  Common-wealth; which favour is Power.
<br />
  Honourable is whatsoever possession, action, or quality, is an argument
  and signe of Power.
<br />
  And therefore To be Honoured, loved, or feared of many, is Honourable; as
  arguments of Power. To be Honoured of few or none, Dishonourable.
<br />
  Good fortune (if lasting,) Honourable; as a signe of the favour of God.
  Ill fortune, and losses, Dishonourable. Riches, are Honourable; for they
  are Power. Poverty, Dishonourable. Magnanimity, Liberality, Hope, Courage,
  Confidence, are Honourable; for they proceed from the conscience of Power.
  Pusillanimity, Parsimony, Fear, Diffidence, are Dishonourable.
<br />
  Timely Resolution, or determination of what a man is to do, is Honourable;
  as being the contempt of small difficulties, and dangers. And
  Irresolution, Dishonourable; as a signe of too much valuing of little
  impediments, and little advantages: For when a man has weighed things as
  long as the time permits, and resolves not, the difference of weight is
  but little; and therefore if he resolve not, he overvalues little things,
  which is Pusillanimity.
<br />
  All Actions, and Speeches, that proceed, or seem to proceed from much
  Experience, Science, Discretion, or Wit, are Honourable; For all these are
  Powers. Actions, or Words that proceed from Errour, Ignorance, or Folly,
  Dishonourable.
<br />
  Gravity, as farre forth as it seems to proceed from a mind employed on
  some thing else, is Honourable; because employment is a signe of Power.
  But if it seem to proceed from a purpose to appear grave, it is
  Dishonourable. For the gravity of the Former, is like the steddinesse of a
  Ship laden with Merchandise; but of the later, like the steddinesse of a
  Ship ballasted with Sand, and other trash.
<br />
  To be Conspicuous, that is to say, to be known, for Wealth, Office, great
  Actions, or any eminent Good, is Honourable; as a signe of the power for
  which he is conspicuous. On the contrary, Obscurity, is Dishonourable.
<br />
  To be descended from conspicuous Parents, is Honourable; because they the
  more easily attain the aydes, and friends of their Ancestors. On the
  contrary, to be descended from obscure Parentage, is Dishonourable.
<br />
  Actions proceeding from Equity, joyned with losse, are Honourable; as
  signes of Magnanimity: for Magnanimity is a signe of Power. On the
  contrary, Craft, Shifting, neglect of Equity, is Dishonourable.
<br />
  Nor does it alter the case of Honour, whether an action (so it be great
  and difficult, and consequently a signe of much power,) be just or unjust:
  for Honour consisteth onely in the opinion of Power. Therefore the ancient
  Heathen did not thinke they Dishonoured, but greatly Honoured the Gods,
  when they introduced them in their Poems, committing Rapes, Thefts, and
  other great, but unjust, or unclean acts: In so much as nothing is so much
  celebrated in Jupiter, as his Adulteries; nor in Mercury, as his Frauds,
  and Thefts: of whose praises, in a hymne of Homer, the greatest is this,
  that being born in the morning, he had invented Musique at noon, and
  before night, stolen away the Cattell of Appollo, from his Herdsmen.
<br />
  Also amongst men, till there were constituted great Common-wealths, it was
  thought no dishonour to be a Pyrate, or a High-way Theefe; but rather a
  lawfull Trade, not onely amongst the Greeks, but also amongst all other
  Nations; as is manifest by the Histories of antient time. And at this day,
  in this part of the world, private Duels are, and alwayes will be
  Honourable, though unlawfull, till such time as there shall be Honour
  ordained for them that refuse, and Ignominy for them that make the
  Challenge. For Duels also are many times effects of Courage; and the
  ground of Courage is alwayes Strength or Skill, which are Power; though
  for the most part they be effects of rash speaking, and of the fear of
  Dishonour, in one, or both the Combatants; who engaged by rashnesse, are
  driven into the Lists to avoyd disgrace.
<br />
  Scutchions, and coats of Armes haereditary, where they have any eminent
  Priviledges, are Honourable; otherwise not: for their Power consisteth
  either in such Priviledges, or in Riches, or some such thing as is equally
  honoured in other men. This kind of Honour, commonly called Gentry, has
  been derived from the Antient Germans. For there never was any such thing
  known, where the German Customes were unknown. Nor is it now any where in
  use, where the Germans have not inhabited. The antient Greek Commanders,
  when they went to war, had their Shields painted with such Devises as they
  pleased; insomuch as an unpainted Buckler was a signe of Poverty, and of a
  common Souldier: but they transmitted not the Inheritance of them. The
  Romans transmitted the Marks of their Families: but they were the Images,
  not the Devises of their Ancestors. Amongst the people of Asia, Afrique,
  and America, there is not, nor was ever, any such thing. The Germans onely
  had that custome; from whom it has been derived into England, France,
  Spain, and Italy, when in great numbers they either ayded the Romans, or
  made their own Conquests in these Westerne parts of the world.
<br />
  For Germany, being antiently, as all other Countries, in their beginnings,
  divided amongst an infinite number of little Lords, or Masters of
  Families, that continually had wars one with another; those Masters, or
  Lords, principally to the end they might, when they were Covered with
  Arms, be known by their followers; and partly for ornament, both painted
  their Armor, or their Scutchion, or Coat, with the picture of some Beast,
  or other thing; and also put some eminent and visible mark upon the Crest
  of their Helmets. And his ornament both of the Armes, and Crest, descended
  by inheritance to their Children; to the eldest pure, and to the rest with
  some note of diversity, such as the Old master, that is to say in Dutch,
  the Here-alt thought fit. But when many such Families, joyned together,
  made a greater Monarchy, this duty of the Herealt, to distinguish
  Scutchions, was made a private Office a part. And the issue of these
  Lords, is the great and antient Gentry; which for the most part bear
  living creatures, noted for courage, and rapine; or Castles, Battlements,
  Belts, Weapons, Bars, Palisadoes, and other notes of War; nothing being
  then in honour, but vertue military. Afterwards, not onely Kings, but
  popular Common-wealths, gave divers manners of Scutchions, to such as went
  forth to the War, or returned from it, for encouragement, or recompence to
  their service. All which, by an observing Reader, may be found in such
  ancient Histories, Greek and Latine, as make mention of the German Nation,
  and Manners, in their times.

  Titles of Honour


  Titles of Honour, such as are Duke, Count, Marquis, and Baron, are
  Honourable; as signifying the value set upon them by the Soveraigne Power
  of the Common-wealth: Which Titles, were in old time titles of Office, and
  Command, derived some from the Romans, some from the Germans, and French.
  Dukes, in Latine Duces, being Generalls in War: Counts, Comites, such as
  bare the Generall company out of friendship; and were left to govern and
  defend places conquered, and pacified: Marquises, Marchiones, were Counts
  that governed the Marches, or bounds of the Empire. Which titles of Duke,
  Count, and Marquis, came into the Empire, about the time of Constantine
  the Great, from the customes of the German Militia. But Baron, seems to
  have been a Title of the Gaules, and signifies a Great man; such as were
  the Kings, or Princes men, whom they employed in war about their persons;
  and seems to be derived from Vir, to Ber, and Bar, that signified the same
  in the Language of the Gaules, that Vir in Latine; and thence to Bero, and
  Baro: so that such men were called Berones, and after Barones; and (in
  Spanish) Varones. But he that would know more particularly the originall
  of Titles of Honour, may find it, as I have done this, in Mr. Seldens most
  excellent Treatise of that subject. In processe of time these offices of
  Honour, by occasion of trouble, and for reasons of good and peacable
  government, were turned into meer Titles; serving for the most part, to
  distinguish the precedence, place, and order of subjects in the
  Common-wealth: and men were made Dukes, Counts, Marquises, and Barons of
  Places, wherein they had neither possession, nor command: and other Titles
  also, were devised to the same end.

  Worthinesse Fitnesse


  WORTHINESSE, is a thing different from the worth, or value of a man; and
  also from his merit, or desert; and consisteth in a particular power, or
  ability for that, whereof he is said to be worthy: which particular
  ability, is usually named FITNESSE, or Aptitude.
<br />
  For he is Worthiest to be a Commander, to be a Judge, or to have any other
  charge, that is best fitted, with the qualities required to the well
  discharging of it; and Worthiest of Riches, that has the qualities most
  requisite for the well using of them: any of which qualities being absent,
  one may neverthelesse be a Worthy man, and valuable for some thing else.
  Again, a man may be Worthy of Riches, Office, and Employment, that
  neverthelesse, can plead no right to have it before another; and therefore
  cannot be said to merit or deserve it. For Merit, praesupposeth a right,
  and that the thing deserved is due by promise: Of which I shall say more
  hereafter, when I shall speak of Contracts.

  CHAPTER XI.<br />OF THE DIFFERENCE OF MANNERS

  What Is Here Meant By Manners


  By MANNERS, I mean not here, Decency of behaviour; as how one man should
  salute another, or how a man should wash his mouth, or pick his teeth
  before company, and such other points of the Small Morals; But those
  qualities of man-kind, that concern their living together in Peace, and
  Unity. To which end we are to consider, that the Felicity of this life,
  consisteth not in the repose of a mind satisfied. For there is no such
  Finis Ultimus, (utmost ayme,) nor Summum Bonum, (greatest good,) as is
  spoken of in the Books of the old Morall Philosophers. Nor can a man any
  more live, whose Desires are at an end, than he, whose Senses and
  Imaginations are at a stand. Felicity is a continuall progresse of the
  desire, from one object to another; the attaining of the former, being
  still but the way to the later. The cause whereof is, That the object of
  mans desire, is not to enjoy once onely, and for one instant of time; but
  to assure for ever, the way of his future desire. And therefore the
  voluntary actions, and inclinations of all men, tend, not only to the
  procuring, but also to the assuring of a contented life; and differ onely
  in the way: which ariseth partly from the diversity of passions, in divers
  men; and partly from the difference of the knowledge, or opinion each one
  has of the causes, which produce the effect desired.

  A Restlesse Desire Of Power, In All Men


  So that in the first place, I put for a generall inclination of all
  mankind, a perpetuall and restlesse desire of Power after power, that
  ceaseth onely in Death. And the cause of this, is not alwayes that a man
  hopes for a more intensive delight, than he has already attained to; or
  that he cannot be content with a moderate power: but because he cannot
  assure the power and means to live well, which he hath present, without
  the acquisition of more. And from hence it is, that Kings, whose power is
  greatest, turn their endeavours to the assuring it a home by Lawes, or
  abroad by Wars: and when that is done, there succeedeth a new desire; in
  some, of Fame from new Conquest; in others, of ease and sensuall pleasure;
  in others, of admiration, or being flattered for excellence in some art,
  or other ability of the mind.

  Love Of Contention From Competition


  Competition of Riches, Honour, command, or other power, enclineth to
  Contention, Enmity, and War: because the way of one Competitor, to the
  attaining of his desire, is to kill, subdue, supplant, or repell the
  other. Particularly, competition of praise, enclineth to a reverence of
  Antiquity. For men contend with the living, not with the dead; to these
  ascribing more than due, that they may obscure the glory of the other.

  Civil Obedience From Love Of Ease


  Desire of Ease, and sensuall Delight, disposeth men to obey a common
  Power: because by such Desires, a man doth abandon the protection might be
  hoped for from his own Industry, and labour.

  From Feare Of Death Or Wounds


  Fear of Death, and Wounds, disposeth to the same; and for the same reason.
  On the contrary, needy men, and hardy, not contented with their present
  condition; as also, all men that are ambitious of Military command, are
  enclined to continue the causes of warre; and to stirre up trouble and
  sedition: for there is no honour Military but by warre; nor any such hope
  to mend an ill game, as by causing a new shuffle.

  And From Love Of Arts


  Desire of Knowledge, and Arts of Peace, enclineth men to obey a common
  Power: For such Desire, containeth a desire of leasure; and consequently
  protection from some other Power than their own.

  Love Of Vertue, From Love Of Praise


  Desire of Praise, disposeth to laudable actions, such as please them whose
  judgement they value; for of these men whom we contemn, we contemn also
  the Praises. Desire of Fame after death does the same. And though after
  death, there be no sense of the praise given us on Earth, as being joyes,
  that are either swallowed up in the unspeakable joyes of Heaven, or
  extinguished in the extreme torments of Hell: yet is not such Fame vain;
  because men have a present delight therein, from the foresight of it, and
  of the benefit that may rebound thereby to their posterity: which though
  they now see not, yet they imagine; and any thing that is pleasure in the
  sense, the same also is pleasure in the imagination.

  Hate, From Difficulty Of Requiting Great Benefits


  To have received from one, to whom we think our selves equall, greater
  benefits than there is hope to Requite, disposeth to counterfiet love; but
  really secret hatred; and puts a man into the estate of a desperate
  debtor, that in declining the sight of his creditor, tacitely wishes him
  there, where he might never see him more. For benefits oblige; and
  obligation is thraldome; which is to ones equall, hateful. But to have
  received benefits from one, whom we acknowledge our superiour, enclines to
  love; because the obligation is no new depession: and cheerfull
  acceptation, (which men call Gratitude,) is such an honour done to the
  obliger, as is taken generally for retribution. Also to receive benefits,
  though from an equall, or inferiour, as long as there is hope of
  requitall, disposeth to love: for in the intention of the receiver, the
  obligation is of ayd, and service mutuall; from whence proceedeth an
  Emulation of who shall exceed in benefiting; the most noble and profitable
  contention possible; wherein the victor is pleased with his victory, and
  the other revenged by confessing it.

  And From Conscience Of Deserving To Be Hated


  To have done more hurt to a man, than he can, or is willing to expiate,
  enclineth the doer to hate the sufferer. For he must expect revenge, or
  forgivenesse; both which are hatefull.

  Promptnesse To Hurt, From Fear


  Feare of oppression, disposeth a man to anticipate, or to seek ayd by
  society: for there is no other way by which a man can secure his life and
  liberty.

  And From Distrust Of Their Own Wit


  Men that distrust their own subtilty, are in tumult, and sedition, better
  disposed for victory, than they that suppose themselves wise, or crafty.
  For these love to consult, the other (fearing to be circumvented,) to
  strike first. And in sedition, men being alwayes in the procincts of
  Battell, to hold together, and use all advantages of force, is a better
  stratagem, than any that can proceed from subtilty of Wit.

  Vain Undertaking From Vain-glory


  Vain-glorious men, such as without being conscious to themselves of great
  sufficiency, delight in supposing themselves gallant men, are enclined
  onely to ostentation; but not to attempt: Because when danger or
  difficulty appears, they look for nothing but to have their insufficiency
  discovered.
<br />
  Vain-glorious men, such as estimate their sufficiency by the flattery of
  other men, or the fortune of some precedent action, without assured ground
  of hope from the true knowledge of themselves, are enclined to rash
  engaging; and in the approach of danger, or difficulty, to retire if they
  can: because not seeing the way of safety, they will rather hazard their
  honour, which may be salved with an excuse; than their lives, for which no
  salve is sufficient.

  Ambition, From Opinion Of Sufficiency


  Men that have a strong opinion of their own wisdome in matter of
  government, are disposed to Ambition. Because without publique Employment
  in counsell or magistracy, the honour of their wisdome is lost. And
  therefore Eloquent speakers are enclined to Ambition; for Eloquence
  seemeth wisdome, both to themselves and others

  Irresolution, From Too Great Valuing Of Small Matters


  Pusillanimity disposeth men to Irresolution, and consequently to lose the
  occasions, and fittest opportunities of action. For after men have been in
  deliberation till the time of action approach, if it be not then manifest
  what is best to be done, tis a signe, the difference of Motives, the one
  way and the other, are not great: Therefore not to resolve then, is to
  lose the occasion by weighing of trifles; which is pusillanimity.
<br />
  Frugality,(though in poor men a Vertue,) maketh a man unapt to atchieve
  such actions, as require the strength of many men at once: For it
  weakeneth their Endeavour, which is to be nourished and kept in vigor by
  Reward.
<br />
  Confidence In Others From Ignorance Of The Marks Of Wisdome and Kindnesse
  Eloquence, with flattery, disposeth men to confide in them that have it;
  because the former is seeming Wisdome, the later seeming Kindnesse. Adde
  to them Military reputation, and it disposeth men to adhaere, and subject
  themselves to those men that have them. The two former, having given them
  caution against danger from him; the later gives them caution against
  danger from others.

  And From The Ignorance Of Naturall Causes


  Want of Science, that is, Ignorance of causes, disposeth, or rather
  constraineth a man to rely on the advise, and authority of others. For all
  men whom the truth concernes, if they rely not on their own, must rely on
  the opinion of some other, whom they think wiser than themselves, and see
  not why he should deceive them.

  And From Want Of Understanding


  Ignorance of the signification of words; which is, want of understanding,
  disposeth men to take on trust, not onely the truth they know not; but
  also the errors; and which is more, the non-sense of them they trust: For
  neither Error, nor non-sense, can without a perfect understanding of
  words, be detected.
<br />
  From the same it proceedeth, that men give different names, to one and the
  same thing, from the difference of their own passions: As they that
  approve a private opinion, call it Opinion; but they that mislike it,
  Haeresie: and yet haeresie signifies no more than private opinion; but has
  onely a greater tincture of choler.
<br />
  From the same also it proceedeth, that men cannot distinguish, without
  study and great understanding, between one action of many men, and many
  actions of one multitude; as for example, between the one action of all
  the Senators of Rome in killing Catiline, and the many actions of a number
  of Senators in killing Caesar; and therefore are disposed to take for the
  action of the people, that which is a multitude of actions done by a
  multitude of men, led perhaps by the perswasion of one.
<br />
  Adhaerence To Custome, From Ignorance Of The Nature Of Right And Wrong
  Ignorance of the causes, and originall constitution of Right, Equity, Law,
  and Justice, disposeth a man to make Custome and Example the rule of his
  actions; in such manner, as to think that Unjust which it hath been the
  custome to punish; and that Just, of the impunity and approbation whereof
  they can produce an Example, or (as the Lawyers which onely use the false
  measure of Justice barbarously call it) a Precedent; like little children,
  that have no other rule of good and evill manners, but the correction they
  receive from their Parents, and Masters; save that children are constant
  to their rule, whereas men are not so; because grown strong, and stubborn,
  they appeale from custome to reason, and from reason to custome, as it
  serves their turn; receding from custome when their interest requires it,
  and setting themselves against reason, as oft as reason is against them:
  Which is the cause, that the doctrine of Right and Wrong, is perpetually
  disputed, both by the Pen and the Sword: whereas the doctrine of Lines,
  and Figures, is not so; because men care not, in that subject what be
  truth, as a thing that crosses no mans ambition, profit, or lust. For I
  doubt not, but if it had been a thing contrary to any mans right of
  dominion, or to the interest of men that have dominion, That The Three
  Angles Of A Triangle Should Be Equall To Two Angles Of A Square; that
  doctrine should have been, if not disputed, yet by the burning of all
  books of Geometry, suppressed, as farre as he whom it concerned was able.
<br />
  Adhaerence To Private Men, From Ignorance Of The Causes Of Peace Ignorance
  of remote causes, disposeth men to attribute all events, to the causes
  immediate, and Instrumentall: For these are all the causes they perceive.
  And hence it comes to passe, that in all places, men that are grieved with
  payments to the Publique, discharge their anger upon the Publicans, that
  is to say, Farmers, Collectors, and other Officers of the publique
  Revenue; and adhaere to such as find fault with the publike Government;
  and thereby, when they have engaged themselves beyond hope of
  justification, fall also upon the Supreme Authority, for feare of
  punishment, or shame of receiving pardon.

  Credulity From Ignorance Of Nature


  Ignorance of naturall causes disposeth a man to Credulity, so as to
  believe many times impossibilities: for such know nothing to the contrary,
  but that they may be true; being unable to detect the Impossibility. And
  Credulity, because men love to be hearkened unto in company, disposeth
  them to lying: so that Ignorance it selfe without Malice, is able to make
  a man bothe to believe lyes, and tell them; and sometimes also to invent
  them.

  Curiosity To Know, From Care Of Future Time


  Anxiety for the future time, disposeth men to enquire into the causes of
  things: because the knowledge of them, maketh men the better able to order
  the present to their best advantage.

  Naturall Religion, From The Same


  Curiosity, or love of the knowledge of causes, draws a man from
  consideration of the effect, to seek the cause; and again, the cause of
  that cause; till of necessity he must come to this thought at last, that
  there is some cause, whereof there is no former cause, but is eternall;
  which is it men call God. So that it is impossible to make any profound
  enquiry into naturall causes, without being enclined thereby to believe
  there is one God Eternall; though they cannot have any Idea of him in
  their mind, answerable to his nature. For as a man that is born blind,
  hearing men talk of warming themselves by the fire, and being brought to
  warm himself by the same, may easily conceive, and assure himselfe, there
  is somewhat there, which men call Fire, and is the cause of the heat he
  feeles; but cannot imagine what it is like; nor have an Idea of it in his
  mind, such as they have that see it: so also, by the visible things of
  this world, and their admirable order, a man may conceive there is a cause
  of them, which men call God; and yet not have an Idea, or Image of him in
  his mind.
<br />
  And they that make little, or no enquiry into the naturall causes of
  things, yet from the feare that proceeds from the ignorance it selfe, of
  what it is that hath the power to do them much good or harm, are enclined
  to suppose, and feign unto themselves, severall kinds of Powers Invisible;
  and to stand in awe of their own imaginations; and in time of distresse to
  invoke them; as also in the time of an expected good successe, to give
  them thanks; making the creatures of their own fancy, their Gods. By which
  means it hath come to passe, that from the innumerable variety of Fancy,
  men have created in the world innumerable sorts of Gods. And this Feare of
  things invisible, is the naturall Seed of that, which every one in himself
  calleth Religion; and in them that worship, or feare that Power otherwise
  than they do, Superstition.
<br />
  And this seed of Religion, having been observed by many; some of those
  that have observed it, have been enclined thereby to nourish, dresse, and
  forme it into Lawes; and to adde to it of their own invention, any opinion
  of the causes of future events, by which they thought they should best be
  able to govern others, and make unto themselves the greatest use of their
  Powers.

  CHAPTER XII.<br />OF RELIGION

  Religion, In Man Onely


  Seeing there are no signes, nor fruit of Religion, but in Man onely; there
  is no cause to doubt, but that the seed of Religion, is also onely in Man;
  and consisteth in some peculiar quality, or at least in some eminent
  degree thereof, not to be found in other Living creatures.

  First, From His Desire Of Knowing Causes


  And first, it is peculiar to the nature of Man, to be inquisitive into the
  Causes of the Events they see, some more, some lesse; but all men so much,
  as to be curious in the search of the causes of their own good and evill
  fortune.

  From The Consideration Of The Beginning Of Things


  Secondly, upon the sight of any thing that hath a Beginning, to think also
  it had a cause, which determined the same to begin, then when it did,
  rather than sooner or later.

  From His Observation Of The Sequell Of Things


  Thirdly, whereas there is no other Felicity of Beasts, but the enjoying of
  their quotidian Food, Ease, and Lusts; as having little, or no foresight
  of the time to come, for want of observation, and memory of the order,
  consequence, and dependance of the things they see; Man observeth how one
  Event hath been produced by another; and remembreth in them Antecedence
  and Consequence; And when he cannot assure himselfe of the true causes of
  things, (for the causes of good and evill fortune for the most part are
  invisible,) he supposes causes of them, either such as his own fancy
  suggesteth; or trusteth to the Authority of other men, such as he thinks
  to be his friends, and wiser than himselfe.
<br />
  The Naturall Cause Of Religion, The Anxiety Of The Time To Come The two
  first, make Anxiety. For being assured that there be causes of all things
  that have arrived hitherto, or shall arrive hereafter; it is impossible
  for a man, who continually endeavoureth to secure himselfe against the
  evill he feares, and procure the good he desireth, not to be in a
  perpetuall solicitude of the time to come; So that every man, especially
  those that are over provident, are in an estate like to that of
  Prometheus. For as Prometheus, (which interpreted, is, The Prudent Man,)
  was bound to the hill Caucasus, a place of large prospect, where, an Eagle
  feeding on his liver, devoured in the day, as much as was repayred in the
  night: So that man, which looks too far before him, in the care of future
  time, hath his heart all the day long, gnawed on by feare of death,
  poverty, or other calamity; and has no repose, nor pause of his anxiety,
  but in sleep.

  Which Makes Them Fear The Power Of Invisible Things


  This perpetuall feare, alwayes accompanying mankind in the ignorance of
  causes, as it were in the Dark, must needs have for object something. And
  therefore when there is nothing to be seen, there is nothing to accuse,
  either of their good, or evill fortune, but some Power, or Agent
  Invisible: In which sense perhaps it was, that some of the old Poets said,
  that the Gods were at first created by humane Feare: which spoken of the
  Gods, (that is to say, of the many Gods of the Gentiles) is very true. But
  the acknowledging of one God Eternall, Infinite, and Omnipotent, may more
  easily be derived, from the desire men have to know the causes of naturall
  bodies, and their severall vertues, and operations; than from the feare of
  what was to befall them in time to come. For he that from any effect hee
  seeth come to passe, should reason to the next and immediate cause
  thereof, and from thence to the cause of that cause, and plonge himselfe
  profoundly in the pursuit of causes; shall at last come to this, that
  there must be (as even the Heathen Philosophers confessed) one First
  Mover; that is, a First, and an Eternall cause of all things; which is
  that which men mean by the name of God: And all this without thought of
  their fortune; the solicitude whereof, both enclines to fear, and hinders
  them from the search of the causes of other things; and thereby gives
  occasion of feigning of as many Gods, as there be men that feigne them.

  And Suppose Them Incorporeall


  And for the matter, or substance of the Invisible Agents, so fancyed; they
  could not by naturall cogitation, fall upon any other conceipt, but that
  it was the same with that of the Soule of man; and that the Soule of man,
  was of the same substance, with that which appeareth in a Dream, to one
  that sleepeth; or in a Looking-glasse, to one that is awake; which, men
  not knowing that such apparitions are nothing else but creatures of the
  Fancy, think to be reall, and externall Substances; and therefore call
  them Ghosts; as the Latines called them Imagines, and Umbrae; and thought
  them Spirits, that is, thin aereall bodies; and those Invisible Agents,
  which they feared, to bee like them; save that they appear, and vanish
  when they please. But the opinion that such Spirits were Incorporeall, or
  Immateriall, could never enter into the mind of any man by nature;
  because, though men may put together words of contradictory signification,
  as Spirit, and Incorporeall; yet they can never have the imagination of
  any thing answering to them: And therefore, men that by their own
  meditation, arrive to the acknowledgement of one Infinite, Omnipotent, and
  Eternall God, choose rather to confesse he is Incomprehensible, and above
  their understanding; than to define his Nature By Spirit Incorporeall, and
  then Confesse their definition to be unintelligible: or if they give him
  such a title, it is not Dogmatically, with intention to make the Divine
  Nature understood; but Piously, to honour him with attributes, of
  significations, as remote as they can from the grossenesse of Bodies
  Visible.

  But Know Not The Way How They Effect Anything


  Then, for the way by which they think these Invisible Agents wrought their
  effects; that is to say, what immediate causes they used, in bringing
  things to passe, men that know not what it is that we call Causing, (that
  is, almost all men) have no other rule to guesse by, but by observing, and
  remembring what they have seen to precede the like effect at some other
  time, or times before, without seeing between the antecedent and
  subsequent Event, any dependance or connexion at all: And therefore from
  the like things past, they expect the like things to come; and hope for
  good or evill luck, superstitiously, from things that have no part at all
  in the causing of it: As the Athenians did for their war at Lepanto,
  demand another Phormio; the Pompeian faction for their warre in Afrique,
  another Scipio; and others have done in divers other occasions since. In
  like manner they attribute their fortune to a stander by, to a lucky or
  unlucky place, to words spoken, especially if the name of God be amongst
  them; as Charming, and Conjuring (the Leiturgy of Witches;) insomuch as to
  believe, they have power to turn a stone into bread, bread into a man, or
  any thing, into any thing.

  But Honour Them As They Honour Men


  Thirdly, for the worship which naturally men exhibite to Powers invisible,
  it can be no other, but such expressions of their reverence, as they would
  use towards men; Gifts, Petitions, Thanks, Submission of Body, Considerate
  Addresses, sober Behaviour, premeditated Words, Swearing (that is,
  assuring one another of their promises,) by invoking them. Beyond that
  reason suggesteth nothing; but leaves them either to rest there; or for
  further ceremonies, to rely on those they believe to be wiser than
  themselves.

  And Attribute To Them All Extraordinary Events


  Lastly, concerning how these Invisible Powers declare to men the things
  which shall hereafter come to passe, especially concerning their good or
  evill fortune in generall, or good or ill successe in any particular
  undertaking, men are naturally at a stand; save that using to conjecture
  of the time to come, by the time past, they are very apt, not onely to
  take casuall things, after one or two encounters, for Prognostiques of the
  like encounter ever after, but also to believe the like Prognostiques from
  other men, of whom they have once conceived a good opinion.

  Foure Things, Naturall Seeds Of Religion


  And in these foure things, Opinion of Ghosts, Ignorance of second causes,
  Devotion towards what men fear, and Taking of things Casuall for
  Prognostiques, consisteth the Naturall seed of Religion; which by reason
  of the different Fancies, Judgements, and Passions of severall men, hath
  grown up into ceremonies so different, that those which are used by one
  man, are for the most part ridiculous to another.

  Made Different By Culture


  For these seeds have received culture from two sorts of men. One sort have
  been they, that have nourished, and ordered them, according to their own
  invention. The other, have done it, by Gods commandement, and direction:
  but both sorts have done it, with a purpose to make those men that relyed
  on them, the more apt to Obedience, Lawes, Peace, Charity, and civill
  Society. So that the Religion of the former sort, is a part of humane
  Politiques; and teacheth part of the duty which Earthly Kings require of
  their Subjects. And the Religion of the later sort is Divine Politiques;
  and containeth Precepts to those that have yeelded themselves subjects in
  the Kingdome of God. Of the former sort, were all the Founders of
  Common-wealths, and the Law-givers of the Gentiles: Of the later sort,
  were Abraham, Moses, and our Blessed Saviour; by whom have been derived
  unto us the Lawes of the Kingdome of God.

  The Absurd Opinion Of Gentilisme


  And for that part of Religion, which consisteth in opinions concerning the
  nature of Powers Invisible, there is almost nothing that has a name, that
  has not been esteemed amongst the Gentiles, in one place or another, a
  God, or Divell; or by their Poets feigned to be inanimated, inhabited, or
  possessed by some Spirit or other.
<br />
  The unformed matter of the World, was a God, by the name of Chaos.
<br />
  The Heaven, the Ocean, the Planets, the Fire, the Earth, the Winds, were
  so many Gods.
<br />
  Men, Women, a Bird, a Crocodile, a Calf, a Dogge, a Snake, an Onion, a
  Leeke, Deified. Besides, that they filled almost all places, with spirits
  called Daemons; the plains, with Pan, and Panises, or Satyres; the Woods,
  with Fawnes, and Nymphs; the Sea, with Tritons, and other Nymphs; every
  River, and Fountayn, with a Ghost of his name, and with Nymphs; every
  house, with it Lares, or Familiars; every man, with his Genius; Hell, with
  Ghosts, and spirituall Officers, as Charon, Cerberus, and the Furies; and
  in the night time, all places with Larvae, Lemures, Ghosts of men
  deceased, and a whole kingdome of Fayries, and Bugbears. They have also
  ascribed Divinity, and built Temples to meer Accidents, and Qualities;
  such as are Time, Night, Day, Peace, Concord, Love, Contention, Vertue,
  Honour, Health, Rust, Fever, and the like; which when they prayed for, or
  against, they prayed to, as if there were Ghosts of those names hanging
  over their heads, and letting fall, or withholding that Good, or Evill,
  for, or against which they prayed. They invoked also their own Wit, by the
  name of Muses; their own Ignorance, by the name of Fortune; their own
  Lust, by the name of Cupid; their own Rage, by the name Furies; their own
  privy members by the name of Priapus; and attributed their pollutions, to
  Incubi, and Succubae: insomuch as there was nothing, which a Poet could
  introduce as a person in his Poem, which they did not make either a God,
  or a Divel.
<br />
  The same authors of the Religion of the Gentiles, observing the second
  ground for Religion, which is mens Ignorance of causes; and thereby their
  aptnesse to attribute their fortune to causes, on which there was no
  dependence at all apparent, took occasion to obtrude on their ignorance,
  in stead of second causes, a kind of second and ministeriall Gods;
  ascribing the cause of Foecundity, to Venus; the cause of Arts, to Apollo;
  of Subtilty and Craft, to Mercury; of Tempests and stormes, to Aeolus; and
  of other effects, to other Gods: insomuch as there was amongst the Heathen
  almost as great variety of Gods, as of businesse.
<br />
  And to the Worship, which naturally men conceived fit to bee used towards
  their Gods, namely Oblations, Prayers, Thanks, and the rest formerly
  named; the same Legislators of the Gentiles have added their Images, both
  in Picture, and Sculpture; that the more ignorant sort, (that is to say,
  the most part, or generality of the people,) thinking the Gods for whose
  representation they were made, were really included, and as it were housed
  within them, might so much the more stand in feare of them: And endowed
  them with lands, and houses, and officers, and revenues, set apart from
  all other humane uses; that is, consecrated, and made holy to those their
  Idols; as Caverns, Groves, Woods, Mountains, and whole Ilands; and have
  attributed to them, not onely the shapes, some of Men, some of Beasts,
  some of Monsters; but also the Faculties, and Passions of men and beasts;
  as Sense, Speech, Sex, Lust, Generation, (and this not onely by mixing one
  with another, to propagate the kind of Gods; but also by mixing with men,
  and women, to beget mongrill Gods, and but inmates of Heaven, as Bacchus,
  Hercules, and others;) besides, Anger, Revenge, and other passions of
  living creatures, and the actions proceeding from them, as Fraud, Theft,
  Adultery, Sodomie, and any vice that may be taken for an effect of Power,
  or a cause of Pleasure; and all such Vices, as amongst men are taken to be
  against Law, rather than against Honour.
<br />
  Lastly, to the Prognostiques of time to come; which are naturally, but
  Conjectures upon the Experience of time past; and supernaturall, divine
  Revelation; the same authors of the Religion of the Gentiles, partly upon
  pretended Experience, partly upon pretended Revelation, have added
  innumerable other superstitious wayes of Divination; and made men believe
  they should find their fortunes, sometimes in the ambiguous or senslesse
  answers of the priests at Delphi, Delos, Ammon, and other famous Oracles;
  which answers, were made ambiguous by designe, to own the event both
  wayes; or absurd by the intoxicating vapour of the place, which is very
  frequent in sulphurous Cavernes: Sometimes in the leaves of the Sibills;
  of whose Prophecyes (like those perhaps of Nostradamus; for the fragments
  now extant seem to be the invention of later times) there were some books
  in reputation in the time of the Roman Republique: Sometimes in the
  insignificant Speeches of Mad-men, supposed to be possessed with a divine
  Spirit; which Possession they called Enthusiasme; and these kinds of
  foretelling events, were accounted Theomancy, or Prophecy; Sometimes in
  the aspect of the Starres at their Nativity; which was called Horoscopy,
  and esteemed a part of judiciary Astrology: Sometimes in their own hopes
  and feares, called Thumomancy, or Presage: Sometimes in the Prediction of
  Witches, that pretended conference with the dead; which is called
  Necromancy, Conjuring, and Witchcraft; and is but juggling and confederate
  knavery: Sometimes in the Casuall flight, or feeding of birds; called
  Augury: Sometimes in the Entrayles of a sacrificed beast; which was
  Aruspicina: Sometimes in Dreams: Sometimes in Croaking of Ravens, or
  chattering of Birds: Sometimes in the Lineaments of the face; which was
  called Metoposcopy; or by Palmistry in the lines of the hand; in casuall
  words, called Omina: Sometimes in Monsters, or unusuall accidents; as
  Ecclipses, Comets, rare Meteors, Earthquakes, Inundations, uncouth Births,
  and the like, which they called Portenta and Ostenta, because they thought
  them to portend, or foreshew some great Calamity to come; Sometimes, in
  meer Lottery, as Crosse and Pile; counting holes in a sive; dipping of
  Verses in Homer, and Virgil; and innumerable other such vaine conceipts.
  So easie are men to be drawn to believe any thing, from such men as have
  gotten credit with them; and can with gentlenesse, and dexterity, take
  hold of their fear, and ignorance.
<br />
  The Designes Of The Authors Of The Religion Of The Heathen And therefore
  the first Founders, and Legislators of Common-wealths amongst the
  Gentiles, whose ends were only to keep the people in obedience, and peace,
  have in all places taken care; First, to imprint in their minds a beliefe,
  that those precepts which they gave concerning Religion, might not be
  thought to proceed from their own device, but from the dictates of some
  God, or other Spirit; or else that they themselves were of a higher nature
  than mere mortalls, that their Lawes might the more easily be received: So
  Numa Pompilius pretended to receive the Ceremonies he instituted amongst
  the Romans, from the Nymph Egeria: and the first King and founder of the
  Kingdome of Peru, pretended himselfe and his wife to be the children of
  the Sunne: and Mahomet, to set up his new Religion, pretended to have
  conferences with the Holy Ghost, in forme of a Dove. Secondly, they have
  had a care, to make it believed, that the same things were displeasing to
  the Gods, which were forbidden by the Lawes. Thirdly, to prescribe
  Ceremonies, Supplications, Sacrifices, and Festivalls, by which they were
  to believe, the anger of the Gods might be appeased; and that ill success
  in War, great contagions of Sicknesse, Earthquakes, and each mans private
  Misery, came from the Anger of the Gods; and their Anger from the Neglect
  of their Worship, or the forgetting, or mistaking some point of the
  Ceremonies required. And though amongst the antient Romans, men were not
  forbidden to deny, that which in the Poets is written of the paines, and
  pleasures after this life; which divers of great authority, and gravity in
  that state have in their Harangues openly derided; yet that beliefe was
  alwaies more cherished, than the contrary.
<br />
  And by these, and such other Institutions, they obtayned in order to their
  end, (which was the peace of the Commonwealth,) that the common people in
  their misfortunes, laying the fault on neglect, or errour in their
  Ceremonies, or on their own disobedience to the lawes, were the lesse apt
  to mutiny against their Governors. And being entertained with the pomp,
  and pastime of Festivalls, and publike Gomes, made in honour of the Gods,
  needed nothing else but bread, to keep them from discontent, murmuring,
  and commotion against the State. And therefore the Romans, that had
  conquered the greatest part of the then known World, made no scruple of
  tollerating any Religion whatsoever in the City of Rome it selfe; unlesse
  it had somthing in it, that could not consist with their Civill
  Government; nor do we read, that any Religion was there forbidden, but
  that of the Jewes; who (being the peculiar Kingdome of God) thought it
  unlawfull to acknowledge subjection to any mortall King or State
  whatsoever. And thus you see how the Religion of the Gentiles was a part
  of their Policy.
<br />
  The True Religion, And The Lawes Of Gods Kingdome The Same But where God
  himselfe, by supernaturall Revelation, planted Religion; there he also
  made to himselfe a peculiar Kingdome; and gave Lawes, not only of
  behaviour towards himselfe; but also towards one another; and thereby in
  the Kingdome of God, the Policy, and lawes Civill, are a part of Religion;
  and therefore the distinction of Temporall, and Spirituall Domination,
  hath there no place. It is true, that God is King of all the Earth: Yet
  may he be King of a peculiar, and chosen Nation. For there is no more
  incongruity therein, than that he that hath the generall command of the
  whole Army, should have withall a peculiar Regiment, or Company of his
  own. God is King of all the Earth by his Power: but of his chosen people,
  he is King by Covenant. But to speake more largly of the Kingdome of God,
  both by Nature, and Covenant, I have in the following discourse assigned
  an other place.

  The Causes Of Change In Religion


  From the propagation of Religion, it is not hard to understand the causes
  of the resolution of the same into its first seeds, or principles; which
  are only an opinion of a Deity, and Powers invisible, and supernaturall;
  that can never be so abolished out of humane nature, but that new
  Religions may againe be made to spring out of them, by the culture of such
  men, as for such purpose are in reputation.
<br />
  For seeing all formed Religion, is founded at first, upon the faith which
  a multitude hath in some one person, whom they believe not only to be a
  wise man, and to labour to procure their happiness, but also to be a holy
  man, to whom God himselfe vouchsafeth to declare his will supernaturally;
  It followeth necessarily, when they that have the Goverment of Religion,
  shall come to have either the wisedome of those men, their sincerity, or
  their love suspected; or that they shall be unable to shew any probable
  token of divine Revelation; that the Religion which they desire to uphold,
  must be suspected likewise; and (without the feare of the Civill Sword)
  contradicted and rejected.

  Injoyning Beleefe Of Impossibilities


  That which taketh away the reputation of Wisedome, in him that formeth a
  Religion, or addeth to it when it is allready formed, is the enjoyning of
  a beliefe of contradictories: For both parts of a contradiction cannot
  possibly be true: and therefore to enjoyne the beliefe of them, is an
  argument of ignorance; which detects the Author in that; and discredits
  him in all things else he shall propound as from revelation supernaturall:
  which revelation a man may indeed have of many things above, but of
  nothing against naturall reason.

  Doing Contrary To The Religion They Establish


  That which taketh away the reputation of Sincerity, is the doing, or
  saying of such things, as appeare to be signes, that what they require
  other men to believe, is not believed by themselves; all which doings, or
  sayings are therefore called Scandalous, because they be stumbling blocks,
  that make men to fall in the way of Religion: as Injustice, Cruelty,
  Prophanesse, Avarice, and Luxury. For who can believe, that he that doth
  ordinarily such actions, as proceed from any of these rootes, believeth
  there is any such Invisible Power to be feared, as he affrighteth other
  men withall, for lesser faults?
<br />
  That which taketh away the reputation of Love, is the being detected of
  private ends: as when the beliefe they require of others, conduceth or
  seemeth to conduce to the acquiring of Dominion, Riches, Dignity, or
  secure Pleasure, to themselves onely, or specially. For that which men
  reap benefit by to themselves, they are thought to do for their own sakes,
  and not for love of others

  Want Of The Testimony Of Miracles


  Lastly, the testimony that men can render of divine Calling, can be no
  other, than the operation of Miracles; or true Prophecy, (which also is a
  Miracle;) or extraordinary Felicity. And therefore, to those points of
  Religion, which have been received from them that did such Miracles; those
  that are added by such, as approve not their Calling by some Miracle,
  obtain no greater beliefe, than what the Custome, and Lawes of the places,
  in which they be educated, have wrought into them. For as in naturall
  things, men of judgement require naturall signes, and arguments; so in
  supernaturall things, they require signes supernaturall, (which are
  Miracles,) before they consent inwardly, and from their hearts.
<br />
  All which causes of the weakening of mens faith, do manifestly appear in
  the Examples following. First, we have the Example of the children of
  Israel; who when Moses, that had approved his Calling to them by Miracles,
  and by the happy conduct of them out of Egypt, was absent but 40 dayes,
  revolted from the worship of the true God, recommended to them by him; and
  setting up (Exod.32 1,2) a Golden Calfe for their God, relapsed into the
  Idolatry of the Egyptians; from whom they had been so lately delivered.
  And again, after Moses, Aaron, Joshua, and that generation which had seen
  the great works of God in Israel, (Judges 2 11) were dead; another
  generation arose, and served Baal. So that Miracles fayling, Faith also
  failed.
<br />
  Again, when the sons of Samuel, (1 Sam.8.3) being constituted by their
  father Judges in Bersabee, received bribes, and judged unjustly, the
  people of Israel refused any more to have God to be their King, in other
  manner than he was King of other people; and therefore cryed out to
  Samuel, to choose them a King after the manner of the Nations. So that
  Justice Fayling, Faith also fayled: Insomuch, as they deposed their God,
  from reigning over them.
<br />
  And whereas in the planting of Christian Religion, the Oracles ceased in
  all parts of the Roman Empire, and the number of Christians encreased
  wonderfully every day, and in every place, by the preaching of the
  Apostles, and Evangelists; a great part of that successe, may reasonably
  be attributed, to the contempt, into which the Priests of the Gentiles of
  that time, had brought themselves, by their uncleannesse, avarice, and
  jugling between Princes. Also the Religion of the Church of Rome, was
  partly, for the same cause abolished in England, and many other parts of
  Christendome; insomuch, as the fayling of Vertue in the Pastors, maketh
  Faith faile in the People: and partly from bringing of the Philosophy, and
  doctrine of Aristotle into Religion, by the Schoole-men; from whence there
  arose so many contradictions, and absurdities, as brought the Clergy into
  a reputation both of Ignorance, and of Fraudulent intention; and enclined
  people to revolt from them, either against the will of their own Princes,
  as in France, and Holland; or with their will, as in England.
<br />
  Lastly, amongst the points by the Church of Rome declared necessary for
  Salvation, there be so many, manifestly to the advantage of the Pope, and
  of his spirituall subjects, residing in the territories of other Christian
  Princes, that were it not for the mutuall emulation of those Princes, they
  might without warre, or trouble, exclude all forraign Authority, as easily
  as it has been excluded in England. For who is there that does not see, to
  whose benefit it conduceth, to have it believed, that a King hath not his
  Authority from Christ, unlesse a Bishop crown him? That a King, if he be a
  Priest, cannot Marry? That whether a Prince be born in lawfull Marriage,
  or not, must be judged by Authority from Rome? That Subjects may be freed
  from their Alleageance, if by the Court of Rome, the King be judged an
  Heretique? That a King (as Chilperique of France) may be deposed by a Pope
  (as Pope Zachary,) for no cause; and his Kingdome given to one of his
  Subjects? That the Clergy, and Regulars, in what Country soever, shall be
  exempt from the Jurisdiction of their King, in cases criminall? Or who
  does not see, to whose profit redound the Fees of private Masses, and
  Vales of Purgatory; with other signes of private interest, enough to
  mortifie the most lively Faith, if (as I sayd) the civill Magistrate, and
  Custome did not more sustain it, than any opinion they have of the
  Sanctity, Wisdome, or Probity of their Teachers? So that I may attribute
  all the changes of Religion in the world, to one and the some cause; and
  that is, unpleasing Priests; and those not onely amongst Catholiques, but
  even in that Church that hath presumed most of Reformation.

  CHAPTER XIII.<br />OF THE NATURALL CONDITION OF MANKIND, AS CONCERNING THEIR
  FELICITY, AND MISERY


  Nature hath made men so equall, in the faculties of body, and mind; as
  that though there bee found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body,
  or of quicker mind then another; yet when all is reckoned together, the
  difference between man, and man, is not so considerable, as that one man
  can thereupon claim to himselfe any benefit, to which another may not
  pretend, as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has
  strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by
  confederacy with others, that are in the same danger with himselfe.
<br />
  And as to the faculties of the mind, (setting aside the arts grounded upon
  words, and especially that skill of proceeding upon generall, and
  infallible rules, called Science; which very few have, and but in few
  things; as being not a native faculty, born with us; nor attained, (as
  Prudence,) while we look after somewhat els,) I find yet a greater
  equality amongst men, than that of strength. For Prudence, is but
  Experience; which equall time, equally bestowes on all men, in those
  things they equally apply themselves unto. That which may perhaps make
  such equality incredible, is but a vain conceipt of ones owne wisdome,
  which almost all men think they have in a greater degree, than the Vulgar;
  that is, than all men but themselves, and a few others, whom by Fame, or
  for concurring with themselves, they approve. For such is the nature of
  men, that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or
  more eloquent, or more learned; Yet they will hardly believe there be many
  so wise as themselves: For they see their own wit at hand, and other mens
  at a distance. But this proveth rather that men are in that point equall,
  than unequall. For there is not ordinarily a greater signe of the equall
  distribution of any thing, than that every man is contented with his
  share.

  From Equality Proceeds Diffidence


  From this equality of ability, ariseth equality of hope in the attaining
  of our Ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which
  neverthelesse they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way
  to their End, (which is principally their owne conservation, and sometimes
  their delectation only,) endeavour to destroy, or subdue one an other. And
  from hence it comes to passe, that where an Invader hath no more to feare,
  than an other mans single power; if one plant, sow, build, or possesse a
  convenient Seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with
  forces united, to dispossesse, and deprive him, not only of the fruit of
  his labour, but also of his life, or liberty. And the Invader again is in
  the like danger of another.

  From Diffidence Warre


  And from this diffidence of one another, there is no way for any man to
  secure himselfe, so reasonable, as Anticipation; that is, by force, or
  wiles, to master the persons of all men he can, so long, till he see no
  other power great enough to endanger him: And this is no more than his own
  conservation requireth, and is generally allowed. Also because there be
  some, that taking pleasure in contemplating their own power in the acts of
  conquest, which they pursue farther than their security requires; if
  others, that otherwise would be glad to be at ease within modest bounds,
  should not by invasion increase their power, they would not be able, long
  time, by standing only on their defence, to subsist. And by consequence,
  such augmentation of dominion over men, being necessary to a mans
  conservation, it ought to be allowed him.
<br />
  Againe, men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great deale of
  griefe) in keeping company, where there is no power able to over-awe them
  all. For every man looketh that his companion should value him, at the
  same rate he sets upon himselfe: And upon all signes of contempt, or
  undervaluing, naturally endeavours, as far as he dares (which amongst them
  that have no common power, to keep them in quiet, is far enough to make
  them destroy each other,) to extort a greater value from his contemners,
  by dommage; and from others, by the example.
<br />
  So that in the nature of man, we find three principall causes of quarrel.
  First, Competition; Secondly, Diffidence; Thirdly, Glory.
<br />
  The first, maketh men invade for Gain; the second, for Safety; and the
  third, for Reputation. The first use Violence, to make themselves Masters
  of other mens persons, wives, children, and cattell; the second, to defend
  them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and
  any other signe of undervalue, either direct in their Persons, or by
  reflexion in their Kindred, their Friends, their Nation, their Profession,
  or their Name.

  Out Of Civil States,
  There Is Alwayes Warre Of Every One Against Every One

Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man. For WARRE, consisteth not in Battell onely, or the act of fighting; but in a tract of time, wherein the Will to contend by Battell is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of Time, is to be considered in the nature of Warre; as it is in the nature of Weather. For as the nature of Foule weather, lyeth not in a showre or two of rain; but in an inclination thereto of many dayes together: So the nature of War, consisteth not in actuall fighting; but in the known disposition thereto, during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is PEACE.

  The Incommodites Of Such A War


  Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is
  Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live
  without other security, than what their own strength, and their own
  invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place
  for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no
  Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may
  be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and
  removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of
  the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which
  is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the
  life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.
<br />
  It may seem strange to some man, that has not well weighed these things;
  that Nature should thus dissociate, and render men apt to invade, and
  destroy one another: and he may therefore, not trusting to this Inference,
  made from the Passions, desire perhaps to have the same confirmed by
  Experience. Let him therefore consider with himselfe, when taking a
  journey, he armes himselfe, and seeks to go well accompanied; when going
  to sleep, he locks his dores; when even in his house he locks his chests;
  and this when he knows there bee Lawes, and publike Officers, armed, to
  revenge all injuries shall bee done him; what opinion he has of his fellow
  subjects, when he rides armed; of his fellow Citizens, when he locks his
  dores; and of his children, and servants, when he locks his chests. Does
  he not there as much accuse mankind by his actions, as I do by my words?
  But neither of us accuse mans nature in it. The Desires, and other
  Passions of man, are in themselves no Sin. No more are the Actions, that
  proceed from those Passions, till they know a Law that forbids them; which
  till Lawes be made they cannot know: nor can any Law be made, till they
  have agreed upon the Person that shall make it.
<br />
  It may peradventure be thought, there was never such a time, nor condition
  of warre as this; and I believe it was never generally so, over all the
  world: but there are many places, where they live so now. For the savage
  people in many places of America, except the government of small Families,
  the concord whereof dependeth on naturall lust, have no government at all;
  and live at this day in that brutish manner, as I said before. Howsoever,
  it may be perceived what manner of life there would be, where there were
  no common Power to feare; by the manner of life, which men that have
  formerly lived under a peacefull government, use to degenerate into, in a
  civill Warre.
<br />
  But though there had never been any time, wherein particular men were in a
  condition of warre one against another; yet in all times, Kings, and
  persons of Soveraigne authority, because of their Independency, are in
  continuall jealousies, and in the state and posture of Gladiators; having
  their weapons pointing, and their eyes fixed on one another; that is,
  their Forts, Garrisons, and Guns upon the Frontiers of their Kingdomes;
  and continuall Spyes upon their neighbours; which is a posture of War. But
  because they uphold thereby, the Industry of their Subjects; there does
  not follow from it, that misery, which accompanies the Liberty of
  particular men.

  In Such A Warre, Nothing Is Unjust


  To this warre of every man against every man, this also is consequent;
  that nothing can be Unjust. The notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and
  Injustice have there no place. Where there is no common Power, there is no
  Law: where no Law, no Injustice. Force, and Fraud, are in warre the two
  Cardinall vertues. Justice, and Injustice are none of the Faculties
  neither of the Body, nor Mind. If they were, they might be in a man that
  were alone in the world, as well as his Senses, and Passions. They are
  Qualities, that relate to men in Society, not in Solitude. It is
  consequent also to the same condition, that there be no Propriety, no
  Dominion, no Mine and Thine distinct; but onely that to be every mans that
  he can get; and for so long, as he can keep it. And thus much for the ill
  condition, which man by meer Nature is actually placed in; though with a
  possibility to come out of it, consisting partly in the Passions, partly
  in his Reason.

  The Passions That Incline Men To Peace


  The Passions that encline men to Peace, are Feare of Death; Desire of such
  things as are necessary to commodious living; and a Hope by their Industry
  to obtain them. And Reason suggesteth convenient Articles of Peace, upon
  which men may be drawn to agreement. These Articles, are they, which
  otherwise are called the Lawes of Nature: whereof I shall speak more
  particularly, in the two following Chapters.

  CHAPTER XIV.<br />OF THE FIRST AND SECOND NATURALL LAWES, AND OF CONTRACTS

  Right Of Nature What


  The RIGHT OF NATURE, which Writers commonly call Jus Naturale, is the
  Liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himselfe, for the
  preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and
  consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own Judgement, and Reason,
  hee shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.

  Liberty What


  By LIBERTY, is understood, according to the proper signification of the
  word, the absence of externall Impediments: which Impediments, may oft
  take away part of a mans power to do what hee would; but cannot hinder him
  from using the power left him, according as his judgement, and reason
  shall dictate to him.

  A Law Of Nature What


  A LAW OF NATURE, (Lex Naturalis,) is a Precept, or generall Rule, found
  out by Reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is
  destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same;
  and to omit, that, by which he thinketh it may be best preserved. For
  though they that speak of this subject, use to confound Jus, and Lex,
  Right and Law; yet they ought to be distinguished; because RIGHT,
  consisteth in liberty to do, or to forbeare; Whereas LAW, determineth, and
  bindeth to one of them: so that Law, and Right, differ as much, as
  Obligation, and Liberty; which in one and the same matter are
  inconsistent.

  Naturally Every Man Has Right To Everything


  And because the condition of Man, (as hath been declared in the precedent
  Chapter) is a condition of Warre of every one against every one; in which
  case every one is governed by his own Reason; and there is nothing he can
  make use of, that may not be a help unto him, in preserving his life
  against his enemyes; It followeth, that in such a condition, every man has
  a Right to every thing; even to one anothers body. And therefore, as long
  as this naturall Right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be
  no security to any man, (how strong or wise soever he be,) of living out
  the time, which Nature ordinarily alloweth men to live.

  The Fundamental Law Of Nature


  And consequently it is a precept, or generall rule of Reason, &ldquo;That every
  man, ought to endeavour Peace, as farre as he has hope of obtaining it;
  and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps, and
  advantages of Warre.&rdquo; The first branch, of which Rule, containeth the
  first, and Fundamentall Law of Nature; which is, &ldquo;To seek Peace, and
  follow it.&rdquo; The Second, the summe of the Right of Nature; which is, &ldquo;By
  all means we can, to defend our selves.&rdquo;

  The Second Law Of Nature


  From this Fundamentall Law of Nature, by which men are commanded to
  endeavour Peace, is derived this second Law; &ldquo;That a man be willing, when
  others are so too, as farre-forth, as for Peace, and defence of himselfe
  he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be
  contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other
  men against himselfe.&rdquo; For as long as every man holdeth this Right, of
  doing any thing he liketh; so long are all men in the condition of Warre.
  But if other men will not lay down their Right, as well as he; then there
  is no Reason for any one, to devest himselfe of his: For that were to
  expose himselfe to Prey, (which no man is bound to) rather than to dispose
  himselfe to Peace. This is that Law of the Gospell; &ldquo;Whatsoever you
  require that others should do to you, that do ye to them.&rdquo; And that Law of
  all men, &ldquo;Quod tibi feiri non vis, alteri ne feceris.&rdquo;

  What it is to lay down a Right


  To Lay Downe a mans Right to any thing, is to Devest himselfe of the
  Liberty, of hindring another of the benefit of his own Right to the same.
  For he that renounceth, or passeth away his Right, giveth not to any other
  man a Right which he had not before; because there is nothing to which
  every man had not Right by Nature: but onely standeth out of his way, that
  he may enjoy his own originall Right, without hindrance from him; not
  without hindrance from another. So that the effect which redoundeth to one
  man, by another mans defect of Right, is but so much diminution of
  impediments to the use of his own Right originall.

  Renouncing (or) Transferring Right What; Obligation Duty Injustice


  Right is layd aside, either by simply Renouncing it; or by Transferring it
  to another. By Simply RENOUNCING; when he cares not to whom the benefit
  thereof redoundeth. By TRANSFERRING; when he intendeth the benefit thereof
  to some certain person, or persons. And when a man hath in either manner
  abandoned, or granted away his Right; then is he said to be OBLIGED, or
  BOUND, not to hinder those, to whom such Right is granted, or abandoned,
  from the benefit of it: and that he Ought, and it his DUTY, not to make
  voyd that voluntary act of his own: and that such hindrance is INJUSTICE,
  and INJURY, as being Sine Jure; the Right being before renounced, or
  transferred. So that Injury, or Injustice, in the controversies of the
  world, is somewhat like to that, which in the disputations of Scholers is
  called Absurdity. For as it is there called an Absurdity, to contradict
  what one maintained in the Beginning: so in the world, it is called
  Injustice, and Injury, voluntarily to undo that, which from the beginning
  he had voluntarily done. The way by which a man either simply Renounceth,
  or Transferreth his Right, is a Declaration, or Signification, by some
  voluntary and sufficient signe, or signes, that he doth so Renounce, or
  Transferre; or hath so Renounced, or Transferred the same, to him that
  accepteth it. And these Signes are either Words onely, or Actions onely;
  or (as it happeneth most often) both Words and Actions. And the same are
  the BONDS, by which men are bound, and obliged: Bonds, that have their
  strength, not from their own Nature, (for nothing is more easily broken
  then a mans word,) but from Feare of some evill consequence upon the
  rupture.

  Not All Rights Are Alienable


  Whensoever a man Transferreth his Right, or Renounceth it; it is either in
  consideration of some Right reciprocally transferred to himselfe; or for
  some other good he hopeth for thereby. For it is a voluntary act: and of
  the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some Good To Himselfe. And
  therefore there be some Rights, which no man can be understood by any words,
  or other signes, to have abandoned, or transferred. As first a man cannot
  lay down the right of resisting them, that assault him by force, to take
  away his life; because he cannot be understood to ayme thereby, at any
  Good to himselfe. The same may be sayd of Wounds, and Chayns, and
  Imprisonment; both because there is no benefit consequent to such
  patience; as there is to the patience of suffering another to be wounded,
  or imprisoned: as also because a man cannot tell, when he seeth men
  proceed against him by violence, whether they intend his death or not. And
  lastly the motive, and end for which this renouncing, and transferring or
  Right is introduced, is nothing else but the security of a mans person, in
  his life, and in the means of so preserving life, as not to be weary of
  it. And therefore if a man by words, or other signes, seem to despoyle
  himselfe of the End, for which those signes were intended; he is not to be
  understood as if he meant it, or that it was his will; but that he was
  ignorant of how such words and actions were to be interpreted.

  Contract What


  The mutuall transferring of Right, is that which men call CONTRACT.
<br />
  There is difference, between transferring of Right to the Thing; and
  transferring, or tradition, that is, delivery of the Thing it selfe. For
  the Thing may be delivered together with the Translation of the Right; as
  in buying and selling with ready mony; or exchange of goods, or lands: and
  it may be delivered some time after.

  Covenant What


  Again, one of the Contractors, may deliver the Thing contracted for on his
  part, and leave the other to perform his part at some determinate time
  after, and in the mean time be trusted; and then the Contract on his part,
  is called PACT, or COVENANT: Or both parts may contract now, to performe
  hereafter: in which cases, he that is to performe in time to come, being
  trusted, his performance is called Keeping Of Promise, or Faith; and the
  fayling of performance (if it be voluntary) Violation Of Faith.

  Free-gift


  When the transferring of Right, is not mutuall; but one of the parties
  transferreth, in hope to gain thereby friendship, or service from another,
  or from his friends; or in hope to gain the reputation of Charity, or
  Magnanimity; or to deliver his mind from the pain of compassion; or in
  hope of reward in heaven; This is not Contract, but GIFT, FREEGIFT, GRACE:
  which words signifie one and the same thing.

  Signes Of Contract Expresse


  Signes of Contract, are either Expresse, or By Inference. Expresse, are
  words spoken with understanding of what they signifie; And such words are
  either of the time Present, or Past; as, I Give, I Grant, I Have Given, I
  Have Granted, I Will That This Be Yours: Or of the future; as, I Will
  Give, I Will Grant; which words of the future, are called Promise.

  Signes Of Contract By Inference


  Signes by Inference, are sometimes the consequence of Words; sometimes the
  consequence of Silence; sometimes the consequence of Actions; sometimes
  the consequence of Forbearing an Action: and generally a signe by
  Inference, of any Contract, is whatsoever sufficiently argues the will of
  the Contractor.

  Free Gift Passeth By Words Of The Present Or Past


  Words alone, if they be of the time to come, and contain a bare promise,
  are an insufficient signe of a Free-gift and therefore not obligatory. For
  if they be of the time to Come, as, To Morrow I Will Give, they are a
  signe I have not given yet, and consequently that my right is not
  transferred, but remaineth till I transferre it by some other Act. But if
  the words be of the time Present, or Past, as, &ldquo;I have given, or do give
  to be delivered to morrow,&rdquo; then is my to morrows Right given away to day;
  and that by the vertue of the words, though there were no other argument
  of my will. And there is a great difference in the signification of these
  words, Volos Hoc Tuum Esse Cras, and Cros Dabo; that is between &ldquo;I will
  that this be thine to morrow,&rdquo; and, &ldquo;I will give it to thee to morrow:&rdquo;
  For the word I Will, in the former manner of speech, signifies an act of
  the will Present; but in the later, it signifies a promise of an act of
  the will to Come: and therefore the former words, being of the Present,
  transferre a future right; the later, that be of the Future, transferre
  nothing. But if there be other signes of the Will to transferre a Right,
  besides Words; then, though the gift be Free, yet may the Right be
  understood to passe by words of the future: as if a man propound a Prize
  to him that comes first to the end of a race, The gift is Free; and though
  the words be of the Future, yet the Right passeth: for if he would not
  have his words so be understood, he should not have let them runne.
<br />
  Signes Of Contract Are Words Both Of The Past, Present, and Future In
  Contracts, the right passeth, not onely where the words are of the time
  Present, or Past; but also where they are of the Future; because all
  Contract is mutuall translation, or change of Right; and therefore he that
  promiseth onely, because he hath already received the benefit for which he
  promiseth, is to be understood as if he intended the Right should passe:
  for unlesse he had been content to have his words so understood, the other
  would not have performed his part first. And for that cause, in buying,
  and selling, and other acts of Contract, A Promise is equivalent to a
  Covenant; and therefore obligatory.

  Merit What


  He that performeth first in the case of a Contract, is said to MERIT that
  which he is to receive by the performance of the other; and he hath it as
  Due. Also when a Prize is propounded to many, which is to be given to him
  onely that winneth; or mony is thrown amongst many, to be enjoyed by them
  that catch it; though this be a Free Gift; yet so to Win, or so to Catch,
  is to Merit, and to have it as DUE. For the Right is transferred in the
  Propounding of the Prize, and in throwing down the mony; though it be not
  determined to whom, but by the Event of the contention. But there is
  between these two sorts of Merit, this difference, that In Contract, I
  Merit by vertue of my own power, and the Contractors need; but in this
  case of Free Gift, I am enabled to Merit onely by the benignity of the
  Giver; In Contract, I merit at The Contractors hand that hee should depart
  with his right; In this case of gift, I Merit not that the giver should
  part with his right; but that when he has parted with it, it should be
  mine, rather than anothers. And this I think to be the meaning of that
  distinction of the Schooles, between Meritum Congrui, and Meritum
  Condigni. For God Almighty, having promised Paradise to those men
  (hoodwinkt with carnall desires,) that can walk through this world
  according to the Precepts, and Limits prescribed by him; they say, he that
  shall so walk, shall Merit Paradise Ex Congruo. But because no man can
  demand a right to it, by his own Righteousnesse, or any other power in
  himselfe, but by the Free Grace of God onely; they say, no man can Merit
  Paradise Ex Condigno. This I say, I think is the meaning of that
  distinction; but because Disputers do not agree upon the signification of
  their own termes of Art, longer than it serves their turn; I will not
  affirme any thing of their meaning: onely this I say; when a gift is given
  indefinitely, as a prize to be contended for, he that winneth Meriteth,
  and may claime the Prize as Due.

  Covenants Of Mutuall Trust, When Invalid


  If a Covenant be made, wherein neither of the parties performe presently,
  but trust one another; in the condition of meer Nature, (which is a
  condition of Warre of every man against every man,) upon any reasonable
  suspition, it is Voyd; But if there be a common Power set over them bothe,
  with right and force sufficient to compell performance; it is not Voyd.
  For he that performeth first, has no assurance the other will performe
  after; because the bonds of words are too weak to bridle mens ambition,
  avarice, anger, and other Passions, without the feare of some coerceive
  Power; which in the condition of meer Nature, where all men are equall,
  and judges of the justnesse of their own fears cannot possibly be
  supposed. And therefore he which performeth first, does but betray
  himselfe to his enemy; contrary to the Right (he can never abandon) of
  defending his life, and means of living.
<br />
  But in a civill estate, where there is a Power set up to constrain those
  that would otherwise violate their faith, that feare is no more
  reasonable; and for that cause, he which by the Covenant is to perform
  first, is obliged so to do.
<br />
  The cause of Feare, which maketh such a Covenant invalid, must be alwayes
  something arising after the Covenant made; as some new fact, or other
  signe of the Will not to performe; else it cannot make the Covenant Voyd.
  For that which could not hinder a man from promising, ought not to be
  admitted as a hindrance of performing.

  Right To The End, Containeth Right To The Means


  He that transferreth any Right, transferreth the Means of enjoying it, as
  farre as lyeth in his power. As he that selleth Land, is understood to
  transferre the Herbage, and whatsoever growes upon it; Nor can he that
  sells a Mill turn away the Stream that drives it. And they that give to a
  man The Right of government in Soveraignty, are understood to give him the
  right of levying mony to maintain Souldiers; and of appointing Magistrates
  for the administration of Justice.

  No Covenant With Beasts


  To make Covenant with bruit Beasts, is impossible; because not
  understanding our speech, they understand not, nor accept of any
  translation of Right; nor can translate any Right to another; and without
  mutuall acceptation, there is no Covenant.

  Nor With God Without Speciall Revelation


  To make Covenant with God, is impossible, but by Mediation of such as God
  speaketh to, either by Revelation supernaturall, or by his Lieutenants
  that govern under him, and in his Name; For otherwise we know not whether
  our Covenants be accepted, or not. And therefore they that Vow any thing
  contrary to any law of Nature, Vow in vain; as being a thing unjust to pay
  such Vow. And if it be a thing commanded by the Law of Nature, it is not
  the Vow, but the Law that binds them.

  No Covenant, But Of Possible And Future


  The matter, or subject of a Covenant, is alwayes something that falleth
  under deliberation; (For to Covenant, is an act of the Will; that is to
  say an act, and the last act, of deliberation;) and is therefore alwayes
  understood to be something to come; and which is judged Possible for him
  that Covenanteth, to performe.
<br />
  And therefore, to promise that which is known to be Impossible, is no
  Covenant. But if that prove impossible afterwards, which before was
  thought possible, the Covenant is valid, and bindeth, (though not to the
  thing it selfe,) yet to the value; or, if that also be impossible, to the
  unfeigned endeavour of performing as much as is possible; for to more no
  man can be obliged.

  Covenants How Made Voyd


  Men are freed of their Covenants two wayes; by Performing; or by being
  Forgiven. For Performance, is the naturall end of obligation; and
  Forgivenesse, the restitution of liberty; as being a retransferring of
  that Right, in which the obligation consisted.

  Covenants Extorted By Feare Are Valide


  Covenants entred into by fear, in the condition of meer Nature, are
  obligatory. For example, if I Covenant to pay a ransome, or service for my
  life, to an enemy; I am bound by it. For it is a Contract, wherein one
  receiveth the benefit of life; the other is to receive mony, or service
  for it; and consequently, where no other Law (as in the condition, of meer
  Nature) forbiddeth the performance, the Covenant is valid. Therefore
  Prisoners of warre, if trusted with the payment of their Ransome, are
  obliged to pay it; And if a weaker Prince, make a disadvantageous peace
  with a stronger, for feare; he is bound to keep it; unlesse (as hath been
  sayd before) there ariseth some new, and just cause of feare, to renew the
  war. And even in Common-wealths, if I be forced to redeem my selfe from a
  Theefe by promising him mony, I am bound to pay it, till the Civill Law
  discharge me. For whatsoever I may lawfully do without Obligation, the
  same I may lawfully Covenant to do through feare: and what I lawfully
  Covenant, I cannot lawfully break.

  The Former Covenant To One, Makes Voyd The Later To Another


  A former Covenant, makes voyd a later. For a man that hath passed away his
  Right to one man to day, hath it not to passe to morrow to another: and
  therefore the later promise passeth no Right, but is null.

  A Mans Covenant Not To Defend Himselfe, Is Voyd


  A Covenant not to defend my selfe from force, by force, is alwayes voyd.
  For (as I have shewed before) no man can transferre, or lay down his Right
  to save himselfe from Death, Wounds, and Imprisonment, (the avoyding
  whereof is the onely End of laying down any Right,) and therefore the
  promise of not resisting force, in no Covenant transferreth any right; nor
  is obliging. For though a man may Covenant thus, &ldquo;Unlesse I do so, or so,
  kill me;&rdquo; he cannot Covenant thus &ldquo;Unless I do so, or so, I will not
  resist you, when you come to kill me.&rdquo; For man by nature chooseth the
  lesser evill, which is danger of death in resisting; rather than the
  greater, which is certain and present death in not resisting. And this is
  granted to be true by all men, in that they lead Criminals to Execution,
  and Prison, with armed men, notwithstanding that such Criminals have
  consented to the Law, by which they are condemned.

  No Man Obliged To Accuse Himselfe


  A Covenant to accuse ones Selfe, without assurance of pardon, is likewise
  invalide. For in the condition of Nature, where every man is Judge, there
  is no place for Accusation: and in the Civill State, the Accusation is
  followed with Punishment; which being Force, a man is not obliged not to
  resist. The same is also true, of the Accusation of those, by whose
  Condemnation a man falls into misery; as of a Father, Wife, or Benefactor.
  For the Testimony of such an Accuser, if it be not willingly given, is
  praesumed to be corrupted by Nature; and therefore not to be received: and
  where a mans Testimony is not to be credited, his not bound to give it.
  Also Accusations upon Torture, are not to be reputed as Testimonies. For
  Torture is to be used but as means of conjecture, and light, in the
  further examination, and search of truth; and what is in that case
  confessed, tendeth to the ease of him that is Tortured; not to the
  informing of the Torturers: and therefore ought not to have the credit of
  a sufficient Testimony: for whether he deliver himselfe by true, or false
  Accusation, he does it by the Right of preserving his own life.

  The End Of An Oath; The Forme Of As Oath


  The force of Words, being (as I have formerly noted) too weak to hold men
  to the performance of their Covenants; there are in mans nature, but two
  imaginable helps to strengthen it. And those are either a Feare of the
  consequence of breaking their word; or a Glory, or Pride in appearing not
  to need to breake it. This later is a Generosity too rarely found to be
  presumed on, especially in the pursuers of Wealth, Command, or sensuall
  Pleasure; which are the greatest part of Mankind. The Passion to be
  reckoned upon, is Fear; whereof there be two very generall Objects: one,
  the Power of Spirits Invisible; the other, the Power of those men they
  shall therein Offend. Of these two, though the former be the greater
  Power, yet the feare of the later is commonly the greater Feare. The Feare
  of the former is in every man, his own Religion: which hath place in the
  nature of man before Civill Society. The later hath not so; at least not
  place enough, to keep men to their promises; because in the condition of
  meer Nature, the inequality of Power is not discerned, but by the event of
  Battell. So that before the time of Civill Society, or in the interruption
  thereof by Warre, there is nothing can strengthen a Covenant of Peace
  agreed on, against the temptations of Avarice, Ambition, Lust, or other
  strong desire, but the feare of that Invisible Power, which they every one
  Worship as God; and Feare as a Revenger of their perfidy. All therefore
  that can be done between two men not subject to Civill Power, is to put
  one another to swear by the God he feareth: Which Swearing or OATH, is a
  Forme Of Speech, Added To A Promise; By Which He That Promiseth,
  Signifieth, That Unlesse He Performe, He Renounceth The Mercy Of His God,
  Or Calleth To Him For Vengeance On Himselfe. Such was the Heathen Forme,
  &ldquo;Let Jupiter kill me else, as I kill this Beast.&rdquo; So is our Forme, &ldquo;I
  shall do thus, and thus, so help me God.&rdquo; And this, with the Rites and
  Ceremonies, which every one useth in his own Religion, that the feare of
  breaking faith might be the greater.

  No Oath, But By God


  By this it appears, that an Oath taken according to any other Forme, or
  Rite, then his, that sweareth, is in vain; and no Oath: And there is no
  Swearing by any thing which the Swearer thinks not God. For though men
  have sometimes used to swear by their Kings, for feare, or flattery; yet
  they would have it thereby understood, they attributed to them Divine
  honour. And that Swearing unnecessarily by God, is but prophaning of his
  name: and Swearing by other things, as men do in common discourse, is not
  Swearing, but an impious Custome, gotten by too much vehemence of talking.

  An Oath Addes Nothing To The Obligation


  It appears also, that the Oath addes nothing to the Obligation. For a
  Covenant, if lawfull, binds in the sight of God, without the Oath, as much
  as with it; if unlawfull, bindeth not at all; though it be confirmed with
  an Oath.

  CHAPTER XV.<br />OF OTHER LAWES OF NATURE

  The Third Law Of Nature, Justice


  From that law of Nature, by which we are obliged to transferre to another,
  such Rights, as being retained, hinder the peace of Mankind, there
  followeth a Third; which is this, That Men Performe Their Covenants Made:
  without which, Covenants are in vain, and but Empty words; and the Right
  of all men to all things remaining, wee are still in the condition of
  Warre.

  Justice And Injustice What


  And in this law of Nature, consisteth the Fountain and Originall of
  JUSTICE. For where no Covenant hath preceded, there hath no Right been
  transferred, and every man has right to every thing; and consequently, no
  action can be Unjust. But when a Covenant is made, then to break it is
  Unjust: And the definition of INJUSTICE, is no other than The Not
  Performance Of Covenant. And whatsoever is not Unjust, is Just.
<br />
  Justice And Propriety Begin With The Constitution of Common-wealth But
  because Covenants of mutuall trust, where there is a feare of not
  performance on either part, (as hath been said in the former Chapter,) are
  invalid; though the Originall of Justice be the making of Covenants; yet
  Injustice actually there can be none, till the cause of such feare be
  taken away; which while men are in the naturall condition of Warre, cannot
  be done. Therefore before the names of Just, and Unjust can have place,
  there must be some coercive Power, to compell men equally to the
  performance of their Covenants, by the terrour of some punishment, greater
  than the benefit they expect by the breach of their Covenant; and to make
  good that Propriety, which by mutuall Contract men acquire, in recompence
  of the universall Right they abandon: and such power there is none before
  the erection of a Common-wealth. And this is also to be gathered out of
  the ordinary definition of Justice in the Schooles: For they say, that
  &ldquo;Justice is the constant Will of giving to every man his own.&rdquo; And
  therefore where there is no Own, that is, no Propriety, there is no
  Injustice; and where there is no coerceive Power erected, that is, where
  there is no Common-wealth, there is no Propriety; all men having Right to
  all things: Therefore where there is no Common-wealth, there nothing is
  Unjust. So that the nature of Justice, consisteth in keeping of valid
  Covenants: but the Validity of Covenants begins not but with the
  Constitution of a Civill Power, sufficient to compell men to keep them:
  And then it is also that Propriety begins.

  Justice Not Contrary To Reason


  The Foole hath sayd in his heart, there is no such thing as Justice; and
  sometimes also with his tongue; seriously alleaging, that every mans
  conservation, and contentment, being committed to his own care, there
  could be no reason, why every man might not do what he thought conduced
  thereunto; and therefore also to make, or not make; keep, or not keep
  Covenants, was not against Reason, when it conduced to ones benefit. He
  does not therein deny, that there be Covenants; and that they are
  sometimes broken, sometimes kept; and that such breach of them may be
  called Injustice, and the observance of them Justice: but he questioneth,
  whether Injustice, taking away the feare of God, (for the same Foole hath
  said in his heart there is no God,) may not sometimes stand with that
  Reason, which dictateth to every man his own good; and particularly then,
  when it conduceth to such a benefit, as shall put a man in a condition, to
  neglect not onely the dispraise, and revilings, but also the power of
  other men. The Kingdome of God is gotten by violence; but what if it could
  be gotten by unjust violence? were it against Reason so to get it, when it
  is impossible to receive hurt by it? and if it be not against Reason, it
  is not against Justice; or else Justice is not to be approved for good.
  From such reasoning as this, Succesfull wickednesse hath obtained the Name
  of Vertue; and some that in all other things have disallowed the violation
  of Faith; yet have allowed it, when it is for the getting of a Kingdome.
  And the Heathen that believed, that Saturn was deposed by his son Jupiter,
  believed neverthelesse the same Jupiter to be the avenger of Injustice:
  Somewhat like to a piece of Law in Cokes Commentaries on Litleton; where
  he sayes, If the right Heire of the Crown be attainted of Treason; yet the
  Crown shall descend to him, and Eo Instante the Atteynder be voyd; From
  which instances a man will be very prone to inferre; that when the Heire
  apparent of a Kingdome, shall kill him that is in possession, though his
  father; you may call it Injustice, or by what other name you will; yet it
  can never be against Reason, seeing all the voluntary actions of men tend
  to the benefit of themselves; and those actions are most Reasonable, that
  conduce most to their ends. This specious reasoning is nevertheless false.
<br />
  For the question is not of promises mutuall, where there is no security of
  performance on either side; as when there is no Civill Power erected over
  the parties promising; for such promises are no Covenants: But either
  where one of the parties has performed already; or where there is a Power
  to make him performe; there is the question whether it be against reason,
  that is, against the benefit of the other to performe, or not. And I say
  it is not against reason. For the manifestation whereof, we are to
  consider; First, that when a man doth a thing, which notwithstanding any
  thing can be foreseen, and reckoned on, tendeth to his own destruction,
  howsoever some accident which he could not expect, arriving may turne it
  to his benefit; yet such events do not make it reasonably or wisely done.
  Secondly, that in a condition of Warre, wherein every man to every man,
  for want of a common Power to keep them all in awe, is an Enemy, there is
  no man can hope by his own strength, or wit, to defend himselfe from
  destruction, without the help of Confederates; where every one expects the
  same defence by the Confederation, that any one else does: and therefore
  he which declares he thinks it reason to deceive those that help him, can
  in reason expect no other means of safety, than what can be had from his
  own single Power. He therefore that breaketh his Covenant, and
  consequently declareth that he thinks he may with reason do so, cannot be
  received into any Society, that unite themselves for Peace and defence,
  but by the errour of them that receive him; nor when he is received, be
  retayned in it, without seeing the danger of their errour; which errours a
  man cannot reasonably reckon upon as the means of his security; and
  therefore if he be left, or cast out of Society, he perisheth; and if he
  live in Society, it is by the errours of other men, which he could not
  foresee, nor reckon upon; and consequently against the reason of his
  preservation; and so, as all men that contribute not to his destruction,
  forbear him onely out of ignorance of what is good for themselves.
<br />
  As for the Instance of gaining the secure and perpetuall felicity of
  Heaven, by any way; it is frivolous: there being but one way imaginable;
  and that is not breaking, but keeping of Covenant.
<br />
  And for the other Instance of attaining Soveraignty by Rebellion; it is
  manifest, that though the event follow, yet because it cannot reasonably
  be expected, but rather the contrary; and because by gaining it so, others
  are taught to gain the same in like manner, the attempt thereof is against
  reason. Justice therefore, that is to say, Keeping of Covenant, is a Rule
  of Reason, by which we are forbidden to do any thing destructive to our
  life; and consequently a Law of Nature.
<br />
  There be some that proceed further; and will not have the Law of Nature,
  to be those Rules which conduce to the preservation of mans life on earth;
  but to the attaining of an eternall felicity after death; to which they
  think the breach of Covenant may conduce; and consequently be just and
  reasonable; (such are they that think it a work of merit to kill, or
  depose, or rebell against, the Soveraigne Power constituted over them by
  their own consent.) But because there is no naturall knowledge of mans
  estate after death; much lesse of the reward that is then to be given to
  breach of Faith; but onely a beliefe grounded upon other mens saying, that
  they know it supernaturally, or that they know those, that knew them, that
  knew others, that knew it supernaturally; Breach of Faith cannot be called
  a Precept of Reason, or Nature.

  Covenants Not Discharged By The Vice Of The Person To Whom Made


  Others, that allow for a Law of Nature, the keeping of Faith, do
  neverthelesse make exception of certain persons; as Heretiques, and such
  as use not to performe their Covenant to others: And this also is against
  reason. For if any fault of a man, be sufficient to discharge our Covenant
  made; the same ought in reason to have been sufficient to have hindred the
  making of it.

  Justice Of Men, And Justice Of Actions What


  The names of Just, and Unjust, when they are attributed to Men, signifie
  one thing; and when they are attributed to Actions, another. When they are
  attributed to Men, they signifie Conformity, or Inconformity of Manners,
  to Reason. But when they are attributed to Actions, they signifie the
  Conformity, or Inconformity to Reason, not of Manners, or manner of life,
  but of particular Actions. A Just man therefore, is he that taketh all the
  care he can, that his Actions may be all Just: and an Unjust man, is he
  that neglecteth it. And such men are more often in our Language stiled by
  the names of Righteous, and Unrighteous; then Just, and Unjust; though the
  meaning be the same. Therefore a Righteous man, does not lose that Title,
  by one, or a few unjust Actions, that proceed from sudden Passion, or
  mistake of Things, or Persons: nor does an Unrighteous man, lose his
  character, for such Actions, as he does, of forbeares to do, for feare:
  because his Will is not framed by the Justice, but by the apparant benefit
  of what he is to do. That which gives to humane Actions the relish of
  Justice, is a certain Noblenesse or Gallantnesse of courage, (rarely
  found,) by which a man scorns to be beholding for the contentment of his
  life, to fraud, or breach of promise. This Justice of the Manners, is that
  which is meant, where Justice is called a Vertue; and Injustice a Vice.
<br />
  But the Justice of Actions denominates men, not Just, but Guiltlesse; and
  the Injustice of the same, (which is also called Injury,) gives them but
  the name of Guilty.

  Justice Of Manners, And Justice Of Actions


  Again, the Injustice of Manners, is the disposition, or aptitude to do
  Injurie; and is Injustice before it proceed to Act; and without supposing
  any individuall person injured. But the Injustice of an Action, (that is
  to say Injury,) supposeth an individuall person Injured; namely him, to
  whom the Covenant was made: And therefore many times the injury is
  received by one man, when the dammage redoundeth to another. As when The
  Master commandeth his servant to give mony to a stranger; if it be not
  done, the Injury is done to the Master, whom he had before Covenanted to
  obey; but the dammage redoundeth to the stranger, to whom he had no
  Obligation; and therefore could not Injure him. And so also in
  Common-wealths, private men may remit to one another their debts; but not
  robberies or other violences, whereby they are endammaged; because the
  detaining of Debt, is an Injury to themselves; but Robbery and Violence,
  are Injuries to the Person of the Common-wealth.

  Nothing Done To A Man, By His Own Consent Can Be Injury


  Whatsoever is done to a man, conformable to his own Will signified to the
  doer, is no Injury to him. For if he that doeth it, hath not passed away
  his originall right to do what he please, by some Antecedent Covenant,
  there is no breach of Covenant; and therefore no Injury done him. And if
  he have; then his Will to have it done being signified, is a release of
  that Covenant; and so again there is no Injury done him.

  Justice Commutative, And Distributive


  Justice of Actions, is by Writers divided into Commutative, and
  Distributive; and the former they say consisteth in proportion
  Arithmeticall; the later in proportion Geometricall. Commutative
  therefore, they place in the equality of value of the things contracted
  for; And Distributive, in the distribution of equall benefit, to men of
  equall merit. As if it were Injustice to sell dearer than we buy; or to
  give more to a man than he merits. The value of all things contracted for,
  is measured by the Appetite of the Contractors: and therefore the just
  value, is that which they be contented to give. And Merit (besides that
  which is by Covenant, where the performance on one part, meriteth the
  performance of the other part, and falls under Justice Commutative, not
  Distributive,) is not due by Justice; but is rewarded of Grace onely. And
  therefore this distinction, in the sense wherein it useth to be expounded,
  is not right. To speak properly, Commutative Justice, is the Justice of a
  Contractor; that is, a Performance of Covenant, in Buying, and Selling;
  Hiring, and Letting to Hire; Lending, and Borrowing; Exchanging,
  Bartering, and other acts of Contract.
<br />
  And Distributive Justice, the Justice of an Arbitrator; that is to say,
  the act of defining what is Just. Wherein, (being trusted by them that
  make him Arbitrator,) if he performe his Trust, he is said to distribute
  to every man his own: and his is indeed Just Distribution, and may be
  called (though improperly) Distributive Justice; but more properly Equity;
  which also is a Law of Nature, as shall be shewn in due place.

  The Fourth Law Of Nature, Gratitude


  As Justice dependeth on Antecedent Covenant; so does Gratitude depend on
  Antecedent Grace; that is to say, Antecedent Free-gift: and is the fourth
  Law of Nature; which may be conceived in this Forme, &ldquo;That a man which
  receiveth Benefit from another of meer Grace, Endeavour that he which
  giveth it, have no reasonable cause to repent him of his good will.&rdquo; For
  no man giveth, but with intention of Good to himselfe; because Gift is
  Voluntary; and of all Voluntary Acts, the Object is to every man his own
  Good; of which if men see they shall be frustrated, there will be no
  beginning of benevolence, or trust; nor consequently of mutuall help; nor
  of reconciliation of one man to another; and therefore they are to remain
  still in the condition of War; which is contrary to the first and
  Fundamentall Law of Nature, which commandeth men to Seek Peace. The breach
  of this Law, is called Ingratitude; and hath the same relation to Grace,
  that Injustice hath to Obligation by Covenant.

  The Fifth, Mutuall accommodation, or Compleasance


  A fifth Law of Nature, is COMPLEASANCE; that is to say, &ldquo;That every man
  strive to accommodate himselfe to the rest.&rdquo; For the understanding
  whereof, we may consider, that there is in mens aptnesse to Society; a
  diversity of Nature, rising from their diversity of Affections; not unlike
  to that we see in stones brought together for building of an Aedifice. For
  as that stone which by the asperity, and irregularity of Figure, takes
  more room from others, than it selfe fills; and for the hardnesse, cannot
  be easily made plain, and thereby hindereth the building, is by the
  builders cast away as unprofitable, and troublesome: so also, a man that
  by asperity of Nature, will strive to retain those things which to
  himselfe are superfluous, and to others necessary; and for the
  stubbornness of his Passions, cannot be corrected, is to be left, or cast
  out of Society, as combersome thereunto. For seeing every man, not onely
  by Right, but also by necessity of Nature, is supposed to endeavour all he
  can, to obtain that which is necessary for his conservation; He that shall
  oppose himselfe against it, for things superfluous, is guilty of the warre
  that thereupon is to follow; and therefore doth that, which is contrary to
  the fundamentall Law of Nature, which commandeth To Seek Peace. The
  observers of this Law, may be called SOCIABLE, (the Latines call them
  Commodi;) The contrary, Stubborn, Insociable, Froward, Intractable.

  The Sixth, Facility To Pardon


  A sixth Law of Nature is this, &ldquo;That upon caution of the Future time, a
  man ought to pardon the offences past of them that repenting, desire it.&rdquo;
  For PARDON, is nothing but granting of Peace; which though granted to them
  that persevere in their hostility, be not Peace, but Feare; yet not
  granted to them that give caution of the Future time, is signe of an
  aversion to Peace; and therefore contrary to the Law of Nature.

  The Seventh, That In Revenges, Men Respect Onely The Future Good


  A seventh is, &ldquo;That in Revenges, (that is, retribution of evil for evil,)
  Men look not at the greatnesse of the evill past, but the greatnesse of
  the good to follow.&rdquo; Whereby we are forbidden to inflict punishment with
  any other designe, than for correction of the offender, or direction of
  others. For this Law is consequent to the next before it, that commandeth
  Pardon, upon security of the Future Time. Besides, Revenge without respect
  to the Example, and profit to come, is a triumph, or glorying in the hurt
  of another, tending to no end; (for the End is alwayes somewhat to Come;)
  and glorying to no end, is vain-glory, and contrary to reason; and to hurt
  without reason, tendeth to the introduction of Warre; which is against the
  Law of Nature; and is commonly stiled by the name of Cruelty.

  The Eighth, Against Contumely


  And because all signes of hatred, or contempt, provoke to fight; insomuch
  as most men choose rather to hazard their life, than not to be revenged;
  we may in the eighth place, for a Law of Nature set down this Precept,
  &ldquo;That no man by deed, word, countenance, or gesture, declare Hatred, or
  Contempt of another.&rdquo; The breach of which Law, is commonly called
  Contumely.

  The Ninth, Against Pride


  The question who is the better man, has no place in the condition of meer
  Nature; where, (as has been shewn before,) all men are equall. The
  inequallity that now is, has been introduced by the Lawes civill. I know
  that Aristotle in the first booke of his Politiques, for a foundation of
  his doctrine, maketh men by Nature, some more worthy to Command, meaning
  the wiser sort (such as he thought himselfe to be for his Philosophy;)
  others to Serve, (meaning those that had strong bodies, but were not
  Philosophers as he;) as if Master and Servant were not introduced by
  consent of men, but by difference of Wit; which is not only against
  reason; but also against experience. For there are very few so foolish,
  that had not rather governe themselves, than be governed by others: Nor
  when the wise in their own conceit, contend by force, with them who
  distrust their owne wisdome, do they alwaies, or often, or almost at any
  time, get the Victory. If Nature therefore have made men equall, that
  equalitie is to be acknowledged; or if Nature have made men unequall; yet
  because men that think themselves equall, will not enter into conditions
  of Peace, but upon Equall termes, such equalitie must be admitted. And
  therefore for the ninth Law of Nature, I put this, &ldquo;That every man
  acknowledge other for his Equall by Nature.&rdquo; The breach of this Precept is
  Pride.

  The Tenth Against Arrogance


  On this law, dependeth another, &ldquo;That at the entrance into conditions of
  Peace, no man require to reserve to himselfe any Right, which he is not
  content should be reserved to every one of the rest.&rdquo; As it is necessary
  for all men that seek peace, to lay down certaine Rights of Nature; that
  is to say, not to have libertie to do all they list: so is it necessarie
  for mans life, to retaine some; as right to governe their owne bodies;
  enjoy aire, water, motion, waies to go from place to place; and all things
  else without which a man cannot live, or not live well. If in this case,
  at the making of Peace, men require for themselves, that which they would
  not have to be granted to others, they do contrary to the precedent law,
  that commandeth the acknowledgement of naturall equalitie, and therefore
  also against the law of Nature. The observers of this law, are those we
  call Modest, and the breakers Arrogant Men. The Greeks call the violation
  of this law pleonexia; that is, a desire of more than their share.

  The Eleventh Equity


  Also &ldquo;If a man be trusted to judge between man and man,&rdquo; it is a precept
  of the Law of Nature, &ldquo;that he deale Equally between them.&rdquo; For without
  that, the Controversies of men cannot be determined but by Warre. He
  therefore that is partiall in judgment, doth what in him lies, to deterre
  men from the use of Judges, and Arbitrators; and consequently, (against
  the fundamentall Lawe of Nature) is the cause of Warre.
<br />
  The observance of this law, from the equall distribution to each man, of
  that which in reason belongeth to him, is called EQUITY, and (as I have
  sayd before) distributive justice: the violation, Acception Of Persons,
  Prosopolepsia.

  The Twelfth, Equall Use Of Things Common


  And from this followeth another law, &ldquo;That such things as cannot be
  divided, be enjoyed in Common, if it can be; and if the quantity of the
  thing permit, without Stint; otherwise Proportionably to the number of
  them that have Right.&rdquo; For otherwise the distribution is Unequall, and
  contrary to Equitie.

  The Thirteenth, Of Lot


  But some things there be, that can neither be divided, nor enjoyed in
  common. Then, The Law of Nature, which prescribeth Equity, requireth,
  &ldquo;That the Entire Right; or else, (making the use alternate,) the First
  Possession, be determined by Lot.&rdquo; For equall distribution, is of the Law
  of Nature; and other means of equall distribution cannot be imagined.

  The Fourteenth, Of Primogeniture, And First Seising


  Of Lots there be two sorts, Arbitrary, and Naturall. Arbitrary, is that
  which is agreed on by the Competitors; Naturall, is either Primogeniture,
  (which the Greek calls Kleronomia, which signifies, Given by Lot;) or
  First Seisure.
<br />
  And therefore those things which cannot be enjoyed in common, nor divided,
  ought to be adjudged to the First Possessor; and is some cases to the
  First-Borne, as acquired by Lot.

  The Fifteenth, Of Mediators


  It is also a Law of Nature, &ldquo;That all men that mediate Peace, be allowed
  safe Conduct.&rdquo; For the Law that commandeth Peace, as the End, commandeth
  Intercession, as the Means; and to Intercession the Means is safe Conduct.

  The Sixteenth, Of Submission To Arbitrement


  And because, though men be never so willing to observe these Lawes, there
  may neverthelesse arise questions concerning a mans action; First, whether
  it were done, or not done; Secondly (if done) whether against the Law, or
  not against the Law; the former whereof, is called a question Of Fact; the
  later a question Of Right; therefore unlesse the parties to the question,
  Covenant mutually to stand to the sentence of another, they are as farre
  from Peace as ever. This other, to whose Sentence they submit, is called
  an ARBITRATOR. And therefore it is of the Law of Nature, &ldquo;That they that
  are at controversie, submit their Right to the judgement of an
  Arbitrator.&rdquo;

  The Seventeenth, No Man Is His Own Judge


  And seeing every man is presumed to do all things in order to his own
  benefit, no man is a fit Arbitrator in his own cause: and if he were never
  so fit; yet Equity allowing to each party equall benefit, if one be
  admitted to be Judge, the other is to be admitted also; & so the
  controversie, that is, the cause of War, remains, against the Law of
  Nature.

  The Eighteenth, No Man To Be Judge, That Has In Him Cause Of Partiality


  For the same reason no man in any Cause ought to be received for
  Arbitrator, to whom greater profit, or honour, or pleasure apparently
  ariseth out of the victory of one party, than of the other: for he hath
  taken (though an unavoydable bribe, yet) a bribe; and no man can be
  obliged to trust him. And thus also the controversie, and the condition of
  War remaineth, contrary to the Law of Nature.

  The Nineteenth, Of Witnesse


  And in a controversie of Fact, the Judge being to give no more credit to
  one, than to the other, (if there be no other Arguments) must give credit
  to a third; or to a third and fourth; or more: For else the question is
  undecided, and left to force, contrary to the Law of Nature.
<br />
  These are the Lawes of Nature, dictating Peace, for a means of the
  conservation of men in multitudes; and which onely concern the doctrine of
  Civill Society. There be other things tending to the destruction of
  particular men; as Drunkenness, and all other parts of Intemperance; which
  may therefore also be reckoned amongst those things which the Law of
  Nature hath forbidden; but are not necessary to be mentioned, nor are
  pertinent enough to this place.

  A Rule, By Which The Laws Of Nature May Easily Be Examined


  And though this may seem too subtile a deduction of the Lawes of Nature,
  to be taken notice of by all men; whereof the most part are too busie in
  getting food, and the rest too negligent to understand; yet to leave all
  men unexcusable, they have been contracted into one easie sum,
  intelligible even to the meanest capacity; and that is, &ldquo;Do not that to
  another, which thou wouldest not have done to thy selfe;&rdquo; which sheweth
  him, that he has no more to do in learning the Lawes of Nature, but, when
  weighing the actions of other men with his own, they seem too heavy, to
  put them into the other part of the ballance, and his own into their
  place, that his own passions, and selfe-love, may adde nothing to the
  weight; and then there is none of these Lawes of Nature that will not
  appear unto him very reasonable.

  The Lawes Of Nature Oblige In Conscience Alwayes,


  But In Effect Then Onely When There Is Security The Lawes of Nature oblige
  In Foro Interno; that is to say, they bind to a desire they should take
  place: but In Foro Externo; that is, to the putting them in act, not
  alwayes. For he that should be modest, and tractable, and performe all he
  promises, in such time, and place, where no man els should do so, should
  but make himselfe a prey to others, and procure his own certain ruine,
  contrary to the ground of all Lawes of Nature, which tend to Natures
  preservation. And again, he that shall observe the same Lawes towards him,
  observes them not himselfe, seeketh not Peace, but War; & consequently
  the destruction of his Nature by Violence.
<br />
  And whatsoever Lawes bind In Foro Interno, may be broken, not onely by a
  fact contrary to the Law but also by a fact according to it, in case a man
  think it contrary. For though his Action in this case, be according to the
  Law; which where the Obligation is In Foro Interno, is a breach.

  The Laws Of Nature Are Eternal;


  The Lawes of Nature are Immutable and Eternall, For Injustice,
  Ingratitude, Arrogance, Pride, Iniquity, Acception of persons, and the
  rest, can never be made lawfull. For it can never be that Warre shall
  preserve life, and Peace destroy it.

  And Yet Easie


  The same Lawes, because they oblige onely to a desire, and endeavour, I
  mean an unfeigned and constant endeavour, are easie to be observed. For in
  that they require nothing but endeavour; he that endeavoureth their
  performance, fulfilleth them; and he that fulfilleth the Law, is Just.

  The Science Of These Lawes, Is The True Morall Philosophy


  And the Science of them, is the true and onely Moral Philosophy. For
  Morall Philosophy is nothing else but the Science of what is Good, and
  Evill, in the conversation, and Society of mankind. Good, and Evill, are
  names that signifie our Appetites, and Aversions; which in different
  tempers, customes, and doctrines of men, are different: And divers men,
  differ not onely in their Judgement, on the senses of what is pleasant,
  and unpleasant to the tast, smell, hearing, touch, and sight; but also of
  what is conformable, or disagreeable to Reason, in the actions of common
  life. Nay, the same man, in divers times, differs from himselfe; and one
  time praiseth, that is, calleth Good, what another time he dispraiseth,
  and calleth Evil: From whence arise Disputes, Controversies, and at last
  War. And therefore so long as man is in the condition of meer Nature,
  (which is a condition of War,) as private Appetite is the measure of Good,
  and Evill: and consequently all men agree on this, that Peace is Good, and
  therefore also the way, or means of Peace, which (as I have shewed before)
  are Justice, Gratitude, Modesty, Equity, Mercy, & the rest of the Laws
  of Nature, are good; that is to say, Morall Vertues; and their contrarie
  Vices, Evill. Now the science of Vertue and Vice, is Morall Philosophie;
  and therfore the true Doctrine of the Lawes of Nature, is the true Morall
  Philosophie. But the Writers of Morall Philosophie, though they
  acknowledge the same Vertues and Vices; Yet not seeing wherein consisted
  their Goodnesse; nor that they come to be praised, as the meanes of
  peaceable, sociable, and comfortable living; place them in a mediocrity of
  passions: as if not the Cause, but the Degree of daring, made Fortitude;
  or not the Cause, but the Quantity of a gift, made Liberality.
<br />
  These dictates of Reason, men use to call by the name of Lawes; but
  improperly: for they are but Conclusions, or Theoremes concerning what
  conduceth to the conservation and defence of themselves; whereas Law,
  properly is the word of him, that by right hath command over others. But
  yet if we consider the same Theoremes, as delivered in the word of God,
  that by right commandeth all things; then are they properly called Lawes.

  CHAPTER XVI.<br />OF PERSONS, AUTHORS, AND THINGS PERSONATED


  A Person What
<br />
  A PERSON, is he &ldquo;whose words or actions are considered, either as his own,
  or as representing the words or actions of an other man, or of any other
  thing to whom they are attributed, whether Truly or by Fiction.&rdquo;

  Person Naturall, And Artificiall


  When they are considered as his owne, then is he called a Naturall Person:
  And when they are considered as representing the words and actions of an
  other, then is he a Feigned or Artificiall person.

  The Word Person, Whence


  The word Person is latine: instead whereof the Greeks have Prosopon, which
  signifies the Face, as Persona in latine signifies the Disguise, or
  Outward Appearance of a man, counterfeited on the Stage; and somtimes more
  particularly that part of it, which disguiseth the face, as a Mask or
  Visard: And from the Stage, hath been translated to any Representer of
  speech and action, as well in Tribunalls, as Theaters. So that a Person,
  is the same that an Actor is, both on the Stage and in common
  Conversation; and to Personate, is to Act, or Represent himselfe, or an
  other; and he that acteth another, is said to beare his Person, or act in
  his name; (in which sence Cicero useth it where he saies, &ldquo;Unus Sustineo
  Tres Personas; Mei, Adversarii, & Judicis, I beare three Persons; my
  own, my Adversaries, and the Judges;&rdquo;) and is called in diverse occasions,
  diversly; as a Representer, or Representative, a Lieutenant, a Vicar, an
  Attorney, a Deputy, a Procurator, an Actor, and the like.

  Actor, Author; Authority


  Of Persons Artificiall, some have their words and actions Owned by those
  whom they represent. And then the Person is the Actor; and he that owneth
  his words and actions, is the AUTHOR: In which case the Actor acteth by
  Authority. For that which in speaking of goods and possessions, is called
  an Owner, and in latine Dominus, in Greeke Kurios; speaking of Actions, is
  called Author. And as the Right of possession, is called Dominion; so the
  Right of doing any Action, is called AUTHORITY. So that by Authority, is
  alwayes understood a Right of doing any act: and Done By Authority, done
  by Commission, or Licence from him whose right it is.

  Covenants By Authority, Bind The Author


  From hence it followeth, that when the Actor maketh a Covenant by
  Authority, he bindeth thereby the Author, no lesse than if he had made it
  himselfe; and no lesse subjecteth him to all the consequences of the same.
  And therfore all that hath been said formerly, (Chap. 14) of the nature of
  Covenants between man and man in their naturall capacity, is true also
  when they are made by their Actors, Representers, or Procurators, that
  have authority from them, so far-forth as is in their Commission, but no
  farther.
<br />
  And therefore he that maketh a Covenant with the Actor, or Representer,
  not knowing the Authority he hath, doth it at his own perill. For no man
  is obliged by a Covenant, whereof he is not Author; nor consequently by a
  Covenant made against, or beside the Authority he gave.

  But Not The Actor


  When the Actor doth any thing against the Law of Nature by command of the
  Author, if he be obliged by former Covenant to obey him, not he, but the
  Author breaketh the Law of Nature: for though the Action be against the
  Law of Nature; yet it is not his: but contrarily; to refuse to do it, is
  against the Law of Nature, that forbiddeth breach of Covenant.

  The Authority Is To Be Shewne


  And he that maketh a Covenant with the Author, by mediation of the Actor,
  not knowing what Authority he hath, but onely takes his word; in case such
  Authority be not made manifest unto him upon demand, is no longer obliged:
  For the Covenant made with the Author, is not valid, without his
  Counter-assurance. But if he that so Covenanteth, knew before hand he was
  to expect no other assurance, than the Actors word; then is the Covenant
  valid; because the Actor in this case maketh himselfe the Author. And
  therefore, as when the Authority is evident, the Covenant obligeth the
  Author, not the Actor; so when the Authority is feigned, it obligeth the
  Actor onely; there being no Author but himselfe.

  Things Personated, Inanimate


  There are few things, that are uncapable of being represented by Fiction.
  Inanimate things, as a Church, an Hospital, a Bridge, may be Personated by
  a Rector, Master, or Overseer. But things Inanimate, cannot be Authors,
  nor therefore give Authority to their Actors: Yet the Actors may have
  Authority to procure their maintenance, given them by those that are
  Owners, or Governours of those things. And therefore, such things cannot
  be Personated, before there be some state of Civill Government.

  Irrational


  Likewise Children, Fooles, and Mad-men that have no use of Reason, may be
  Personated by Guardians, or Curators; but can be no Authors (during that
  time) of any action done by them, longer then (when they shall recover the
  use of Reason) they shall judge the same reasonable. Yet during the Folly,
  he that hath right of governing them, may give Authority to the Guardian.
  But this again has no place but in a State Civill, because before such
  estate, there is no Dominion of Persons.

  False Gods


  An Idol, or meer Figment of the brain, may be Personated; as were the Gods
  of the Heathen; which by such Officers as the State appointed, were
  Personated, and held Possessions, and other Goods, and Rights, which men
  from time to time dedicated, and consecrated unto them. But idols cannot
  be Authors: for a Idol is nothing. The Authority proceeded from the State:
  and therefore before introduction of Civill Government, the Gods of the
  Heathen could not be Personated.

  The True God


  The true God may be Personated. As he was; first, by Moses; who governed
  the Israelites, (that were not his, but Gods people,) not in his own name,
  with Hoc Dicit Moses; but in Gods Name, with Hoc Dicit Dominus. Secondly,
  by the son of man, his own Son our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ, that came
  to reduce the Jewes, and induce all Nations into the Kingdome of his
  Father; not as of himselfe, but as sent from his Father. And thirdly, by
  the Holy Ghost, or Comforter, speaking, and working in the Apostles: which
  Holy Ghost, was a Comforter that came not of himselfe; but was sent, and
  proceeded from them both.

  A Multitude Of Men, How One Person


  A Multitude of men, are made One Person, when they are by one man, or one
  Person, Represented; so that it be done with the consent of every one of
  that Multitude in particular. For it is the Unity of the Representer, not
  the Unity of the Represented, that maketh the Person One. And it is the
  Representer that beareth the Person, and but one Person: And Unity, cannot
  otherwise be understood in Multitude.

  Every One Is Author


  And because the Multitude naturally is not One, but Many; they cannot be
  understood for one; but many Authors, of every thing their Representative
  faith, or doth in their name; Every man giving their common Representer,
  Authority from himselfe in particular; and owning all the actions the
  Representer doth, in case they give him Authority without stint:
  Otherwise, when they limit him in what, and how farre he shall represent
  them, none of them owneth more, than they gave him commission to Act.

  An Actor May Be Many Men Made One By Plurality Of Voyces


  And if the Representative consist of many men, the voyce of the greater
  number, must be considered as the voyce of them all. For if the lesser
  number pronounce (for example) in the Affirmative, and the greater in the
  Negative, there will be Negatives more than enough to destroy the
  Affirmatives; and thereby the excesse of Negatives, standing
  uncontradicted, are the onely voyce the Representative hath.

  Representatives, When The Number Is Even, Unprofitable


  And a Representative of even number, especially when the number is not
  great, whereby the contradictory voyces are oftentimes equall, is
  therefore oftentimes mute, and uncapable of Action. Yet in some cases
  contradictory voyces equall in number, may determine a question; as in
  condemning, or absolving, equality of votes, even in that they condemne
  not, do absolve; but not on the contrary condemne, in that they absolve
  not. For when a Cause is heard; not to condemne, is to absolve; but on the
  contrary, to say that not absolving, is condemning, is not true. The like
  it is in a deliberation of executing presently, or deferring till another
  time; For when the voyces are equall, the not decreeing Execution, is a
  decree of Dilation.

  Negative Voyce


  Or if the number be odde, as three, or more, (men, or assemblies;) whereof
  every one has by a Negative Voice, authority to take away the effect of
  all the Affirmative Voices of the rest, This number is no Representative;
  because by the diversity of Opinions, and Interests of men, it becomes
  oftentimes, and in cases of the greatest consequence, a mute Person, and
  unapt, as for may things else, so for the government of a Multitude,
  especially in time of Warre.
<br />
  Of Authors there be two sorts. The first simply so called; which I have
  before defined to be him, that owneth the Action of another simply. The
  second is he, that owneth an Action, or Covenant of another conditionally;
  that is to say, he undertaketh to do it, if the other doth it not, at, or
  before a certain time. And these Authors conditionall, are generally
  called SURETYES, in Latine Fidejussores, and Sponsores; and particularly
  for Debt, Praedes; and for Appearance before a Judge, or Magistrate,
  Vades.

  PART II.<br />
  OF COMMON-WEALTH

  CHAPTER XVII.<br />OF THE CAUSES, GENERATION, AND DEFINITION OF A
  COMMON-WEALTH

  The End Of Common-wealth, Particular Security


  The finall Cause, End, or Designe of men, (who naturally love Liberty, and
  Dominion over others,) in the introduction of that restraint upon
  themselves, (in which wee see them live in Common-wealths,) is the
  foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby;
  that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of
  Warre, which is necessarily consequent (as hath been shewn) to the
  naturall Passions of men, when there is no visible Power to keep them in
  awe, and tye them by feare of punishment to the performance of their
  Covenants, and observation of these Lawes of Nature set down in the
  fourteenth and fifteenth Chapters.

  Which Is Not To Be Had From The Law Of Nature:


  For the Lawes of Nature (as Justice, Equity, Modesty, Mercy, and (in
  summe) Doing To Others, As Wee Would Be Done To,) if themselves, without
  the terrour of some Power, to cause them to be observed, are contrary to
  our naturall Passions, that carry us to Partiality, Pride, Revenge, and
  the like. And Covenants, without the Sword, are but Words, and of no
  strength to secure a man at all. Therefore notwithstanding the Lawes of
  Nature, (which every one hath then kept, when he has the will to keep
  them, when he can do it safely,) if there be no Power erected, or not
  great enough for our security; every man will and may lawfully rely on his
  own strength and art, for caution against all other men. And in all
  places, where men have lived by small Families, to robbe and spoyle one
  another, has been a Trade, and so farre from being reputed against the Law
  of Nature, that the greater spoyles they gained, the greater was their
  honour; and men observed no other Lawes therein, but the Lawes of Honour;
  that is, to abstain from cruelty, leaving to men their lives, and
  instruments of husbandry. And as small Familyes did then; so now do Cities
  and Kingdomes which are but greater Families (for their own security)
  enlarge their Dominions, upon all pretences of danger, and fear of
  Invasion, or assistance that may be given to Invaders, endeavour as much
  as they can, to subdue, or weaken their neighbours, by open force, and
  secret arts, for want of other Caution, justly; and are remembred for it
  in after ages with honour.

  Nor From The Conjunction Of A Few Men Or Familyes


  Nor is it the joyning together of a small number of men, that gives them
  this security; because in small numbers, small additions on the one side
  or the other, make the advantage of strength so great, as is sufficient to
  carry the Victory; and therefore gives encouragement to an Invasion. The
  Multitude sufficient to confide in for our Security, is not determined by
  any certain number, but by comparison with the Enemy we feare; and is then
  sufficient, when the odds of the Enemy is not of so visible and
  conspicuous moment, to determine the event of warre, as to move him to
  attempt.

  Nor From A Great Multitude, Unlesse Directed By One Judgement


  And be there never so great a Multitude; yet if their actions be directed
  according to their particular judgements, and particular appetites, they
  can expect thereby no defence, nor protection, neither against a Common
  enemy, nor against the injuries of one another. For being distracted in
  opinions concerning the best use and application of their strength, they
  do not help, but hinder one another; and reduce their strength by mutuall
  opposition to nothing: whereby they are easily, not onely subdued by a
  very few that agree together; but also when there is no common enemy, they
  make warre upon each other, for their particular interests. For if we
  could suppose a great Multitude of men to consent in the observation of
  Justice, and other Lawes of Nature, without a common Power to keep them
  all in awe; we might as well suppose all Man-kind to do the same; and then
  there neither would be nor need to be any Civill Government, or
  Common-wealth at all; because there would be Peace without subjection.

  And That Continually


  Nor is it enough for the security, which men desire should last all the
  time of their life, that they be governed, and directed by one judgement,
  for a limited time; as in one Battell, or one Warre. For though they
  obtain a Victory by their unanimous endeavour against a forraign enemy;
  yet afterwards, when either they have no common enemy, or he that by one
  part is held for an enemy, is by another part held for a friend, they must
  needs by the difference of their interests dissolve, and fall again into a
  Warre amongst themselves.

  Why Certain Creatures Without Reason, Or Speech,

  Do Neverthelesse Live In Society, Without Any Coercive Power


  It is true, that certain living creatures, as Bees, and Ants, live
  sociably one with another, (which are therefore by Aristotle numbred
  amongst Politicall creatures;) and yet have no other direction, than their
  particular judgements and appetites; nor speech, whereby one of them can
  signifie to another, what he thinks expedient for the common benefit: and
  therefore some man may perhaps desire to know, why Man-kind cannot do the
  same. To which I answer,
<br />
  First, that men are continually in competition for Honour and Dignity,
  which these creatures are not; and consequently amongst men there ariseth
  on that ground, Envy and Hatred, and finally Warre; but amongst these not
  so.
<br />
  Secondly, that amongst these creatures, the Common good differeth not from
  the Private; and being by nature enclined to their private, they procure
  thereby the common benefit. But man, whose Joy consisteth in comparing
  himselfe with other men, can relish nothing but what is eminent.
<br />
  Thirdly, that these creatures, having not (as man) the use of reason, do
  not see, nor think they see any fault, in the administration of their
  common businesse: whereas amongst men, there are very many, that thinke
  themselves wiser, and abler to govern the Publique, better than the rest;
  and these strive to reforme and innovate, one this way, another that way;
  and thereby bring it into Distraction and Civill warre.
<br />
  Fourthly, that these creatures, though they have some use of voice, in
  making knowne to one another their desires, and other affections; yet they
  want that art of words, by which some men can represent to others, that
  which is Good, in the likenesse of Evill; and Evill, in the likenesse of
  Good; and augment, or diminish the apparent greatnesse of Good and Evill;
  discontenting men, and troubling their Peace at their pleasure.
<br />
  Fiftly, irrationall creatures cannot distinguish betweene Injury, and
  Dammage; and therefore as long as they be at ease, they are not offended
  with their fellowes: whereas Man is then most troublesome, when he is most
  at ease: for then it is that he loves to shew his Wisdome, and controule
  the Actions of them that governe the Common-wealth.
<br />
  Lastly, the agreement of these creatures is Naturall; that of men, is by
  Covenant only, which is Artificiall: and therefore it is no wonder if
  there be somewhat else required (besides Covenant) to make their Agreement
  constant and lasting; which is a Common Power, to keep them in awe, and to
  direct their actions to the Common Benefit.

  The Generation Of A Common-wealth


  The only way to erect such a Common Power, as may be able to defend them
  from the invasion of Forraigners, and the injuries of one another, and
  thereby to secure them in such sort, as that by their owne industrie, and
  by the fruites of the Earth, they may nourish themselves and live
  contentedly; is, to conferre all their power and strength upon one Man, or
  upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their Wills, by plurality of
  voices, unto one Will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or
  Assembly of men, to beare their Person; and every one to owne, and
  acknowledge himselfe to be Author of whatsoever he that so beareth their
  Person, shall Act, or cause to be Acted, in those things which concerne
  the Common Peace and Safetie; and therein to submit their Wills, every one
  to his Will, and their Judgements, to his Judgment. This is more than
  Consent, or Concord; it is a reall Unitie of them all, in one and the same
  Person, made by Covenant of every man with every man, in such manner, as
  if every man should say to every man, &ldquo;I Authorise and give up my Right of
  Governing my selfe, to this Man, or to this Assembly of men, on this
  condition, that thou give up thy Right to him, and Authorise all his
  Actions in like manner.&rdquo; This done, the Multitude so united in one Person,
  is called a COMMON-WEALTH, in latine CIVITAS. This is the Generation of
  that great LEVIATHAN, or rather (to speake more reverently) of that
  Mortall God, to which wee owe under the Immortall God, our peace and
  defence. For by this Authoritie, given him by every particular man in the
  Common-Wealth, he hath the use of so much Power and Strength conferred on
  him, that by terror thereof, he is inabled to forme the wills of them all,
  to Peace at home, and mutuall ayd against their enemies abroad.

  The Definition Of A Common-wealth


  And in him consisteth the Essence of the Common-wealth; which (to define
  it,) is &ldquo;One Person, of whose Acts a great Multitude, by mutuall Covenants
  one with another, have made themselves every one the Author, to the end he
  may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient,
  for their Peace and Common Defence.&rdquo;

  Soveraigne, And Subject, What


  And he that carryeth this Person, as called SOVERAIGNE, and said to have
  Soveraigne Power; and every one besides, his SUBJECT.
<br />
  The attaining to this Soveraigne Power, is by two wayes. One, by Naturall
  force; as when a man maketh his children, to submit themselves, and their
  children to his government, as being able to destroy them if they refuse,
  or by Warre subdueth his enemies to his will, giving them their lives on
  that condition. The other, is when men agree amongst themselves, to submit
  to some Man, or Assembly of men, voluntarily, on confidence to be
  protected by him against all others. This later, may be called a
  Politicall Common-wealth, or Common-wealth by Institution; and the former,
  a Common-wealth by Acquisition. And first, I shall speak of a
  Common-wealth by Institution.

  CHAPTER XVIII.<br />OF THE RIGHTS OF SOVERAIGNES BY INSTITUTION

  The Act Of Instituting A Common-wealth, What


  A Common-wealth is said to be Instituted, when a Multitude of men do
  Agree, and Covenant, Every One With Every One, that to whatsoever Man, or
  Assembly Of Men, shall be given by the major part, the Right to Present
  the Person of them all, (that is to say, to be their Representative;)
  every one, as well he that Voted For It, as he that Voted Against It,
  shall Authorise all the Actions and Judgements, of that Man, or Assembly
  of men, in the same manner, as if they were his own, to the end, to live
  peaceably amongst themselves, and be protected against other men.

  The Consequences To Such Institution, Are

  1. The Subjects Cannot Change The Forme Of Government


  From this Institution of a Common-wealth are derived all the Rights, and
  Facultyes of him, or them, on whom the Soveraigne Power is conferred by
  the consent of the People assembled.
<br />
  First, because they Covenant, it is to be understood, they are not obliged
  by former Covenant to any thing repugnant hereunto. And Consequently they
  that have already Instituted a Common-wealth, being thereby bound by
  Covenant, to own the Actions, and Judgements of one, cannot lawfully make
  a new Covenant, amongst themselves, to be obedient to any other, in any
  thing whatsoever, without his permission. And therefore, they that are
  subjects to a Monarch, cannot without his leave cast off Monarchy, and
  return to the confusion of a disunited Multitude; nor transferre their
  Person from him that beareth it, to another Man, or other Assembly of men:
  for they are bound, every man to every man, to Own, and be reputed Author
  of all, that he that already is their Soveraigne, shall do, and judge fit
  to be done: so that any one man dissenting, all the rest should break
  their Covenant made to that man, which is injustice: and they have also
  every man given the Soveraignty to him that beareth their Person; and
  therefore if they depose him, they take from him that which is his own,
  and so again it is injustice. Besides, if he that attempteth to depose his
  Soveraign, be killed, or punished by him for such attempt, he is author of
  his own punishment, as being by the Institution, Author of all his
  Soveraign shall do: And because it is injustice for a man to do any thing,
  for which he may be punished by his own authority, he is also upon that
  title, unjust. And whereas some men have pretended for their disobedience
  to their Soveraign, a new Covenant, made, not with men, but with God; this
  also is unjust: for there is no Covenant with God, but by mediation of
  some body that representeth Gods Person; which none doth but Gods
  Lieutenant, who hath the Soveraignty under God. But this pretence of
  Covenant with God, is so evident a lye, even in the pretenders own
  consciences, that it is not onely an act of an unjust, but also of a vile,
  and unmanly disposition.

  2. Soveraigne Power Cannot Be Forfeited


  Secondly, Because the Right of bearing the Person of them all, is given to
  him they make Soveraigne, by Covenant onely of one to another, and not of
  him to any of them; there can happen no breach of Covenant on the part of
  the Soveraigne; and consequently none of his Subjects, by any pretence of
  forfeiture, can be freed from his Subjection. That he which is made
  Soveraigne maketh no Covenant with his Subjects beforehand, is manifest;
  because either he must make it with the whole multitude, as one party to
  the Covenant; or he must make a severall Covenant with every man. With the
  whole, as one party, it is impossible; because as yet they are not one
  Person: and if he make so many severall Covenants as there be men, those
  Covenants after he hath the Soveraignty are voyd, because what act soever
  can be pretended by any one of them for breach thereof, is the act both of
  himselfe, and of all the rest, because done in the Person, and by the
  Right of every one of them in particular. Besides, if any one, or more of
  them, pretend a breach of the Covenant made by the Soveraigne at his
  Institution; and others, or one other of his Subjects, or himselfe alone,
  pretend there was no such breach, there is in this case, no Judge to
  decide the controversie: it returns therefore to the Sword again; and
  every man recovereth the right of Protecting himselfe by his own strength,
  contrary to the designe they had in the Institution. It is therefore in
  vain to grant Soveraignty by way of precedent Covenant. The opinion that
  any Monarch receiveth his Power by Covenant, that is to say on Condition,
  proceedeth from want of understanding this easie truth, that Covenants
  being but words, and breath, have no force to oblige, contain, constrain,
  or protect any man, but what it has from the publique Sword; that is, from
  the untyed hands of that Man, or Assembly of men that hath the
  Soveraignty, and whose actions are avouched by them all, and performed by
  the strength of them all, in him united. But when an Assembly of men is
  made Soveraigne; then no man imagineth any such Covenant to have past in
  the Institution; for no man is so dull as to say, for example, the People
  of Rome, made a Covenant with the Romans, to hold the Soveraignty on such
  or such conditions; which not performed, the Romans might lawfully depose
  the Roman People. That men see not the reason to be alike in a Monarchy,
  and in a Popular Government, proceedeth from the ambition of some, that
  are kinder to the government of an Assembly, whereof they may hope to
  participate, than of Monarchy, which they despair to enjoy.

  3. No Man Can Without Injustice Protest Against The Institution Of The
  Soveraigne Declared By The Major Part.


  Thirdly, because the major part hath by consenting voices declared a
  Soveraigne; he that dissented must now consent with the rest; that is, be
  contented to avow all the actions he shall do, or else justly be
  destroyed by the rest. For if he voluntarily entered into the
  Congregation of them that were assembled, he sufficiently declared
  thereby his will (and therefore tacitely covenanted) to stand to what the
  major part should ordayne: and therefore if he refuse to stand thereto,
  or make Protestation against any of their Decrees, he does contrary to
  his Covenant, and therfore unjustly. And whether he be of the
  Congregation, or not; and whether his consent be asked, or not, he must
  either submit to their decrees, or be left in the condition of warre he
  was in before; wherein he might without injustice be destroyed by any man
  whatsoever.

  4. The Soveraigns Actions Cannot Be Justly Accused By The Subject


  Fourthly, because every Subject is by this Institution Author of all the
  Actions, and Judgements of the Soveraigne Instituted; it followes, that
  whatsoever he doth, it can be no injury to any of his Subjects; nor ought
  he to be by any of them accused of Injustice. For he that doth any thing
  by authority from another, doth therein no injury to him by whose
  authority he acteth: But by this Institution of a Common-wealth, every
  particular man is Author of all the Soveraigne doth; and consequently he
  that complaineth of injury from his Soveraigne, complaineth of that
  whereof he himselfe is Author; and therefore ought not to accuse any man
  but himselfe; no nor himselfe of injury; because to do injury to ones
  selfe, is impossible. It is true that they that have Soveraigne power, may
  commit Iniquity; but not Injustice, or Injury in the proper signification.

  5. What Soever The Soveraigne Doth, Is Unpunishable By The Subject


  Fiftly, and consequently to that which was sayd last, no man that hath
  Soveraigne power can justly be put to death, or otherwise in any manner by
  his Subjects punished. For seeing every Subject is author of the actions
  of his Soveraigne; he punisheth another, for the actions committed by
  himselfe.

  6. The Soveraigne Is Judge Of What Is Necessary For The Peace And Defence
  Of His Subjects


  And because the End of this Institution, is the Peace and Defence of them
  all; and whosoever has right to the End, has right to the Means; it
  belongeth of Right, to whatsoever Man, or Assembly that hath the
  Soveraignty, to be Judge both of the meanes of Peace and Defence; and also
  of the hindrances, and disturbances of the same; and to do whatsoever he
  shall think necessary to be done, both beforehand, for the preserving of
  Peace and Security, by prevention of discord at home and Hostility from
  abroad; and, when Peace and Security are lost, for the recovery of the
  same. And therefore,

  And Judge Of What Doctrines Are Fit To Be Taught Them


  Sixtly, it is annexed to the Soveraignty, to be Judge of what Opinions and
  Doctrines are averse, and what conducing to Peace; and consequently, on
  what occasions, how farre, and what, men are to be trusted withall, in
  speaking to Multitudes of people; and who shall examine the Doctrines of
  all bookes before they be published. For the Actions of men proceed from
  their Opinions; and in the wel governing of Opinions, consisteth the well
  governing of mens Actions, in order to their Peace, and Concord. And
  though in matter of Doctrine, nothing ought to be regarded but the Truth;
  yet this is not repugnant to regulating of the same by Peace. For Doctrine
  Repugnant to Peace, can no more be True, than Peace and Concord can be
  against the Law of Nature. It is true, that in a Common-wealth, where by
  the negligence, or unskilfullnesse of Governours, and Teachers, false
  Doctrines are by time generally received; the contrary Truths may be
  generally offensive; Yet the most sudden, and rough busling in of a new
  Truth, that can be, does never breake the Peace, but onely somtimes awake
  the Warre. For those men that are so remissely governed, that they dare
  take up Armes, to defend, or introduce an Opinion, are still in Warre; and
  their condition not Peace, but only a Cessation of Armes for feare of one
  another; and they live as it were, in the procincts of battaile
  continually. It belongeth therefore to him that hath the Soveraign Power,
  to be Judge, or constitute all Judges of Opinions and Doctrines, as a
  thing necessary to Peace, thereby to prevent Discord and Civill Warre.

  7. The Right of making Rules, whereby the Subject may every man know what
  is so his owne, as no other Subject can without injustice take it from
  him


  Seventhly, is annexed to the Soveraigntie, the whole power of prescribing
  the Rules, whereby every man may know, what Goods he may enjoy and what
  Actions he may doe, without being molested by any of his fellow Subjects:
  And this is it men Call Propriety. For before constitution of Soveraign
  Power (as hath already been shewn) all men had right to all things; which
  necessarily causeth Warre: and therefore this Proprietie, being necessary
  to Peace, and depending on Soveraign Power, is the Act of the Power, in
  order to the publique peace. These Rules of Propriety (or Meum and Tuum)
  and of Good, Evill, Lawfull and Unlawfull in the actions of subjects, are
  the Civill Lawes, that is to say, the lawes of each Commonwealth in
  particular; though the name of Civill Law be now restrained to the antient
  Civill Lawes of the City of Rome; which being the head of a great part of
  the World, her Lawes at that time were in these parts the Civill Law.

  8. To Him Also Belongeth The Right Of All Judicature And Decision Of
  Controversies:


  Eightly, is annexed to the Soveraigntie, the Right of Judicature; that is
  to say, of hearing and deciding all Controversies, which may arise
  concerning Law, either Civill, or naturall, or concerning Fact. For
  without the decision of Controversies, there is no protection of one
  Subject, against the injuries of another; the Lawes concerning Meum and
  Tuum are in vaine; and to every man remaineth, from the naturall and
  necessary appetite of his own conservation, the right of protecting
  himselfe by his private strength, which is the condition of Warre; and
  contrary to the end for which every Common-wealth is instituted.

  9. And Of Making War, And Peace, As He Shall Think Best:


  Ninthly, is annexed to the Soveraignty, the Right of making Warre, and
  Peace with other Nations, and Common-wealths; that is to say, of Judging
  when it is for the publique good, and how great forces are to be
  assembled, armed, and payd for that end; and to levy mony upon the
  Subjects, to defray the expenses thereof. For the Power by which the
  people are to be defended, consisteth in their Armies; and the strength of
  an Army, in the union of their strength under one Command; which Command
  the Soveraign Instituted, therefore hath; because the command of the
  Militia, without other Institution, maketh him that hath it Soveraign. And
  therefore whosoever is made Generall of an Army, he that hath the
  Soveraign Power is alwayes Generallissimo.

  10. And Of Choosing All Counsellours, And Ministers, Both Of Peace, And
  Warre:


  Tenthly, is annexed to the Soveraignty, the choosing of all Councellours,
  Ministers, Magistrates, and Officers, both in peace, and War. For seeing
  the Soveraign is charged with the End, which is the common Peace and
  Defence; he is understood to have Power to use such Means, as he shall
  think most fit for his discharge.

  11. And Of Rewarding, And Punishing, And That (Where No Former Law hath
  Determined The Measure Of It) Arbitrary:


  Eleventhly, to the Soveraign is committed the Power of Rewarding with
  riches, or honour; and of Punishing with corporall, or pecuniary
  punishment, or with ignominy every Subject according to the Lawe he hath
  formerly made; or if there be no Law made, according as he shall judge
  most to conduce to the encouraging of men to serve the Common-wealth, or
  deterring of them from doing dis-service to the same.

  12. And Of Honour And Order


  Lastly, considering what values men are naturally apt to set upon
  themselves; what respect they look for from others; and how little they
  value other men; from whence continually arise amongst them, Emulation,
  Quarrells, Factions, and at last Warre, to the destroying of one another,
  and diminution of their strength against a Common Enemy; It is necessary
  that there be Lawes of Honour, and a publique rate of the worth of such
  men as have deserved, or are able to deserve well of the Common-wealth;
  and that there be force in the hands of some or other, to put those Lawes
  in execution. But it hath already been shown, that not onely the whole
  Militia, or forces of the Common-wealth; but also the Judicature of all
  Controversies, is annexed to the Soveraignty. To the Soveraign therefore
  it belongeth also to give titles of Honour; and to appoint what Order of
  place, and dignity, each man shall hold; and what signes of respect, in
  publique or private meetings, they shall give to one another.

  These Rights Are Indivisible


  These are the Rights, which make the Essence of Soveraignty; and which are
  the markes, whereby a man may discern in what Man, or Assembly of men, the
  Soveraign Power is placed, and resideth. For these are incommunicable, and
  inseparable. The Power to coyn Mony; to dispose of the estate and persons
  of Infant heires; to have praeemption in Markets; and all other Statute
  Praerogatives, may be transferred by the Soveraign; and yet the Power to
  protect his Subject be retained. But if he transferre the Militia, he
  retains the Judicature in vain, for want of execution of the Lawes; Or if
  he grant away the Power of raising Mony; the Militia is in vain: or if he
  give away the government of doctrines, men will be frighted into rebellion
  with the feare of Spirits. And so if we consider any one of the said
  Rights, we shall presently see, that the holding of all the rest, will
  produce no effect, in the conservation of Peace and Justice, the end for
  which all Common-wealths are Instituted. And this division is it, whereof
  it is said, &ldquo;A kingdome divided in it selfe cannot stand:&rdquo; For unlesse
  this division precede, division into opposite Armies can never happen. If
  there had not first been an opinion received of the greatest part of
  England, that these Powers were divided between the King, and the Lords,
  and the House of Commons, the people had never been divided, and fallen
  into this Civill Warre; first between those that disagreed in Politiques;
  and after between the Dissenters about the liberty of Religion; which have
  so instructed men in this point of Soveraign Right, that there be few now
  (in England,) that do not see, that these Rights are inseparable, and will
  be so generally acknowledged, at the next return of Peace; and so
  continue, till their miseries are forgotten; and no longer, except the
  vulgar be better taught than they have hetherto been.

  And Can By No Grant Passe Away Without Direct Renouncing Of The Soveraign
  Power


  And because they are essentiall and inseparable Rights, it follows
  necessarily, that in whatsoever, words any of them seem to be granted
  away, yet if the Soveraign Power it selfe be not in direct termes
  renounced, and the name of Soveraign no more given by the Grantees to him
  that Grants them, the Grant is voyd: for when he has granted all he can,
  if we grant back the Soveraignty, all is restored, as inseparably annexed
  thereunto.

  The Power And Honour Of Subjects Vanisheth In The Presence Of The Power
  Soveraign


  This great Authority being indivisible, and inseparably annexed to the
  Soveraignty, there is little ground for the opinion of them, that say of
  Soveraign Kings, though they be Singulis Majores, of greater Power than
  every one of their Subjects, yet they be Universis Minores, of lesse power
  than them all together. For if by All Together, they mean not the
  collective body as one person, then All Together, and Every One, signifie
  the same; and the speech is absurd. But if by All Together, they
  understand them as one Person (which person the Soveraign bears,) then the
  power of all together, is the same with the Soveraigns power; and so again
  the speech is absurd; which absurdity they see well enough, when the
  Soveraignty is in an Assembly of the people; but in a Monarch they see it
  not; and yet the power of Soveraignty is the same in whomsoever it be
  placed.
<br />
  And as the Power, so also the Honour of the Soveraign, ought to be
  greater, than that of any, or all the Subjects. For in the Soveraignty is
  the fountain of Honour. The dignities of Lord, Earle, Duke, and Prince are
  his Creatures. As in the presence of the Master, the Servants are equall,
  and without any honour at all; So are the Subjects, in the presence of the
  Soveraign. And though they shine some more, some lesse, when they are out
  of his sight; yet in his presence, they shine no more than the Starres in
  presence of the Sun.

  Soveraigne Power Not Hurtfull As The Want Of It, And The Hurt Proceeds
  For The Greatest Part From Not Submitting Readily, To A Lesse


  But a man may here object, that the Condition of Subjects is very
  miserable; as being obnoxious to the lusts, and other irregular passions
  of him, or them that have so unlimited a Power in their hands. And
  commonly they that live under a Monarch, think it the fault of Monarchy;
  and they that live under the government of Democracy, or other Soveraign
  Assembly, attribute all the inconvenience to that forme of Common-wealth;
  whereas the Power in all formes, if they be perfect enough to protect
  them, is the same; not considering that the estate of Man can never be
  without some incommodity or other; and that the greatest, that in any
  forme of Government can possibly happen to the people in generall, is
  scarce sensible, in respect of the miseries, and horrible calamities, that
  accompany a Civill Warre; or that dissolute condition of masterlesse men,
  without subjection to Lawes, and a coercive Power to tye their hands from
  rapine, and revenge: nor considering that the greatest pressure of
  Soveraign Governours, proceedeth not from any delight, or profit they can
  expect in the dammage, or weakening of their subjects, in whose vigor,
  consisteth their own selves, that unwillingly contributing to their own
  defence, make it necessary for their Governours to draw from them what
  they can in time of Peace, that they may have means on any emergent
  occasion, or sudden need, to resist, or take advantage on their Enemies.
  For all men are by nature provided of notable multiplying glasses, (that
  is their Passions and Self-love,) through which, every little payment
  appeareth a great grievance; but are destitute of those prospective
  glasses, (namely Morall and Civill Science,) to see a farre off the
  miseries that hang over them, and cannot without such payments be avoyded.

  CHAPTER XIX.<br />OF THE SEVERALL KINDS OF COMMON-WEALTH BY INSTITUTION, AND
  OF SUCCESSION TO THE SOVERAIGNE POWER

  The Different Formes Of Common-wealths But Three


  The difference of Common-wealths, consisteth in the difference of the
  Soveraign, or the Person representative of all and every one of the
  Multitude. And because the Soveraignty is either in one Man, or in an
  Assembly of more than one; and into that Assembly either Every man hath
  right to enter, or not every one, but Certain men distinguished from the
  rest; it is manifest, there can be but Three kinds of Common-wealth. For
  the Representative must needs be One man, or More: and if more, then it is
  the Assembly of All, or but of a Part. When the Representative is One man,
  then is the Common-wealth a MONARCHY: when an Assembly of All that will
  come together, then it is a DEMOCRACY, or Popular Common-wealth: when an
  Assembly of a Part onely, then it is called an ARISTOCRACY. Other kind of
  Common-wealth there can be none: for either One, or More, or All must have
  the Soveraign Power (which I have shewn to be indivisible) entire.

  Tyranny And Oligarchy, But Different Names Of Monarchy, And Aristocracy


  There be other names of Government, in the Histories, and books of Policy;
  as Tyranny, and Oligarchy: But they are not the names of other Formes of
  Government, but of the same Formes misliked. For they that are
  discontented under Monarchy, call it Tyranny; and they that are displeased
  with Aristocracy, called it Oligarchy: so also, they which find themselves
  grieved under a Democracy, call it Anarchy, (which signifies want of
  Government;) and yet I think no man believes, that want of Government, is
  any new kind of Government: nor by the same reason ought they to believe,
  that the Government is of one kind, when they like it, and another, when
  they mislike it, or are oppressed by the Governours.

  Subordinate Representatives Dangerous


  It is manifest, that men who are in absolute liberty, may, if they please,
  give Authority to One Man, to represent them every one; as well as give
  such Authority to any Assembly of men whatsoever; and consequently may
  subject themselves, if they think good, to a Monarch, as absolutely, as to
  any other Representative. Therefore, where there is already erected a
  Soveraign Power, there can be no other Representative of the same people,
  but onely to certain particular ends, by the Soveraign limited. For that
  were to erect two Soveraigns; and every man to have his person represented
  by two Actors, that by opposing one another, must needs divide that Power,
  which (if men will live in Peace) is indivisible, and thereby reduce the
  Multitude into the condition of Warre, contrary to the end for which all
  Soveraignty is instituted. And therefore as it is absurd, to think that a
  Soveraign Assembly, inviting the People of their Dominion, to send up
  their Deputies, with power to make known their Advise, or Desires, should
  therefore hold such Deputies, rather than themselves, for the absolute
  Representative of the people: so it is absurd also, to think the same in a
  Monarchy. And I know not how this so manifest a truth, should of late be
  so little observed; that in a Monarchy, he that had the Soveraignty from a
  descent of 600 years, was alone called Soveraign, had the title of Majesty
  from every one of his Subjects, and was unquestionably taken by them for
  their King; was notwithstanding never considered as their Representative;
  that name without contradiction passing for the title of those men, which
  at his command were sent up by the people to carry their Petitions, and
  give him (if he permitted it) their advise. Which may serve as an
  admonition, for those that are the true, and absolute Representative of a
  People, to instruct men in the nature of that Office, and to take heed how
  they admit of any other generall Representation upon any occasion
  whatsoever, if they mean to discharge the truth committed to them.

  Comparison Of Monarchy, With Soveraign Assemblyes


  The difference between these three kindes of Common-wealth, consisteth not
  in the difference of Power; but in the difference of Convenience, or
  Aptitude to produce the Peace, and Security of the people; for which end
  they were instituted. And to compare Monarchy with the other two, we may
  observe; First, that whosoever beareth the Person of the people, or is one
  of that Assembly that bears it, beareth also his own naturall Person. And
  though he be carefull in his politique Person to procure the common
  interest; yet he is more, or no lesse carefull to procure the private good
  of himselfe, his family, kindred and friends; and for the most part, if
  the publique interest chance to crosse the private, he preferrs the
  private: for the Passions of men, are commonly more potent than their
  Reason. From whence it follows, that where the publique and private
  interest are most closely united, there is the publique most advanced. Now
  in Monarchy, the private interest is the same with the publique. The
  riches, power, and honour of a Monarch arise onely from the riches,
  strength and reputation of his Subjects. For no King can be rich, nor
  glorious, nor secure; whose Subjects are either poore, or contemptible, or
  too weak through want, or dissention, to maintain a war against their
  enemies: Whereas in a Democracy, or Aristocracy, the publique prosperity
  conferres not so much to the private fortune of one that is corrupt, or
  ambitious, as doth many times a perfidious advice, a treacherous action,
  or a Civill warre.
<br />
  Secondly, that a Monarch receiveth counsell of whom, when, and where he
  pleaseth; and consequently may heare the opinion of men versed in the
  matter about which he deliberates, of what rank or quality soever, and as
  long before the time of action, and with as much secrecy, as he will. But
  when a Soveraigne Assembly has need of Counsell, none are admitted but
  such as have a Right thereto from the beginning; which for the most part
  are of those who have beene versed more in the acquisition of Wealth than
  of Knowledge; and are to give their advice in long discourses, which may,
  and do commonly excite men to action, but not governe them in it. For the
  Understanding is by the flame of the Passions, never enlightned, but
  dazled: Nor is there any place, or time, wherein an Assemblie can receive
  Counsell with secrecie, because of their owne Multitude.
<br />
  Thirdly, that the Resolutions of a Monarch, are subject to no other
  Inconstancy, than that of Humane Nature; but in Assemblies, besides that
  of Nature, there ariseth an Inconstancy from the Number. For the absence
  of a few, that would have the Resolution once taken, continue firme,
  (which may happen by security, negligence, or private impediments,) or the
  diligent appearance of a few of the contrary opinion, undoes to day, all
  that was concluded yesterday.
<br />
  Fourthly, that a Monarch cannot disagree with himselfe, out of envy, or
  interest; but an Assembly may; and that to such a height, as may produce a
  Civill Warre.
<br />
  Fifthly, that in Monarchy there is this inconvenience; that any Subject,
  by the power of one man, for the enriching of a favourite or flatterer,
  may be deprived of all he possesseth; which I confesse is a great and
  inevitable inconvenience. But the same may as well happen, where the
  Soveraigne Power is in an Assembly: for their power is the same; and they
  are as subject to evill Counsell, and to be seduced by Orators, as a
  Monarch by Flatterers; and becoming one an others Flatterers, serve one
  anothers Covetousnesse and Ambition by turnes. And whereas the Favorites
  of an Assembly, are many; and the Kindred much more numerous, than of any
  Monarch. Besides, there is no Favourite of a Monarch, which cannot as well
  succour his friends, as hurt his enemies: But Orators, that is to say,
  Favourites of Soveraigne Assemblies, though they have great power to hurt,
  have little to save. For to accuse, requires lesse Eloquence (such is mans
  Nature) than to excuse; and condemnation, than absolution more resembles
  Justice.
<br />
  Sixtly, that it is an inconvenience in Monarchie, that the Soveraigntie
  may descend upon an Infant, or one that cannot discerne between Good and
  Evill: and consisteth in this, that the use of his Power, must be in the
  hand of another Man, or of some Assembly of men, which are to governe by
  his right, and in his name; as Curators, and Protectors of his Person, and
  Authority. But to say there is inconvenience, in putting the use of the
  Soveraign Power, into the hand of a Man, or an Assembly of men; is to say
  that all Government is more Inconvenient, than Confusion, and Civill
  Warre. And therefore all the danger that can be pretended, must arise from
  the Contention of those, that for an office of so great honour, and
  profit, may become Competitors. To make it appear, that this
  inconvenience, proceedeth not from that forme of Government we call
  Monarchy, we are to consider, that the precedent Monarch, hath appointed
  who shall have the Tuition of his Infant Successor, either expressely by
  Testament, or tacitly, by not controlling the Custome in that case
  received: And then such inconvenience (if it happen) is to be attributed,
  not to the Monarchy, but to the Ambition, and Injustice of the Subjects;
  which in all kinds of Government, where the people are not well instructed
  in their Duty, and the Rights of Soveraignty, is the same. Or else the
  precedent Monarch, hath not at all taken order for such Tuition; And then
  the Law of Nature hath provided this sufficient rule, That the Tuition
  shall be in him, that hath by Nature most interest in the preservation of
  the Authority of the Infant, and to whom least benefit can accrue by his
  death, or diminution. For seeing every man by nature seeketh his own
  benefit, and promotion; to put an Infant into the power of those, that can
  promote themselves by his destruction, or dammage, is not Tuition, but
  Trechery. So that sufficient provision being taken, against all just
  quarrell, about the Government under a Child, if any contention arise to
  the disturbance of the publique Peace, it is not to be attributed to the
  forme of Monarchy, but to the ambition of Subjects, and ignorance of their
  Duty. On the other side, there is no great Common-wealth, the Soveraignty
  whereof is in a great Assembly, which is not, as to consultations of
  Peace, and Warre, and making of Lawes, in the same condition, as if the
  Government were in a Child. For as a Child wants the judgement to dissent
  from counsell given him, and is thereby necessitated to take the advise of
  them, or him, to whom he is committed: So an Assembly wanteth the liberty,
  to dissent from the counsell of the major part, be it good, or bad. And as
  a Child has need of a Tutor, or Protector, to preserve his Person, and
  Authority: So also (in great Common-wealths,) the Soveraign Assembly, in
  all great dangers and troubles, have need of Custodes Libertatis; that is
  of Dictators, or Protectors of their Authoritie; which are as much as
  Temporary Monarchs; to whom for a time, they may commit the entire
  exercise of their Power; and have (at the end of that time) been oftner
  deprived thereof, than Infant Kings, by their Protectors, Regents, or any
  other Tutors.
<br />
  Though the Kinds of Soveraigntie be, as I have now shewn, but three; that
  is to say, Monarchie, where one Man has it; or Democracie, where the
  generall Assembly of Subjects hath it; or Aristocracie, where it is in an
  Assembly of certain persons nominated, or otherwise distinguished from the
  rest: Yet he that shall consider the particular Common-wealthes that have
  been, and are in the world, will not perhaps easily reduce them to three,
  and may thereby be inclined to think there be other Formes, arising from
  these mingled together. As for example, Elective Kingdomes; where Kings
  have the Soveraigne Power put into their hands for a time; of Kingdomes,
  wherein the King hath a power limited: which Governments, are nevertheless
  by most Writers called Monarchie. Likewise if a Popular, or
  Aristocraticall Common-wealth, subdue an Enemies Countrie, and govern the
  same, by a President, Procurator, or other Magistrate; this may seeme
  perhaps at first sight, to be a Democraticall, or Aristocraticall
  Government. But it is not so. For Elective Kings, are not Soveraignes, but
  Ministers of the Soveraigne; nor limited Kings Soveraignes, but Ministers
  of them that have the Soveraigne Power: nor are those Provinces which are
  in subjection to a Democracie, or Aristocracie of another Common-wealth,
  Democratically, or Aristocratically governed, but Monarchically.
<br />
  And first, concerning an Elective King, whose power is limited to his
  life, as it is in many places of Christendome at this day; or to certaine
  Yeares or Moneths, as the Dictators power amongst the Romans; If he have
  Right to appoint his Successor, he is no more Elective but Hereditary. But
  if he have no Power to elect his Successor, then there is some other Man,
  or Assembly known, which after his decease may elect a new, or else the
  Common-wealth dieth, and dissolveth with him, and returneth to the
  condition of Warre. If it be known who have the power to give the
  Soveraigntie after his death, it is known also that the Soveraigntie was
  in them before: For none have right to give that which they have not right
  to possesse, and keep to themselves, if they think good. But if there be
  none that can give the Soveraigntie, after the decease of him that was
  first elected; then has he power, nay he is obliged by the Law of Nature,
  to provide, by establishing his Successor, to keep those that had trusted
  him with the Government, from relapsing into the miserable condition of
  Civill warre. And consequently he was, when elected, a Soveraign absolute.
<br />
  Secondly, that King whose power is limited, is not superiour to him, or
  them that have the power to limit it; and he that is not superiour, is not
  supreme; that is to say not Soveraign. The Soveraignty therefore was
  alwaies in that Assembly which had the Right to Limit him; and by
  consequence the government not Monarchy, but either Democracy, or
  Aristocracy; as of old time in Sparta; where the Kings had a priviledge to
  lead their Armies; but the Soveraignty was in the Ephori.
<br />
  Thirdly, whereas heretofore the Roman People, governed the land of Judea
  (for example) by a President; yet was not Judea therefore a Democracy;
  because they were not governed by any Assembly, into which, any of them,
  had right to enter; nor by an Aristocracy; because they were not governed
  by any Assembly, into which, any man could enter by their Election: but
  they were governed by one Person, which though as to the people of Rome
  was an Assembly of the people, or Democracy; yet as to the people of
  Judea, which had no right at all of participating in the government, was a
  Monarch. For though where the people are governed by an Assembly, chosen
  by themselves out of their own number, the government is called a
  Democracy, or Aristocracy; yet when they are governed by an Assembly, not
  of their own choosing, &rsquo;tis a Monarchy; not of One man, over another man;
  but of one people, over another people.

  Of The Right Of Succession


  Of all these Formes of Government, the matter being mortall, so that not
  onely Monarchs, but also whole Assemblies dy, it is necessary for the
  conservation of the peace of men, that as there was order taken for an
  Artificiall Man, so there be order also taken, for an Artificiall Eternity
  of life; without which, men that are governed by an Assembly, should
  return into the condition of Warre in every age; and they that are
  governed by One man, as soon as their Governour dyeth. This Artificiall
  Eternity, is that which men call the Right of Succession.
<br />
  There is no perfect forme of Government, where the disposing of the
  Succession is not in the present Soveraign. For if it be in any other
  particular Man, or private Assembly, it is in a person subject, and may be
  assumed by the Soveraign at his pleasure; and consequently the Right is in
  himselfe. And if it be in no particular man, but left to a new choyce;
  then is the Common-wealth dissolved; and the Right is in him that can get
  it; contrary to the intention of them that did institute the
  Common-wealth, for their perpetuall, and not temporary security.
<br />
  In a Democracy, the whole Assembly cannot faile, unlesse the Multitude
  that are to be governed faile. And therefore questions of the right of
  Succession, have in that forme of Government no place at all.
<br />
  In an Aristocracy, when any of the Assembly dyeth, the election of another
  into his room belongeth to the Assembly, as the Soveraign, to whom
  belongeth the choosing of all Counsellours, and Officers. For that which
  the Representative doth, as Actor, every one of the Subjects doth, as
  Author. And though the Soveraign assembly, may give Power to others, to
  elect new men, for supply of their Court; yet it is still by their
  Authority, that the Election is made; and by the same it may (when the
  publique shall require it) be recalled.
<br />
  The Present Monarch Hath Right To Dispose Of The Succession The greatest
  difficultie about the right of Succession, is in Monarchy: And the
  difficulty ariseth from this, that at first sight, it is not manifest who
  is to appoint the Successor; nor many times, who it is whom he hath
  appointed. For in both these cases, there is required a more exact
  ratiocination, than every man is accustomed to use. As to the question,
  who shall appoint the Successor, of a Monarch that hath the Soveraign
  Authority; that is to say, (for Elective Kings and Princes have not the
  Soveraign Power in propriety, but in use only,) we are to consider, that
  either he that is in possession, has right to dispose of the Succession,
  or else that right is again in the dissolved Multitude. For the death of
  him that hath the Soveraign power in propriety, leaves the Multitude
  without any Soveraign at all; that is, without any Representative in whom
  they should be united, and be capable of doing any one action at all: And
  therefore they are incapable of Election of any new Monarch; every man
  having equall right to submit himselfe to such as he thinks best able to
  protect him, or if he can, protect himselfe by his owne sword; which is a
  returne to Confusion, and to the condition of a War of every man against
  every man, contrary to the end for which Monarchy had its first
  Institution. Therfore it is manifest, that by the Institution of Monarchy,
  the disposing of the Successor, is alwaies left to the Judgment and Will
  of the present Possessor.
<br />
  And for the question (which may arise sometimes) who it is that the
  Monarch in possession, hath designed to the succession and inheritance of
  his power; it is determined by his expresse Words, and Testament; or by
  other tacite signes sufficient.

  Succession Passeth By Expresse Words;


  By expresse Words, or Testament, when it is declared by him in his life
  time, viva voce, or by Writing; as the first Emperours of Rome declared
  who should be their Heires. For the word Heire does not of it selfe imply
  the Children, or nearest Kindred of a man; but whomsoever a man shall any
  way declare, he would have to succeed him in his Estate. If therefore a
  Monarch declare expresly, that such a man shall be his Heire, either by
  Word or Writing, then is that man immediately after the decease of his
  Predecessor, Invested in the right of being Monarch.

  Or, By Not Controlling A Custome;


  But where Testament, and expresse Words are wanting, other naturall signes
  of the Will are to be followed: whereof the one is Custome. And therefore
  where the Custome is, that the next of Kindred absolutely succeedeth,
  there also the next of Kindred hath right to the Succession; for that, if
  the will of him that was in posession had been otherwise, he might easily
  have declared the same in his life time. And likewise where the Custome
  is, that the next of the Male Kindred succeedeth, there also the right of
  Succession is in the next of the Kindred Male, for the same reason. And so
  it is if the Custome were to advance the Female. For whatsoever Custome a
  man may by a word controule, and does not, it is a naturall signe he would
  have that Custome stand.

  Or, By Presumption Of Naturall Affection


  But where neither Custome, nor Testament hath preceded, there it is to be
  understood, First, that a Monarchs will is, that the government remain
  Monarchicall; because he hath approved that government in himselfe.
  Secondly, that a Child of his own, Male, or Female, be preferred before
  any other; because men are presumed to be more enclined by nature, to
  advance their own children, than the children of other men; and of their
  own, rather a Male than a Female; because men, are naturally fitter than
  women, for actions of labour and danger. Thirdly, where his own Issue
  faileth, rather a Brother than a stranger; and so still the neerer in
  bloud, rather than the more remote, because it is alwayes presumed that
  the neerer of kin, is the neerer in affection; and &rsquo;tis evident that a man
  receives alwayes, by reflexion, the most honour from the greatnesse of his
  neerest kindred.

  To Dispose Of The Succession, Though To A King Of Another Nation, Not
  Unlawfull


  But if it be lawfull for a Monarch to dispose of the Succession by words
  of Contract, or Testament, men may perhaps object a great inconvenience:
  for he may sell, or give his Right of governing to a stranger; which,
  because strangers (that is, men not used to live under the same
  government, not speaking the same language) do commonly undervalue one
  another, may turn to the oppression of his Subjects; which is indeed a
  great inconvenience; but it proceedeth not necessarily from the subjection
  to a strangers government, but from the unskilfulnesse of the Governours,
  ignorant of the true rules of Politiques. And therefore the Romans when
  they had subdued many Nations, to make their Government digestible, were
  wont to take away that grievance, as much as they thought necessary, by
  giving sometimes to whole Nations, and sometimes to Principall men of
  every Nation they conquered, not onely the Privileges, but also the Name
  of Romans; and took many of them into the Senate, and Offices of charge,
  even in the Roman City. And this was it our most wise King, King James,
  aymed at, in endeavouring the Union of his two Realms of England and
  Scotland. Which if he could have obtained, had in all likelihood prevented
  the Civill warres, which make both those Kingdomes at this present,
  miserable. It is not therefore any injury to the people, for a Monarch to
  dispose of the Succession by Will; though by the fault of many Princes, it
  hath been sometimes found inconvenient. Of the lawfulnesse of it, this
  also is an argument, that whatsoever inconvenience can arrive by giving a
  Kingdome to a stranger, may arrive also by so marrying with strangers, as
  the Right of Succession may descend upon them: yet this by all men is
  accounted lawfull.

  CHAPTER XX.<br />OF DOMINION PATERNALL AND DESPOTICALL


  A Common-wealth by Acquisition, is that, where the Soveraign Power is
  acquired by Force; And it is acquired by force, when men singly, or many
  together by plurality of voyces, for fear of death, or bonds, do authorise
  all the actions of that Man, or Assembly, that hath their lives and
  liberty in his Power.

  Wherein Different From A Common-wealth By Institution


  And this kind of Dominion, or Soveraignty, differeth from Soveraignty by
  Institution, onely in this, That men who choose their Soveraign, do it for
  fear of one another, and not of him whom they Institute: But in this case,
  they subject themselves, to him they are afraid of. In both cases they do
  it for fear: which is to be noted by them, that hold all such Covenants,
  as proceed from fear of death, or violence, voyd: which if it were true,
  no man, in any kind of Common-wealth, could be obliged to Obedience. It is
  true, that in a Common-wealth once Instituted, or acquired, Promises
  proceeding from fear of death, or violence, are no Covenants, nor
  obliging, when the thing promised is contrary to the Lawes; But the reason
  is not, because it was made upon fear, but because he that promiseth, hath
  no right in the thing promised. Also, when he may lawfully performe, and
  doth not, it is not the Invalidity of the Covenant, that absolveth him,
  but the Sentence of the Soveraign. Otherwise, whensoever a man lawfully
  promiseth, he unlawfully breaketh: But when the Soveraign, who is the
  Actor, acquitteth him, then he is acquitted by him that exorted the
  promise, as by the Author of such absolution.

  The Rights Of Soveraignty The Same In Both


  But the Rights, and Consequences of Soveraignty, are the same in both. His
  Power cannot, without his consent, be Transferred to another: He cannot
  Forfeit it: He cannot be Accused by any of his Subjects, of Injury: He
  cannot be Punished by them: He is Judge of what is necessary for Peace;
  and Judge of Doctrines: He is Sole Legislator; and Supreme Judge of
  Controversies; and of the Times, and Occasions of Warre, and Peace: to him
  it belongeth to choose Magistrates, Counsellours, Commanders, and all
  other Officers, and Ministers; and to determine of Rewards, and
  punishments, Honour, and Order. The reasons whereof, are the same which
  are alledged in the precedent Chapter, for the same Rights, and
  Consequences of Soveraignty by Institution.

  Dominion Paternall How Attained Not By Generation, But By Contract


  Dominion is acquired two wayes; By Generation, and by Conquest. The right
  of Dominion by Generation, is that, which the Parent hath over his
  Children; and is called PATERNALL. And is not so derived from the
  Generation, as if therefore the Parent had Dominion over his Child because
  he begat him; but from the Childs Consent, either expresse, or by other
  sufficient arguments declared. For as to the Generation, God hath ordained
  to man a helper; and there be alwayes two that are equally Parents: the
  Dominion therefore over the Child, should belong equally to both; and he
  be equally subject to both, which is impossible; for no man can obey two
  Masters. And whereas some have attributed the Dominion to the Man onely,
  as being of the more excellent Sex; they misreckon in it. For there is not
  always that difference of strength or prudence between the man and the
  woman, as that the right can be determined without War. In Common-wealths,
  this controversie is decided by the Civill Law: and for the most part,
  (but not alwayes) the sentence is in favour of the Father; because for the
  most part Common-wealths have been erected by the Fathers, not by the
  Mothers of families. But the question lyeth now in the state of meer
  Nature; where there are supposed no lawes of Matrimony; no lawes for the
  Education of Children; but the Law of Nature, and the naturall inclination
  of the Sexes, one to another, and to their children. In this condition of
  meer Nature, either the Parents between themselves dispose of the dominion
  over the Child by Contract; or do not dispose thereof at all. If they
  dispose thereof, the right passeth according to the Contract. We find in
  History that the Amazons Contracted with the Men of the neighbouring
  Countries, to whom they had recourse for issue, that the issue Male should
  be sent back, but the Female remain with themselves: so that the dominion
  of the Females was in the Mother.

  Or Education;


  If there be no Contract, the Dominion is in the Mother. For in the
  condition of Meer Nature, where there are no Matrimoniall lawes, it cannot
  be known who is the Father, unlesse it be declared by the Mother: and
  therefore the right of Dominion over the Child dependeth on her will, and
  is consequently hers. Again, seeing the Infant is first in the power of
  the Mother; so as she may either nourish, or expose it, if she nourish it,
  it oweth its life to the Mother; and is therefore obliged to obey her,
  rather than any other; and by consequence the Dominion over it is hers.
  But if she expose it, and another find, and nourish it, the Dominion is in
  him that nourisheth it. For it ought to obey him by whom it is preserved;
  because preservation of life being the end, for which one man becomes
  subject to another, every man is supposed to promise obedience, to him, in
  whose power it is to save, or destroy him.

  Or Precedent Subjection Of One Of The Parents To The Other


  If the Mother be the Fathers subject, the Child, is in the Fathers power:
  and if the Father be the Mothers subject, (as when a Soveraign Queen
  marrieth one of her subjects,) the Child is subject to the Mother; because
  the Father also is her subject.
<br />
  If a man and a woman, Monarches of two severall Kingdomes, have a Child,
  and contract concerning who shall have the Dominion of him, the Right of
  the Dominion passeth by the Contract. If they contract not, the Dominion
  followeth the Dominion of the place of his residence. For the Soveraign of
  each Country hath Dominion over all that reside therein.
<br />
  He that hath the Dominion over the Child, hath Dominion also over their
  Childrens Children. For he that hath Dominion over the person of a man,
  hath Dominion over all that is his; without which, Dominion were but a
  Title, without the effect.

  The Right Of Succession Followeth The Rules Of The Rights Of Possession


  The Right of Succession to Paternall dominion, proceedeth in the same
  manner, as doth the Right of Succession to Monarchy; of which I have
  already sufficiently spoken in the precedent chapter.

  Despoticall Dominion, How Attained


  Dominion acquired by Conquest, or Victory in war, is that which some
  Writers call DESPOTICALL, from Despotes, which signifieth a Lord, or
  Master; and is the Dominion of the Master over his Servant. And this
  Dominion is then acquired to the Victor, when the Vanquished, to avoyd the
  present stroke of death, covenanteth either in expresse words, or by other
  sufficient signes of the Will, that so long as his life, and the liberty
  of his body is allowed him, the Victor shall have the use thereof, at his
  pleasure. And after such Covenant made, the Vanquished is a SERVANT, and
  not before: for by the word Servant (whether it be derived from Servire,
  to Serve, or from Servare, to Save, which I leave to Grammarians to
  dispute) is not meant a Captive, which is kept in prison, or bonds, till
  the owner of him that took him, or bought him of one that did, shall
  consider what to do with him: (for such men, (commonly called Slaves,)
  have no obligation at all; but may break their bonds, or the prison; and
  kill, or carry away captive their Master, justly:) but one, that being
  taken, hath corporall liberty allowed him; and upon promise not to run
  away, nor to do violence to his Master, is trusted by him.

  Not By The Victory, But By The Consent Of The Vanquished


  It is not therefore the Victory, that giveth the right of Dominion over
  the Vanquished, but his own Covenant. Nor is he obliged because he is
  Conquered; that is to say, beaten, and taken, or put to flight; but
  because he commeth in, and submitteth to the Victor; Nor is the Victor
  obliged by an enemies rendring himselfe, (without promise of life,) to
  spare him for this his yeelding to discretion; which obliges not the
  Victor longer, than in his own discretion hee shall think fit.
<br />
  And that men do, when they demand (as it is now called) Quarter, (which
  the Greeks called Zogria, taking alive,) is to evade the present fury of
  the Victor, by Submission, and to compound for their life, with Ransome,
  or Service: and therefore he that hath Quarter, hath not his life given,
  but deferred till farther deliberation; For it is not an yeelding on
  condition of life, but to discretion. And then onely is his life in
  security, and his service due, when the Victor hath trusted him with his
  corporall liberty. For Slaves that work in Prisons, or Fetters, do it not
  of duty, but to avoyd the cruelty of their task-masters.
<br />
  The Master of the Servant, is Master also of all he hath; and may exact
  the use thereof; that is to say, of his goods, of his labour, of his
  servants, and of his children, as often as he shall think fit. For he
  holdeth his life of his Master, by the covenant of obedience; that is, of
  owning, and authorising whatsoever the Master shall do. And in case the
  Master, if he refuse, kill him, or cast him into bonds, or otherwise
  punish him for his disobedience, he is himselfe the author of the same;
  and cannot accuse him of injury.
<br />
  In summe the Rights and Consequences of both Paternall and Despoticall
  Dominion, are the very same with those of a Soveraign by Institution; and
  for the same reasons: which reasons are set down in the precedent chapter.
  So that for a man that is Monarch of divers Nations, whereof he hath, in
  one the Soveraignty by Institution of the people assembled, and in another
  by Conquest, that is by the Submission of each particular, to avoyd death
  or bonds; to demand of one Nation more than of the other, from the title
  of Conquest, as being a Conquered Nation, is an act of ignorance of the
  Rights of Soveraignty. For the Soveraign is absolute over both alike; or
  else there is no Soveraignty at all; and so every man may Lawfully protect
  himselfe, if he can, with his own sword, which is the condition of war.

  Difference Between A Family And A Kingdom


  By this it appears, that a great Family if it be not part of some
  Common-wealth, is of it self, as to the Rights of Soveraignty, a little
  Monarchy; whether that Family consist of a man and his children; or of a
  man and his servants; or of a man, and his children, and servants
  together: wherein the Father of Master is the Soveraign. But yet a Family
  is not properly a Common-wealth; unlesse it be of that power by its own
  number, or by other opportunities, as not to be subdued without the hazard
  of war. For where a number of men are manifestly too weak to defend
  themselves united, every one may use his own reason in time of danger, to
  save his own life, either by flight, or by submission to the enemy, as hee
  shall think best; in the same manner as a very small company of souldiers,
  surprised by an army, may cast down their armes, and demand quarter, or
  run away, rather than be put to the sword. And thus much shall suffice;
  concerning what I find by speculation, and deduction, of Soveraign Rights,
  from the nature, need, and designes of men, in erecting of Commonwealths,
  and putting themselves under Monarchs, or Assemblies, entrusted with power
  enough for their protection.

  The Right Of Monarchy From Scripture


  Let us now consider what the Scripture teacheth in the same point. To
  Moses, the children of Israel say thus. (Exod. 20. 19) &ldquo;Speak thou to us,
  and we will heare thee; but let not God speak to us, lest we dye.&rdquo; This is
  absolute obedience to Moses. Concerning the Right of Kings, God himself by
  the mouth of Samuel, saith, (1 Sam. 8. 11, 12, &c.) &ldquo;This shall be the
  Right of the King you will have to reigne over you. He shall take your
  sons, and set them to drive his Chariots, and to be his horsemen, and to
  run before his chariots; and gather in his harvest; and to make his
  engines of War, and Instruments of his chariots; and shall take your
  daughters to make perfumes, to be his Cookes, and Bakers. He shall take
  your fields, your vine-yards, and your olive-yards, and give them to his
  servants. He shall take the tyth of your corne and wine, and give it to
  the men of his chamber, and to his other servants. He shall take your
  man-servants, and your maid-servants, and the choice of your youth, and
  employ them in his businesse. He shall take the tyth of your flocks; and
  you shall be his servants.&rdquo; This is absolute power, and summed up in the
  last words, &ldquo;you shall be his servants.&rdquo; Againe, when the people heard
  what power their King was to have, yet they consented thereto, and say
  thus, (Verse. 19 &c.) &ldquo;We will be as all other nations, and our King
  shall judge our causes, and goe before us, to conduct our wars.&rdquo; Here is
  confirmed the Right that Soveraigns have, both to the Militia, and to all
  Judicature; in which is conteined as absolute power, as one man can
  possibly transferre to another. Again, the prayer of King Salomon to God,
  was this. (1 Kings 3. 9) &ldquo;Give to thy servant understanding, to judge thy
  people, and to discerne between Good and Evill.&rdquo; It belongeth therefore to
  the Soveraigne to bee Judge, and to praescribe the Rules of Discerning
  Good and Evill; which Rules are Lawes; and therefore in him is the
  Legislative Power. Saul sought the life of David; yet when it was in his
  power to slay Saul, and his Servants would have done it, David forbad
  them, saying (1 Sam. 24. 9) &ldquo;God forbid I should do such an act against my
  Lord, the anoynted of God.&rdquo; For obedience of servants St. Paul saith,
  (Coll. 3. 20) &ldquo;Servants obey your masters in All things,&rdquo; and, (Verse. 22)
  &ldquo;Children obey your Parents in All things.&rdquo; There is simple obedience in
  those that are subject to Paternall, or Despoticall Dominion. Again,
  (Math. 23. 2,3) &ldquo;The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chayre and
  therefore All that they shall bid you observe, that observe and do.&rdquo; There
  again is simple obedience. And St. Paul, (Tit. 3. 2) &ldquo;Warn them that they
  subject themselves to Princes, and to those that are in Authority, &
  obey them.&rdquo; This obedience is also simple. Lastly, our Saviour himselfe
  acknowledges, that men ought to pay such taxes as are by Kings imposed,
  where he sayes, &ldquo;Give to Caesar that which is Caesars;&rdquo; and payed such
  taxes himselfe. And that the Kings word, is sufficient to take any thing
  from any subject, when there is need; and that the King is Judge of that
  need: For he himselfe, as King of the Jewes, commanded his Disciples to
  take the Asse, and Asses Colt to carry him into Jerusalem, saying, (Mat.
  21. 2,3) &ldquo;Go into the Village over against you, and you shall find a shee
  Asse tyed, and her Colt with her, unty them, and bring them to me. And if
  any man ask you, what you mean by it, Say the Lord hath need of them: And
  they will let them go.&rdquo; They will not ask whether his necessity be a
  sufficient title; nor whether he be judge of that necessity; but acquiesce
  in the will of the Lord.
<br />
  To these places may be added also that of Genesis, (Gen. 3. 5) &ldquo;You shall
  be as Gods, knowing Good and Evill.&rdquo; and verse 11. &ldquo;Who told thee that
  thou wast naked? hast thou eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee
  thou shouldest not eat?&rdquo; For the Cognisance of Judicature of Good and
  Evill, being forbidden by the name of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge,
  as a triall of Adams obedience; The Divell to enflame the Ambition of the
  woman, to whom that fruit already seemed beautifull, told her that by
  tasting it, they should be as Gods, knowing Good and Evill. Whereupon
  having both eaten, they did indeed take upon them Gods office, which is
  Judicature of Good and Evill; but acquired no new ability to distinguish
  between them aright. And whereas it is sayd, that having eaten, they saw
  they were naked; no man hath so interpreted that place, as if they had
  formerly blind, as saw not their own skins: the meaning is plain, that it
  was then they first judged their nakednesse (wherein it was Gods will to
  create them) to be uncomely; and by being ashamed, did tacitely censure
  God himselfe. And thereupon God saith, &ldquo;Hast thou eaten, &c.&rdquo; as if he
  should say, doest thou that owest me obedience, take upon thee to judge of
  my Commandements? Whereby it is cleerly, (though Allegorically,)
  signified, that the Commands of them that have the right to command, are
  not by their Subjects to be censured, nor disputed.

  Soveraign Power Ought In All Common-wealths To Be Absolute


  So it appeareth plainly, to my understanding, both from Reason, and
  Scripture, that the Soveraign Power, whether placed in One Man, as in
  Monarchy, or in one Assembly of men, as in Popular, and Aristocraticall
  Common-wealths, is as great, as possibly men can be imagined to make it.
  And though of so unlimited a Power, men may fancy many evill consequences,
  yet the consequences of the want of it, which is perpetuall warre of every
  man against his neighbour, are much worse. The condition of man in this
  life shall never be without Inconveniences; but there happeneth in no
  Common-wealth any great Inconvenience, but what proceeds from the Subjects
  disobedience, and breach of those Covenants, from which the Common-wealth
  had its being. And whosoever thinking Soveraign Power too great, will seek
  to make it lesse; must subject himselfe, to the Power, that can limit it;
  that is to say, to a greater.
<br />
  The greatest objection is, that of the Practise; when men ask, where, and
  when, such Power has by Subjects been acknowledged. But one may ask them
  again, when, or where has there been a Kingdome long free from Sedition
  and Civill Warre. In those Nations, whose Common-wealths have been
  long-lived, and not been destroyed, but by forraign warre, the Subjects
  never did dispute of the Soveraign Power. But howsoever, an argument for
  the Practise of men, that have not sifted to the bottom, and with exact
  reason weighed the causes, and nature of Common-wealths, and suffer daily
  those miseries, that proceed from the ignorance thereof, is invalid. For
  though in all places of the world, men should lay the foundation of their
  houses on the sand, it could not thence be inferred, that so it ought to
  be. The skill of making, and maintaining Common-wealths, consisteth in
  certain Rules, as doth Arithmetique and Geometry; not (as Tennis-play) on
  Practise onely: which Rules, neither poor men have the leisure, nor men
  that have had the leisure, have hitherto had the curiosity, or the method
  to find out.

  CHAPTER XXI.<br />OF THE LIBERTY OF SUBJECTS

  Liberty What


  Liberty, or FREEDOME, signifieth (properly) the absence of Opposition; (by
  Opposition, I mean externall Impediments of motion;) and may be applyed no
  lesse to Irrational, and Inanimate creatures, than to Rationall. For
  whatsoever is so tyed, or environed, as it cannot move, but within a
  certain space, which space is determined by the opposition of some
  externall body, we say it hath not Liberty to go further. And so of all
  living creatures, whilest they are imprisoned, or restrained, with walls,
  or chayns; and of the water whilest it is kept in by banks, or vessels,
  that otherwise would spread it selfe into a larger space, we use to say,
  they are not at Liberty, to move in such manner, as without those
  externall impediments they would. But when the impediment of motion, is in
  the constitution of the thing it selfe, we use not to say, it wants the
  Liberty; but the Power to move; as when a stone lyeth still, or a man is
  fastned to his bed by sicknesse.

  What It Is To Be Free


  And according to this proper, and generally received meaning of the word,
  A FREE-MAN, is &ldquo;he, that in those things, which by his strength and wit he
  is able to do, is not hindred to doe what he has a will to.&rdquo; But when the
  words Free, and Liberty, are applyed to any thing but Bodies, they are
  abused; for that which is not subject to Motion, is not subject to
  Impediment: And therefore, when &rsquo;tis said (for example) The way is free,
  no liberty of the way is signified, but of those that walk in it without
  stop. And when we say a Guift is free, there is not meant any liberty of
  the Guift, but of the Giver, that was not bound by any law, or Covenant to
  give it. So when we Speak Freely, it is not the liberty of voice, or
  pronunciation, but of the man, whom no law hath obliged to speak otherwise
  then he did. Lastly, from the use of the word Freewill, no liberty can be
  inferred to the will, desire, or inclination, but the liberty of the man;
  which consisteth in this, that he finds no stop, in doing what he has the
  will, desire, or inclination to doe.

  Feare And Liberty Consistent


  Feare and Liberty are consistent; as when a man throweth his goods into
  the Sea for Feare the ship should sink, he doth it neverthelesse very
  willingly, and may refuse to doe it if he will: It is therefore the
  action, of one that was Free; so a man sometimes pays his debt, only for
  Feare of Imprisonment, which because no body hindred him from detaining,
  was the action of a man at Liberty. And generally all actions which men
  doe in Common-wealths, for Feare of the law, or actions, which the doers
  had Liberty to omit.

  Liberty And Necessity Consistent


  Liberty and Necessity are Consistent: As in the water, that hath not only
  Liberty, but a Necessity of descending by the Channel: so likewise in the
  Actions which men voluntarily doe; which (because they proceed from their
  will) proceed from Liberty; and yet because every act of mans will, and
  every desire, and inclination proceedeth from some cause, which causes in
  a continuall chaine (whose first link in the hand of God the first of all
  causes) proceed from Necessity. So that to him that could see the
  connexion of those causes, the Necessity of all mens voluntary actions,
  would appeare manifest. And therefore God, that seeth, and disposeth all
  things, seeth also that the Liberty of man in doing what he will, is
  accompanied with the Necessity of doing that which God will, & no
  more, nor lesse. For though men may do many things, which God does not
  command, nor is therefore Author of them; yet they can have no passion,
  nor appetite to any thing, of which appetite Gods will is not the cause.
  And did not his will assure the Necessity of mans will, and consequently
  of all that on mans will dependeth, the Liberty of men would be a
  contradiction, and impediment to the omnipotence and Liberty of God. And
  this shall suffice, (as to the matter in hand) of that naturall Liberty,
  which only is properly called Liberty.

  Artificiall Bonds, Or Covenants


  But as men, for the atteyning of peace, and conservation of themselves
  thereby, have made an Artificiall Man, which we call a Common-wealth; so
  also have they made Artificiall Chains, called Civill Lawes, which they
  themselves, by mutuall covenants, have fastned at one end, to the lips of
  that Man, or Assembly, to whom they have given the Soveraigne Power; and
  at the other end to their own Ears. These Bonds in their own nature but
  weak, may neverthelesse be made to hold, by the danger, though not by the
  difficulty of breaking them.

  Liberty Of Subjects Consisteth In Liberty From Covenants


  In relation to these Bonds only it is, that I am to speak now, of the
  Liberty of Subjects. For seeing there is no Common-wealth in the world,
  for the regulating of all the actions, and words of men, (as being a thing
  impossible:) it followeth necessarily, that in all kinds of actions, by
  the laws praetermitted, men have the Liberty, of doing what their own
  reasons shall suggest, for the most profitable to themselves. For if wee
  take Liberty in the proper sense, for corporall Liberty; that is to say,
  freedome from chains, and prison, it were very absurd for men to clamor as
  they doe, for the Liberty they so manifestly enjoy. Againe, if we take
  Liberty, for an exemption from Lawes, it is no lesse absurd, for men to
  demand as they doe, that Liberty, by which all other men may be masters of
  their lives. And yet as absurd as it is, this is it they demand; not
  knowing that the Lawes are of no power to protect them, without a Sword in
  the hands of a man, or men, to cause those laws to be put in execution.
  The Liberty of a Subject, lyeth therefore only in those things, which in
  regulating their actions, the Soveraign hath praetermitted; such as is the
  Liberty to buy, and sell, and otherwise contract with one another; to
  choose their own aboad, their own diet, their own trade of life, and
  institute their children as they themselves think fit; & the like.

  Liberty Of The Subject Consistent With Unlimited Power Of The Soveraign


  Neverthelesse we are not to understand, that by such Liberty, the
  Soveraign Power of life, and death, is either abolished, or limited. For
  it has been already shewn, that nothing the Soveraign Representative can
  doe to a Subject, on what pretence soever, can properly be called
  Injustice, or Injury; because every Subject is Author of every act the
  Soveraign doth; so that he never wanteth Right to any thing, otherwise,
  than as he himself is the Subject of God, and bound thereby to observe the
  laws of Nature. And therefore it may, and doth often happen in
  Common-wealths, that a Subject may be put to death, by the command of the
  Soveraign Power; and yet neither doe the other wrong: as when Jeptha
  caused his daughter to be sacrificed: In which, and the like cases, he
  that so dieth, had Liberty to doe the action, for which he is
  neverthelesse, without Injury put to death. And the same holdeth also in a
  Soveraign Prince, that putteth to death an Innocent Subject. For though
  the action be against the law of Nature, as being contrary to Equitie, (as
  was the killing of Uriah, by David;) yet it was not an Injurie to Uriah;
  but to God. Not to Uriah, because the right to doe what he pleased, was
  given him by Uriah himself; And yet to God, because David was Gods
  Subject; and prohibited all Iniquitie by the law of Nature. Which
  distinction, David himself, when he repented the fact, evidently
  confirmed, saying, &ldquo;To thee only have I sinned.&rdquo; In the same manner, the
  people of Athens, when they banished the most potent of their
  Common-wealth for ten years, thought they committed no Injustice; and yet
  they never questioned what crime he had done; but what hurt he would doe:
  Nay they commanded the banishment of they knew not whom; and every Citizen
  bringing his Oystershell into the market place, written with the name of
  him he desired should be banished, without actuall accusing him, sometimes
  banished an Aristides, for his reputation of Justice; And sometimes a
  scurrilous Jester, as Hyperbolus, to make a Jest of it. And yet a man
  cannot say, the Soveraign People of Athens wanted right to banish them; or
  an Athenian the Libertie to Jest, or to be Just.

  The Liberty Which Writers Praise, Is The Liberty Of Soveraigns; Not Of
  Private Men


  The Libertie, whereof there is so frequent, and honourable mention, in the
  Histories, and Philosophy of the Antient Greeks, and Romans, and in the
  writings, and discourse of those that from them have received all their
  learning in the Politiques, is not the Libertie of Particular men; but the
  Libertie of the Common-wealth: which is the same with that, which every
  man then should have, if there were no Civil Laws, nor Common-wealth at
  all. And the effects of it also be the same. For as amongst masterlesse
  men, there is perpetuall war, of every man against his neighbour; no
  inheritance, to transmit to the Son, nor to expect from the Father; no
  propriety of Goods, or Lands; no security; but a full and absolute
  Libertie in every Particular man: So in States, and Common-wealths not
  dependent on one another, every Common-wealth, (not every man) has an
  absolute Libertie, to doe what it shall judge (that is to say, what that
  Man, or Assemblie that representeth it, shall judge) most conducing to
  their benefit. But withall, they live in the condition of a perpetuall
  war, and upon the confines of battel, with their frontiers armed, and
  canons planted against their neighbours round about. The Athenians, and
  Romanes, were free; that is, free Common-wealths: not that any particular
  men had the Libertie to resist their own Representative; but that their
  Representative had the Libertie to resist, or invade other people. There
  is written on the Turrets of the city of Luca in great characters at this
  day, the word LIBERTAS; yet no man can thence inferre, that a particular
  man has more Libertie, or Immunitie from the service of the Commonwealth
  there, than in Constantinople. Whether a Common-wealth be Monarchicall, or
  Popular, the Freedome is still the same.
<br />
  But it is an easy thing, for men to be deceived, by the specious name of
  Libertie; and for want of Judgement to distinguish, mistake that for their
  Private Inheritance, and Birth right, which is the right of the Publique
  only. And when the same errour is confirmed by the authority of men in
  reputation for their writings in this subject, it is no wonder if it
  produce sedition, and change of Government. In these westerne parts of the
  world, we are made to receive our opinions concerning the Institution, and
  Rights of Common-wealths, from Aristotle, Cicero, and other men, Greeks
  and Romanes, that living under Popular States, derived those Rights, not
  from the Principles of Nature, but transcribed them into their books, out
  of the Practice of their own Common-wealths, which were Popular; as the
  Grammarians describe the Rules of Language, out of the Practise of the
  time; or the Rules of Poetry, out of the Poems of Homer and Virgil. And
  because the Athenians were taught, (to keep them from desire of changing
  their Government,) that they were Freemen, and all that lived under
  Monarchy were slaves; therefore Aristotle puts it down in his
  Politiques,(lib.6.cap.2) &ldquo;In democracy, Liberty is to be supposed: for
  &rsquo;tis commonly held, that no man is Free in any other Government.&rdquo; And as
  Aristotle; so Cicero, and other Writers have grounded their Civill
  doctrine, on the opinions of the Romans, who were taught to hate Monarchy,
  at first, by them that having deposed their Soveraign, shared amongst them
  the Soveraignty of Rome; and afterwards by their Successors. And by
  reading of these Greek, and Latine Authors, men from their childhood have
  gotten a habit (under a false shew of Liberty,) of favouring tumults, and
  of licentious controlling the actions of their Soveraigns; and again of
  controlling those controllers, with the effusion of so much blood; as I
  think I may truly say, there was never any thing so deerly bought, as
  these Western parts have bought the learning of the Greek and Latine
  tongues.

  Liberty Of The Subject How To Be Measured


  To come now to the particulars of the true Liberty of a Subject; that is
  to say, what are the things, which though commanded by the Soveraign, he
  may neverthelesse, without Injustice, refuse to do; we are to consider,
  what Rights we passe away, when we make a Common-wealth; or (which is all
  one,) what Liberty we deny our selves, by owning all the Actions (without
  exception) of the Man, or Assembly we make our Soveraign. For in the act
  of our Submission, consisteth both our Obligation, and our Liberty; which
  must therefore be inferred by arguments taken from thence; there being no
  Obligation on any man, which ariseth not from some Act of his own; for all
  men equally, are by Nature Free. And because such arguments, must either
  be drawn from the expresse words, &ldquo;I Authorise all his Actions,&rdquo; or from
  the Intention of him that submitteth himselfe to his Power, (which
  Intention is to be understood by the End for which he so submitteth;) The
  Obligation, and Liberty of the Subject, is to be derived, either from
  those Words, (or others equivalent;) or else from the End of the
  Institution of Soveraignty; namely, the Peace of the Subjects within
  themselves, and their Defence against a common Enemy.

  Subjects Have Liberty To Defend Their Own Bodies, Even Against Them That
  Lawfully Invade Them


  First therefore, seeing Soveraignty by Institution, is by Covenant of
  every one to every one; and Soveraignty by Acquisition, by Covenants of
  the Vanquished to the Victor, or Child to the Parent; It is manifest, that
  every Subject has Liberty in all those things, the right whereof cannot by
  Covenant be transferred. I have shewn before in the 14. Chapter, that
  Covenants, not to defend a mans own body, are voyd. Therefore,

  Are Not Bound To Hurt Themselves;


  If the Soveraign command a man (though justly condemned,) to kill, wound,
  or mayme himselfe; or not to resist those that assault him; or to abstain
  from the use of food, ayre, medicine, or any other thing, without which he
  cannot live; yet hath that man the Liberty to disobey.
<br />
  If a man be interrogated by the Soveraign, or his Authority, concerning a
  crime done by himselfe, he is not bound (without assurance of Pardon) to
  confesse it; because no man (as I have shewn in the same Chapter) can be
  obliged by Covenant to accuse himselfe.
<br />
  Again, the Consent of a Subject to Soveraign Power, is contained in these
  words, &ldquo;I Authorise, or take upon me, all his actions;&rdquo; in which there is
  no restriction at all, of his own former naturall Liberty: For by allowing
  him to Kill Me, I am not bound to Kill my selfe when he commands me. &ldquo;&rsquo;Tis
  one thing to say &lsquo;Kill me, or my fellow, if you please;&rsquo; another thing to
  say, &lsquo;I will kill my selfe, or my fellow.&rsquo;&rdquo; It followeth therefore, that
<br />
  No man is bound by the words themselves, either to kill himselfe, or any
  other man; And consequently, that the Obligation a man may sometimes have,
  upon the Command of the Soveraign to execute any dangerous, or
  dishonourable Office, dependeth not on the Words of our Submission; but on
  the Intention; which is to be understood by the End thereof. When
  therefore our refusall to obey, frustrates the End for which the
  Soveraignty was ordained; then there is no Liberty to refuse: otherwise
  there is.

  Nor To Warfare, Unless They Voluntarily Undertake It


  Upon this ground, a man that is commanded as a Souldier to fight against
  the enemy, though his Soveraign have Right enough to punish his refusall
  with death, may neverthelesse in many cases refuse, without Injustice; as
  when he substituteth a sufficient Souldier in his place: for in this case
  he deserteth not the service of the Common-wealth. And there is allowance
  to be made for naturall timorousnesse, not onely to women, (of whom no
  such dangerous duty is expected,) but also to men of feminine courage.
  When Armies fight, there is on one side, or both, a running away; yet when
  they do it not out of trechery, but fear, they are not esteemed to do it
  unjustly, but dishonourably. For the same reason, to avoyd battell, is not
  Injustice, but Cowardise. But he that inrowleth himselfe a Souldier, or
  taketh imprest mony, taketh away the excuse of a timorous nature; and is
  obliged, not onely to go to the battell, but also not to run from it,
  without his Captaines leave. And when the Defence of the Common-wealth,
  requireth at once the help of all that are able to bear Arms, every one is
  obliged; because otherwise the Institution of the Common-wealth, which
  they have not the purpose, or courage to preserve, was in vain.
<br />
  To resist the Sword of the Common-wealth, in defence of another man,
  guilty, or innocent, no man hath Liberty; because such Liberty, takes away
  from the Soveraign, the means of Protecting us; and is therefore
  destructive of the very essence of Government. But in case a great many
  men together, have already resisted the Soveraign Power Unjustly, or
  committed some Capitall crime, for which every one of them expecteth
  death, whether have they not the Liberty then to joyn together, and
  assist, and defend one another? Certainly they have: For they but defend
  their lives, which the guilty man may as well do, as the Innocent. There
  was indeed injustice in the first breach of their duty; Their bearing of
  Arms subsequent to it, though it be to maintain what they have done, is no
  new unjust act. And if it be onely to defend their persons, it is not
  unjust at all. But the offer of Pardon taketh from them, to whom it is
  offered, the plea of self-defence, and maketh their perseverance in
  assisting, or defending the rest, unlawfull.

  The Greatest Liberty Of Subjects, Dependeth On The Silence Of The Law


  As for other Lyberties, they depend on the silence of the Law. In cases
  where the Soveraign has prescribed no rule, there the Subject hath the
  liberty to do, or forbeare, according to his own discretion. And therefore
  such Liberty is in some places more, and in some lesse; and in some times
  more, in other times lesse, according as they that have the Soveraignty
  shall think most convenient. As for Example, there was a time, when in
  England a man might enter in to his own Land, (and dispossesse such as
  wrongfully possessed it) by force. But in after-times, that Liberty of
  Forcible entry, was taken away by a Statute made (by the King) in
  Parliament. And is some places of the world, men have the Liberty of many
  wives: in other places, such Liberty is not allowed.
<br />
  If a Subject have a controversie with his Soveraigne, of Debt, or of right
  of possession of lands or goods, or concerning any service required at his
  hands, or concerning any penalty corporall, or pecuniary, grounded on a
  precedent Law; He hath the same Liberty to sue for his right, as if it
  were against a Subject; and before such Judges, as are appointed by the
  Soveraign. For seeing the Soveraign demandeth by force of a former Law,
  and not by vertue of his Power; he declareth thereby, that he requireth no
  more, than shall appear to be due by that Law. The sute therefore is not
  contrary to the will of the Soveraign; and consequently the Subject hath
  the Liberty to demand the hearing of his Cause; and sentence, according to
  that Law. But if he demand, or take any thing by pretence of his Power;
  there lyeth, in that case, no action of Law: for all that is done by him
  in Vertue of his Power, is done by the Authority of every subject, and
  consequently, he that brings an action against the Soveraign, brings it
  against himselfe.
<br />
  If a Monarch, or Soveraign Assembly, grant a Liberty to all, or any of his
  Subjects; which Grant standing, he is disabled to provide for their
  safety, the Grant is voyd; unlesse he directly renounce, or transferre the
  Soveraignty to another. For in that he might openly, (if it had been his
  will,) and in plain termes, have renounced, or transferred it, and did
  not; it is to be understood it was not his will; but that the Grant
  proceeded from ignorance of the repugnancy between such a Liberty and the
  Soveraign Power; and therefore the Soveraignty is still retayned; and
  consequently all those Powers, which are necessary to the exercising
  thereof; such as are the Power of Warre, and Peace, of Judicature, of
  appointing Officers, and Councellours, of levying Mony, and the rest named
  in the 18th Chapter.

  In What Cases Subjects Absolved Of Their Obedience To Their Soveraign


  The Obligation of Subjects to the Soveraign is understood to last as long,
  and no longer, than the power lasteth, by which he is able to protect
  them. For the right men have by Nature to protect themselves, when none
  else can protect them, can by no Covenant be relinquished. The Soveraignty
  is the Soule of the Common-wealth; which once departed from the Body, the
  members doe no more receive their motion from it. The end of Obedience is
  Protection; which, wheresoever a man seeth it, either in his own, or in
  anothers sword, Nature applyeth his obedience to it, and his endeavour to
  maintaine it. And though Soveraignty, in the intention of them that make
  it, be immortall; yet is it in its own nature, not only subject to violent
  death, by forreign war; but also through the ignorance, and passions of
  men, it hath in it, from the very institution, many seeds of a naturall
  mortality, by Intestine Discord.

  In Case Of Captivity


  If a Subject be taken prisoner in war; or his person, or his means of life
  be within the Guards of the enemy, and hath his life and corporall
  Libertie given him, on condition to be Subject to the Victor, he hath
  Libertie to accept the condition; and having accepted it, is the subject
  of him that took him; because he had no other way to preserve himselfe.
  The case is the same, if he be deteined on the same termes, in a forreign
  country. But if a man be held in prison, or bonds, or is not trusted with
  the libertie of his bodie; he cannot be understood to be bound by Covenant
  to subjection; and therefore may, if he can, make his escape by any means
  whatsoever.

  In Case The Soveraign Cast Off The Government From Himself And Heyrs


  If a Monarch shall relinquish the Soveraignty, both for himself, and his
  heires; His Subjects returne to the absolute Libertie of Nature; because,
  though Nature may declare who are his Sons, and who are the nerest of his
  Kin; yet it dependeth on his own will, (as hath been said in the precedent
  chapter,) who shall be his Heyr. If therefore he will have no Heyre, there
  is no Soveraignty, nor Subjection. The case is the same, if he dye without
  known Kindred, and without declaration of his Heyre. For then there can no
  Heire be known, and consequently no Subjection be due.

  In Case Of Banishment


  If the Soveraign Banish his Subject; during the Banishment, he is not
  Subject. But he that is sent on a message, or hath leave to travell, is
  still Subject; but it is, by Contract between Soveraigns, not by vertue of
  the covenant of Subjection. For whosoever entreth into anothers dominion,
  is Subject to all the Lawes thereof; unless he have a privilege by the
  amity of the Soveraigns, or by speciall licence.

  In Case The Soveraign Render Himself Subject To Another


  If a Monarch subdued by war, render himself Subject to the Victor; his
  Subjects are delivered from their former obligation, and become obliged to
  the Victor. But if he be held prisoner, or have not the liberty of his own
  Body; he is not understood to have given away the Right of Soveraigntie;
  and therefore his Subjects are obliged to yield obedience to the
  Magistrates formerly placed, governing not in their own name, but in his.
  For, his Right remaining, the question is only of the Administration; that
  is to say, of the Magistrates and Officers; which, if he have not means to
  name, he is supposed to approve those, which he himself had formerly
  appointed.

  CHAPTER XXII.<br />OF SYSTEMES SUBJECT, POLITICALL, AND PRIVATE

  The Divers Sorts Of Systemes Of People


  Having spoken of the Generation, Forme, and Power of a Common-wealth, I am
  in order to speak next of the parts thereof. And first of Systemes, which
  resemble the similar parts, or Muscles of a Body naturall. By SYSTEMES; I
  understand any numbers of men joyned in one Interest, or one Businesse. Of
  which, some are Regular, and some Irregular. Regular are those, where one
  Man, or Assembly of men, is constituted Representative of the whole
  number. All other are Irregular.
<br />
  Of Regular, some are Absolute, and Independent, subject to none but their
  own Representative: such are only Common-wealths; Of which I have spoken
  already in the 5. last preceding chapters. Others are Dependent; that is
  to say, Subordinate to some Soveraign Power, to which every one, as also
  their Representative is Subject.
<br />
  Of Systemes subordinate, some are Politicall, and some Private. Politicall
  (otherwise Called Bodies Politique, and Persons In Law,) are those, which
  are made by authority from the Soveraign Power of the Common-wealth.
  Private, are those, which are constituted by Subjects amongst themselves,
  or by authoritie from a stranger. For no authority derived from forraign
  power, within the Dominion of another, is Publique there, but Private.
<br />
  And of Private Systemes, some are Lawfull; some Unlawfull: Lawfull, are
  those which are allowed by the Common-wealth: all other are Unlawfull.
  Irregular Systemes, are those which having no Representative, consist only
  in concourse of People; which if not forbidden by the Common-wealth, nor
  made on evill designe, (such as are conflux of People to markets, or
  shews, or any other harmelesse end,) are Lawfull. But when the Intention
  is evill, or (if the number be considerable) unknown, they are Unlawfull.

  In All Bodies Politique The Power Of The Representative Is Limited


  In Bodies Politique, the power of the Representative is alwaies Limited:
  And that which prescribeth the limits thereof, is the Power Soveraign. For
  Power Unlimited, is absolute Soveraignty. And the Soveraign, in every
  Commonwealth, is the absolute Representative of all the Subjects; and
  therefore no other, can be Representative of any part of them, but so far
  forth, as he shall give leave; And to give leave to a Body Politique of
  Subjects, to have an absolute Representative to all intents and purposes,
  were to abandon the Government of so much of the Commonwealth, and to
  divide the Dominion, contrary to their Peace and Defence, which the
  Soveraign cannot be understood to doe, by any Grant, that does not
  plainly, and directly discharge them of their subjection. For consequences
  of words, are not the signes of his will, when other consequences are
  signes of the contrary; but rather signes of errour, and misreckoning; to
  which all mankind is too prone.
<br />
  The bounds of that Power, which is given to the Representative of a Bodie
  Politique, are to be taken notice of, from two things. One is their Writt,
  or Letters from the Soveraign: the other is the Law of the Common-wealth.

  By Letters Patents


  For though in the Institution or Acquisition of a Common-wealth, which is
  independent, there needs no Writing, because the Power of the
  Representative has there no other bounds, but such as are set out by the
  unwritten Law of Nature; yet in subordinate bodies, there are such
  diversities of Limitation necessary, concerning their businesses, times,
  and places, as can neither be remembred without Letters, nor taken notice
  of, unlesse such Letters be Patent, that they may be read to them, and
  withall sealed, or testified, with the Seales, or other permanent signes
  of the Authority Soveraign.

  And The Lawes


  And because such Limitation is not alwaies easie, or perhaps possible to
  be described in writing; the ordinary Lawes, common to all Subjects, must
  determine, that the Representative may lawfully do, in all Cases, where
  the Letters themselves are silent. And therefore

  When The Representative Is One Man, His Unwarranted Acts His Own Onely


  In a Body Politique, if the Representative be one man, whatsoever he does
  in the Person of the Body, which is not warranted in his Letters, nor by
  the Lawes, is his own act, and not the act of the Body, nor of any other
  Member thereof besides himselfe: Because further than his Letters, or the
  Lawes limit, he representeth no mans person, but his own. But what he does
  according to these, is the act of every one: For of the Act of the
  Soveraign every one is Author, because he is their Representative
  unlimited; and the act of him that recedes not from the Letters of the
  Soveraign, is the act of the Soveraign, and therefore every member of the
  Body is Author of it.

  When It Is An Assembly, It Is The Act Of Them That Assented Onely


  But if the Representative be an Assembly, whatsoever that Assembly shall
  Decree, not warranted by their Letters, or the Lawes, is the act of the
  Assembly, or Body Politique, and the act of every one by whose Vote the
  Decree was made; but not the act of any man that being present Voted to
  the contrary; nor of any man absent, unlesse he Voted it by procuration.
  It is the act of the Assembly, because Voted by the major part; and if it
  be a crime, the Assembly may be punished, as farre-forth as it is capable,
  as by dissolution, or forfeiture of their Letters (which is to such
  artificiall, and fictitious Bodies, capitall,) or (if the Assembly have a
  Common stock, wherein none of the Innocent Members have propriety,) by
  pecuniary Mulct. For from corporall penalties Nature hath exempted all
  Bodies Politique. But they that gave not their Vote, are therefore
  Innocent, because the Assembly cannot Represent any man in things
  unwarranted by their Letters, and consequently are not involved in their
  Votes.
<br />
  When The Representative Is One Man, If He Borrow Mony, Or Owe It, By
  Contract; He Is Lyable Onely, The Members Not If the person of the Body
  Politique being in one man, borrow mony of a stranger, that is, of one
  that is not of the same Body, (for no Letters need limit borrowing, seeing
  it is left to mens own inclinations to limit lending) the debt is the
  Representatives. For if he should have Authority from his Letters, to make
  the members pay what he borroweth, he should have by consequence the
  Soveraignty of them; and therefore the grant were either voyd, as
  proceeding from Errour, commonly incident to humane Nature, and an
  unsufficient signe of the will of the Granter; or if it be avowed by him,
  then is the Representer Soveraign, and falleth not under the present
  question, which is onely of Bodies subordinate. No member therefore is
  obliged to pay the debt so borrowed, but the Representative himselfe:
  because he that lendeth it, being a stranger to the Letters, and to the
  qualification of the Body, understandeth those onely for his debtors, that
  are engaged; and seeing the Representer can ingage himselfe, and none
  else, has him onely for Debtor; who must therefore pay him, out of the
  common stock (if there be any), or (if there be none) out of his own
  estate.
<br />
  If he come into debt by Contract, or Mulct, the case is the same.

  When It Is An Assembly, They Onely Are Liable That Have Assented


  But when the Representative is an Assembly, and the debt to a stranger;
  all they, and onely they are responsible for the debt, that gave their
  votes to the borrowing of it, or to the Contract that made it due, or to
  the fact for which the Mulct was imposed; because every one of those in
  voting did engage himselfe for the payment: For he that is author of the
  borrowing, is obliged to the payment, even of the whole debt, though when
  payd by any one, he be discharged.

  If The Debt Be To One Of The Assembly, The Body Onely Is Obliged


  But if the debt be to one of the Assembly, the Assembly onely is obliged
  to the payment, out of their common stock (if they have any:) For having
  liberty of Vote, if he Vote the Mony, shall be borrowed, he Votes it shall
  be payd; If he Vote it shall not be borrowed, or be absent, yet because in
  lending, he voteth the borrowing, he contradicteth his former Vote, and is
  obliged by the later, and becomes both borrower and lender, and
  consequently cannot demand payment from any particular man, but from the
  common Treasure onely; which fayling he hath no remedy, nor complaint, but
  against himselfe, that being privy to the acts of the Assembly, and their
  means to pay, and not being enforced, did neverthelesse through his own
  folly lend his mony.

  Protestation Against The Decrees Of Bodies Politique


  Sometimes Lawful; But Against Soveraign Power Never It is manifest by
  this, that in Bodies Politique subordinate, and subject to a Soveraign
  Power, it is sometimes not onely lawfull, but expedient, for a particular
  man to make open protestation against the decrees of the Representative
  Assembly, and cause their dissent to be Registred, or to take witnesse of
  it; because otherwise they may be obliged to pay debts contracted, and be
  responsible for crimes committed by other men: But in a Soveraign
  Assembly, that liberty is taken away, both because he that protesteth
  there, denies their Soveraignty; and also because whatsoever is commanded
  by the Soveraign Power, is as to the Subject (though not so alwayes in the
  sight of God) justified by the Command; for of such command every Subject
  is the Author.

  Bodies Politique For Government Of A Province, Colony, Or Town


  The variety of Bodies Politique, is almost infinite; for they are not
  onely distinguished by the severall affaires, for which they are
  constituted, wherein there is an unspeakable diversitie; but also by the
  times, places, and numbers, subject to many limitations. And as to their
  affaires, some are ordained for Government; As first, the Government of a
  Province may be committed to an Assembly of men, wherein all resolutions
  shall depend on the Votes of the major part; and then this Assembly is a
  Body Politique, and their power limited by Commission. This word Province
  signifies a charge, or care of businesse, which he whose businesse it is,
  committeth to another man, to be administred for, and under him; and
  therefore when in one Common-wealth there be divers Countries, that have
  their Lawes distinct one from another, or are farre distant in place, the
  Administration of the Government being committed to divers persons, those
  Countries where the Soveraign is not resident, but governs by Commission,
  are called Provinces. But of the government of a Province, by an Assembly
  residing in the Province it selfe, there be few examples. The Romans who
  had the Soveraignty of many Provinces; yet governed them alwaies by
  Presidents, and Praetors; and not by Assemblies, as they governed the City
  of Rome, and Territories adjacent. In like manner, when there were
  Colonies sent from England, to Plant Virginia, and Sommer-Ilands; though
  the government of them here, were committed to Assemblies in London, yet
  did those Assemblies never commit the Government under them to any
  Assembly there; but did to each Plantation send one Governour; For though
  every man, where he can be present by Nature, desires to participate of
  government; yet where they cannot be present, they are by Nature also
  enclined, to commit the Government of their common Interest rather to a
  Monarchicall, then a Popular form of Government: which is also evident in
  those men that have great private estates; who when they are unwilling to
  take the paines of administring the businesse that belongs to them, choose
  rather to trust one Servant, than a Assembly either of their friends or
  servants. But howsoever it be in fact, yet we may suppose the Government
  of a Province, or Colony committed to an Assembly: and when it is, that
  which in this place I have to say, is this; that whatsoever debt is by
  that Assembly contracted; or whatsoever unlawfull Act is decreed, is the
  Act onely of those that assented, and not of any that dissented, or were
  absent, for the reasons before alledged. Also that an Assembly residing
  out of the bounds of that Colony whereof they have the government, cannot
  execute any power over the persons, or goods of any of the Colonie, to
  seize on them for debt, or other duty, in any place without the Colony it
  selfe, as having no Jurisdiction, nor Authoritie elsewhere, but are left
  to the remedie, which the Law of the place alloweth them. And though the
  Assembly have right, to impose a Mulct upon any of their members, that
  shall break the Lawes they make; yet out of the Colonie it selfe, they
  have no right to execute the same. And that which is said here, of the
  Rights of an Assembly, for the government of a Province, or a Colony, is
  appliable also to an Assembly for the Government of a Town, or University,
  or a College, or a Church, or for any other Government over the persons of
  men.
<br />
  And generally, in all Bodies Politique, if any particular member conceive
  himself Injured by the Body it self, the Cognisance of his cause belongeth
  to the Soveraign, and those the Soveraign hath ordained for Judges in such
  causes, or shall ordaine for that particular cause; and not to the Body it
  self. For the whole Body is in this case his fellow subject, which in a
  Soveraign Assembly, is otherwise: for there, if the Soveraign be not
  Judge, though in his own cause, there can be no Judge at all.

  Bodies Politique For Ordering Of Trade


  In a Bodie Politique, for the well ordering of forraigne Traffique, the
  most commodious Representative is an Assembly of all the members; that is
  to say, such a one, as every one that adventureth his mony, may be present
  at all the Deliberations, and Resolutions of the Body, if they will
  themselves. For proof whereof, we are to consider the end, for which men
  that are Merchants, and may buy and sell, export, and import their
  Merchandise, according to their own discretions, doe neverthelesse bind
  themselves up in one Corporation. It is true, there be few Merchants, that
  with the Merchandise they buy at home, can fraight a Ship, to export it;
  or with that they buy abroad, to bring it home; and have therefore need to
  joyn together in one Society; where every man may either participate of
  the gaine, according to the proportion of his adventure; or take his own;
  and sell what he transports, or imports, at such prices as he thinks fit.
  But this is no Body Politique, there being no Common Representative to
  oblige them to any other Law, than that which is common to all other
  subjects. The End of their Incorporating, is to make their gaine the
  greater; which is done two wayes; by sole buying, and sole selling, both
  at home, and abroad. So that to grant to a Company of Merchants to be a
  Corporation, or Body Politique, is to grant them a double Monopoly,
  whereof one is to be sole buyers; another to be sole sellers. For when
  there is a Company incorporate for any particular forraign Country, they
  only export the Commodities vendible in that Country; which is sole buying
  at home, and sole selling abroad. For at home there is but one buyer, and
  abroad but one that selleth: both which is gainfull to the Merchant,
  because thereby they buy at home at lower, and sell abroad at higher
  rates: And abroad there is but one buyer of forraign Merchandise, and but
  one that sels them at home; both which againe are gainfull to the
  adventurers.
<br />
  Of this double Monopoly one part is disadvantageous to the people at home,
  the other to forraigners. For at home by their sole exportation they set
  what price they please on the husbandry and handy-works of the people; and
  by the sole importation, what price they please on all forraign
  commodities the people have need of; both which are ill for the people. On
  the contrary, by the sole selling of the native commodities abroad, and
  sole buying the forraign commodities upon the place, they raise the price
  of those, and abate the price of these, to the disadvantage of the
  forraigner: For where but one selleth, the Merchandise is the dearer; and
  where but one buyeth the cheaper: Such Corporations therefore are no other
  then Monopolies; though they would be very profitable for a Common-wealth,
  if being bound up into one body in forraigne Markets they were at liberty
  at home, every man to buy, and sell at what price he could.
<br />
  The end then of these Bodies of Merchants, being not a Common benefit to
  the whole Body, (which have in this case no common stock, but what is
  deducted out of the particular adventures, for building, buying,
  victualling and manning of Ships,) but the particular gaine of every
  adventurer, it is reason that every one be acquainted with the employment
  of his own; that is, that every one be of the Assembly, that shall have
  the power to order the same; and be acquainted with their accounts. And
  therefore the Representative of such a Body must be an Assembly, where
  every member of the Body may be present at the consultations, if he will.
<br />
  If a Body Politique of Merchants, contract a debt to a stranger by the act
  of their Representative Assembly, every Member is lyable by himself for
  the whole. For a stranger can take no notice of their private Lawes, but
  considereth them as so many particular men, obliged every one to the whole
  payment, till payment made by one dischargeth all the rest: But if the
  debt be to one of the Company, the creditor is debter for the whole to
  himself, and cannot therefore demand his debt, but only from the common
  stock, if there be any.
<br />
  If the Common-wealth impose a Tax upon the Body, it is understood to be
  layd upon every member proportionably to his particular adventure in the
  Company. For there is in this case no other common stock, but what is made
  of their particular adventures.
<br />
  If a Mulct be layd upon the Body for some unlawfull act, they only are
  lyable by whose votes the act was decreed, or by whose assistance it was
  executed; for in none of the rest is there any other crime but being of
  the Body; which if a crime, (because the Body was ordeyned by the
  authority of the Common-wealth,) is not his.
<br />
  If one of the Members be indebted to the Body, he may be sued by the Body;
  but his goods cannot be taken, nor his person imprisoned by the authority
  of the Body; but only by Authority of the Common-wealth: for if they can
  doe it by their own Authority, they can by their own Authority give
  judgement that the debt is due, which is as much as to be Judge in their
  own Cause.

  A Bodie Politique For Counsel To Be Give To The Soveraign


  These Bodies made for the government of Men, or of Traffique, be either
  perpetuall, or for a time prescribed by writing. But there be Bodies also
  whose times are limited, and that only by the nature of their businesse.
  For example, if a Soveraign Monarch, or a Soveraign Assembly, shall think
  fit to give command to the towns, and other severall parts of their
  territory, to send to him their Deputies, to enforme him of the condition,
  and necessities of the Subjects, or to advise with him for the making of
  good Lawes, or for any other cause, as with one Person representing the
  whole Country, such Deputies, having a place and time of meeting assigned
  them, are there, and at that time, a Body Politique, representing every
  Subject of that Dominion; but it is onely for such matters as shall be
  propounded unto them by that Man, or Assembly, that by the Soveraign
  Authority sent for them; and when it shall be declared that nothing more
  shall be propounded, nor debated by them, the Body is dissolved. For if
  they were the absolute Representative of the people, then were it the
  Soveraign Assembly; and so there would be two Soveraign Assemblies, or two
  Soveraigns, over the same people; which cannot consist with their Peace.
  And therefore where there is once a Soveraignty, there can be no absolute
  Representation of the people, but by it. And for the limits of how farre
  such a Body shall represent the whole People, they are set forth in the
  Writing by which they were sent for. For the People cannot choose their
  Deputies to other intent, than is in the Writing directed to them from
  their Soveraign expressed.

  A Regular Private Body, Lawfull, As A Family


  Private Bodies Regular, and Lawfull, are those that are constituted
  without Letters, or other written Authority, saving the Lawes common to
  all other Subjects. And because they be united in one Person
  Representative, they are held for Regular; such as are all Families, in
  which the Father, or Master ordereth the whole Family. For he obligeth his
  Children, and Servants, as farre as the Law permitteth, though not
  further, because none of them are bound to obedience in those actions,
  which the Law hath forbidden to be done. In all other actions, during the
  time they are under domestique government, they are subject to their
  Fathers, and Masters, as to their immediate Soveraigns. For the Father,
  and Master being before the Institution of Common-wealth, absolute
  Soveraigns in their own Families, they lose afterward no more of their
  Authority, than the Law of the Common-wealth taketh from them.

  Private Bodies Regular, But Unlawfull


  Private Bodies Regular, but Unlawfull, are those that unite themselves
  into one person Representative, without any publique Authority at all;
  such as are the Corporations of Beggars, Theeves and Gipsies, the better
  to order their trade of begging, and stealing; and the Corporations of
  men, that by Authority from any forraign Person, unite themselves in
  anothers Dominion, for easier propagation of Doctrines, and for making a
  party, against the Power of the Common-wealth.

  Systemes Irregular, Such As Are Private Leagues


  Irregular Systemes, in their nature, but Leagues, or sometimes meer
  concourse of people, without union to any particular designe, not by
  obligation of one to another, but proceeding onely from a similitude of
  wills and inclinations, become Lawfull, or Unlawfull, according to the
  lawfulnesse, or unlawfulnesse of every particular mans design therein: And
  his designe is to be understood by the occasion.
<br />
  The Leagues of Subjects, (because Leagues are commonly made for mutuall
  defence,) are in a Common-wealth (which is no more than a League of all
  the Subjects together) for the most part unnecessary, and savour of
  unlawfull designe; and are for that cause Unlawfull, and go commonly by
  the name of factions, or Conspiracies. For a League being a connexion of
  men by Covenants, if there be no power given to any one Man or Assembly,
  (as in the condition of meer Nature) to compell them to performance, is so
  long onely valid, as there ariseth no just cause of distrust: and
  therefore Leagues between Common-wealths, over whom there is no humane
  Power established, to keep them all in awe, are not onely lawfull, but
  also profitable for the time they last. But Leagues of the Subjects of one
  and the same Common-wealth, where every one may obtain his right by means
  of the Soveraign Power, are unnecessary to the maintaining of Peace and
  Justice, and (in case the designe of them be evill, or Unknown to the
  Common-wealth) unlawfull. For all uniting of strength by private men, is,
  if for evill intent, unjust; if for intent unknown, dangerous to the
  Publique, and unjustly concealed.

  Secret Cabals


  If the Soveraign Power be in a great Assembly, and a number of men, part
  of the Assembly, without authority, consult a part, to contrive the
  guidance of the rest; This is a Faction, or Conspiracy unlawfull, as being
  a fraudulent seducing of the Assembly for their particular interest. But
  if he, whose private interest is to be debated, and judged in the
  Assembly, make as many friends as he can; in him it is no Injustice;
  because in this case he is no part of the Assembly. And though he hire
  such friends with mony, (unlesse there be an expresse Law against it,) yet
  it is not Injustice. For sometimes, (as mens manners are,) Justice cannot
  be had without mony; and every man may think his own cause just, till it
  be heard, and judged.

  Feuds Of Private Families


  In all Common-wealths, if a private man entertain more servants, than the
  government of his estate, and lawfull employment he has for them requires,
  it is Faction, and unlawfull. For having the protection of the
  Common-wealth, he needeth not the defence of private force. And whereas in
  Nations not throughly civilized, severall numerous Families have lived in
  continuall hostility, and invaded one another with private force; yet it
  is evident enough, that they have done unjustly; or else that they had no
  Common-wealth.

  Factions For Government


  And as Factions for Kindred, so also Factions for Government of Religion,
  as of Papists, Protestants, &c. or of State, as Patricians, and
  Plebeians of old time in Rome, and of Aristocraticalls and Democraticalls
  of old time in Greece, are unjust, as being contrary to the peace and
  safety of the people, and a taking of the Sword out of the hand of the
  Soveraign.
<br />
  Concourse of people, is an Irregular Systeme, the lawfulnesse, or
  unlawfulnesse, whereof dependeth on the occasion, and on the number of
  them that are assembled. If the occasion be lawfull, and manifest, the
  Concourse is lawfull; as the usuall meeting of men at Church, or at a
  publique Shew, in usuall numbers: for if the numbers be extraordinarily
  great, the occasion is not evident; and consequently he that cannot render
  a particular and good account of his being amongst them, is to be judged
  conscious of an unlawfull, and tumultuous designe. It may be lawfull for a
  thousand men, to joyn in a Petition to be delivered to a Judge, or
  Magistrate; yet if a thousand men come to present it, it is a tumultuous
  Assembly; because there needs but one or two for that purpose. But in such
  cases as these, it is not a set number that makes the Assembly Unlawfull,
  but such a number, as the present Officers are not able to suppresse, and
  bring to Justice.
<br />
  When an unusuall number of men, assemble against a man whom they accuse;
  the Assembly is an Unlawfull tumult; because they may deliver their
  accusation to the Magistrate by a few, or by one man. Such was the case of
  St. Paul at Ephesus; where Demetrius, and a great number of other men,
  brought two of Pauls companions before the Magistrate, saying with one
  Voyce, &ldquo;Great is Diana of the Ephesians;&rdquo; which was their way of demanding
  Justice against them for teaching the people such doctrine, as was against
  their Religion, and Trade. The occasion here, considering the Lawes of
  that People, was just; yet was their Assembly Judged Unlawfull, and the
  Magistrate reprehended them for it, in these words,(Acts 19. 40) &ldquo;If
  Demetrius and the other work-men can accuse any man, of any thing, there
  be Pleas, and Deputies, let them accuse one another. And if you have any
  other thing to demand, your case may be judged in an Assembly Lawfully
  called. For we are in danger to be accused for this dayes sedition,
  because, there is no cause by which any man can render any reason of this
  Concourse of People.&rdquo; Where he calleth an Assembly, whereof men can give
  no just account, a Sedition, and such as they could not answer for. And
  this is all I shall say concerning Systemes, and Assemblyes of People,
  which may be compared (as I said,) to the Similar parts of mans Body; such
  as be Lawfull, to the Muscles; such as are Unlawfull, to Wens, Biles, and
  Apostemes, engendred by the unnaturall conflux of evill humours.

  CHAPTER XXIII.<br />OF THE PUBLIQUE MINISTERS OF SOVERAIGN POWER


  In the last Chapter I have spoken of the Similar parts of a Common-wealth;
  In this I shall speak of the parts Organicall, which are Publique
  Ministers.

  Publique Minister Who


  A PUBLIQUE MINISTER, is he, that by the Soveraign, (whether a Monarch, or
  an Assembly,) is employed in any affaires, with Authority to represent in
  that employment, the Person of the Common-wealth. And whereas every man,
  or assembly that hath Soveraignty, representeth two Persons, or (as the
  more common phrase is) has two Capacities, one Naturall, and another
  Politique, (as a Monarch, hath the person not onely of the Common-wealth,
  but also of a man; and a Soveraign Assembly hath the Person not onely of
  the Common-wealth, but also of the Assembly); they that be servants to
  them in their naturall Capacity, are not Publique Ministers; but those
  onely that serve them in the Administration of the Publique businesse. And
  therefore neither Ushers, nor Sergeants, nor other Officers that waite on
  the Assembly, for no other purpose, but for the commodity of the men
  assembled, in an Aristocracy, or Democracy; nor Stewards, Chamberlains,
  Cofferers, or any other Officers of the houshold of a Monarch, are
  Publique Ministers in a Monarchy.

  Ministers For The Generall Administration


  Of Publique Ministers, some have charge committed to them of a general
  Administration, either of the whole Dominion, or of a part thereof. Of the
  whole, as to a Protector, or Regent, may bee committed by the Predecessor
  of an Infant King, during his minority, the whole Administration of his
  Kingdome. In which case, every Subject is so far obliged to obedience, as
  the Ordinances he shall make, and the commands he shall give be in the
  Kings name, and not inconsistent with his Soveraigne Power. Of a Part, or
  Province; as when either a Monarch, or a Soveraign Assembly, shall give
  the generall charge thereof to a Governour, Lieutenant, Praefect, or
  Vice-Roy: And in this case also, every one of that Province, is obliged to
  all he shall doe in the name of the Soveraign, and that not incompatible
  with the Soveraigns Right. For such Protectors, Vice-Roys, and Governours,
  have no other right, but what depends on the Soveraigns Will; and no
  Commission that can be given them, can be interpreted for a Declaration of
  the will to transferre the Soveraignty, without expresse and perspicuous
  words to that purpose. And this kind of Publique Ministers resembleth the
  Nerves, and Tendons that move the severall limbs of a body naturall.

  For Speciall Administration, As For Oeconomy


  Others have speciall Administration; that is to say, charges of some
  speciall businesse, either at home, or abroad: As at home, First, for the
  Oeconomy of a Common-wealth, They that have Authority concerning the
  Treasure, as Tributes, Impositions, Rents, Fines, or whatsoever publique
  revenue, to collect, receive, issue, or take the Accounts thereof, are
  Publique Ministers: Ministers, because they serve the Person
  Representative, and can doe nothing against his Command, nor without his
  Authority: Publique, because they serve him in his Politicall Capacity.
<br />
  Secondly, they that have Authority concerning the Militia; to have the
  custody of Armes, Forts, Ports; to Levy, Pay, or Conduct Souldiers; or to
  provide for any necessary thing for the use of war, either by Land or Sea,
  are publique Ministers. But a Souldier without Command, though he fight
  for the Common-wealth, does not therefore represent the Person of it;
  because there is none to represent it to. For every one that hath command,
  represents it to them only whom he commandeth.

  For Instruction Of The People


  They also that have authority to teach, or to enable others to teach the
  people their duty to the Soveraign Power, and instruct them in the
  knowledge of what is just, and unjust, thereby to render them more apt to
  live in godlinesse, and in peace among themselves, and resist the publique
  enemy, are Publique Ministers: Ministers, in that they doe it not by their
  own Authority, but by anothers; and Publique, because they doe it (or
  should doe it) by no Authority, but that of the Soveraign. The Monarch, or
  the Soveraign Assembly only hath immediate Authority from God, to teach
  and instruct the people; and no man but the Soveraign, receiveth his power
  Dei Gratia simply; that is to say, from the favour of none but God: All
  other, receive theirs from the favour and providence of God, and their
  Soveraigns; as in a Monarchy Dei Gratia & Regis; or Dei Providentia
  & Voluntate Regis.

  For Judicature


  They also to whom Jurisdiction is given, are Publique Ministers. For in
  their Seats of Justice they represent the person of the Soveraign; and
  their Sentence, is his Sentence; For (as hath been before declared) all
  Judicature is essentially annexed to the Soveraignty; and therefore all
  other Judges are but Ministers of him, or them that have the Soveraign
  Power. And as Controversies are of two sorts, namely of Fact, and of Law;
  so are judgements, some of Fact, some of Law: And consequently in the same
  controversie, there may be two Judges, one of Fact, another of Law.
<br />
  And in both these controversies, there may arise a controversie between
  the party Judged, and the Judge; which because they be both Subjects to
  the Soveraign, ought in Equity to be Judged by men agreed on by consent of
  both; for no man can be Judge in his own cause. But the Soveraign is
  already agreed on for Judge by them both, and is therefore either to heare
  the Cause, and determine it himself, or appoint for Judge such as they
  shall both agree on. And this agreement is then understood to be made
  between them divers wayes; as first, if the Defendant be allowed to except
  against such of his Judges, whose interest maketh him suspect them, (for
  as to the Complaynant he hath already chosen his own Judge,) those which
  he excepteth not against, are Judges he himself agrees on. Secondly, if he
  appeale to any other Judge, he can appeale no further; for his appeale is
  his choice. Thirdly, if he appeale to the Soveraign himself, and he by
  himself, or by Delegates which the parties shall agree on, give Sentence;
  that Sentence is finall: for the Defendant is Judged by his own Judges,
  that is to say, by himself.
<br />
  These properties of just and rationall Judicature considered, I cannot
  forbeare to observe the excellent constitution of the Courts of Justice,
  established both for Common, and also for Publique Pleas in England. By
  Common Pleas, I meane those, where both the Complaynant and Defendant are
  Subjects: and by Publique, (which are also called Pleas of the Crown)
  those, where the Complaynant is the Soveraign. For whereas there were two
  orders of men, whereof one was Lords, the other Commons; The Lords had
  this Priviledge, to have for Judges in all Capitall crimes, none but
  Lords; and of them, as many as would be present; which being ever
  acknowledged as a Priviledge of favour, their Judges were none but such as
  they had themselves desired. And in all controversies, every Subject (as
  also in civill controversies the Lords) had for Judges, men of the Country
  where the matter in controversie lay; against which he might make his
  exceptions, till at last Twelve men without exception being agreed on,
  they were Judged by those twelve. So that having his own Judges, there
  could be nothing alledged by the party, why the sentence should not be
  finall, These publique persons, with Authority from the Soveraign Power,
  either to Instruct, or Judge the people, are such members of the
  Common-wealth, as may fitly be compared to the organs of Voice in a Body
  naturall.

  For Execution


  Publique Ministers are also all those, that have Authority from the
  Soveraign, to procure the Execution of Judgements given; to publish the
  Soveraigns Commands; to suppresse Tumults; to apprehend, and imprison
  Malefactors; and other acts tending to the conservation of the Peace. For
  every act they doe by such Authority, is the act of the Common-wealth; and
  their service, answerable to that of the Hands, in a Bodie naturall.
<br />
  Publique Ministers abroad, are those that represent the Person of their
  own Soveraign, to forraign States. Such are Ambassadors, Messengers,
  Agents, and Heralds, sent by publique Authoritie, and on publique
  Businesse.
<br />
  But such as are sent by Authoritie only of some private partie of a
  troubled State, though they be received, are neither Publique, nor Private
  Ministers of the Common-wealth; because none of their actions have the
  Common-wealth for Author. Likewise, an Ambassador sent from a Prince, to
  congratulate, condole, or to assist at a solemnity, though Authority be
  Publique; yet because the businesse is Private, and belonging to him in
  his naturall capacity; is a Private person. Also if a man be sent into
  another Country, secretly to explore their counsels, and strength; though
  both the Authority, and the Businesse be Publique; yet because there is
  none to take notice of any Person in him, but his own; he is but a Private
  Minister; but yet a Minister of the Common-wealth; and may be compared to
  an Eye in the Body naturall. And those that are appointed to receive the
  Petitions or other informations of the People, and are as it were the
  publique Eare, are Publique Ministers, and represent their Soveraign in
  that office.

  Counsellers Without Other Employment Then To Advise Are Not Publique
  Ministers


  Neither a Counsellor, nor a Councell of State, if we consider it with no
  Authority of Judicature or Command, but only of giving Advice to the
  Soveraign when it is required, or of offering it when it is not required,
  is a Publique Person. For the Advice is addressed to the Soveraign only,
  whose person cannot in his own presence, be represented to him, by
  another. But a Body of Counsellors, are never without some other
  Authority, either of Judicature, or of immediate Administration: As in a
  Monarchy, they represent the Monarch, in delivering his Commands to the
  Publique Ministers: In a Democracy, the Councell, or Senate propounds the
  Result of their deliberations to the people, as a Councell; but when they
  appoint Judges, or heare Causes, or give Audience to Ambassadors, it is in
  the quality of a Minister of the People: And in an Aristocracy the
  Councell of State is the Soveraign Assembly it self; and gives counsell to
  none but themselves.

  CHAPTER XXIV.<br />OF THE NUTRITION, AND PROCREATION OF A COMMON-WEALTH


  The Nourishment Of A Common-wealth Consisteth In The Commodities
<br />
  Of Sea And Land
<br />
  The NUTRITION of a Common-wealth consisteth, in the Plenty, and
  Distribution of Materials conducing to Life: In Concoction, or
  Preparation; and (when concocted) in the Conveyance of it, by convenient
  conduits, to the Publique use.
<br />
  As for the Plenty of Matter, it is a thing limited by Nature, to those
  commodities, which from (the two breasts of our common Mother) Land, and
  Sea, God usually either freely giveth, or for labour selleth to man-kind.
<br />
  For the Matter of this Nutriment, consisting in Animals, Vegetals, and
  Minerals, God hath freely layd them before us, in or neer to the face of
  the Earth; so as there needeth no more but the labour, and industry of
  receiving them. Insomuch as Plenty dependeth (next to Gods favour) meerly
  on the labour and industry of men.
<br />
  This Matter, commonly called Commodities, is partly Native, and partly
  Forraign: Native, that which is to be had within the Territory of the
  Common-wealth; Forraign, that which is imported from without. And because
  there is no Territory under the Dominion of one Common-wealth, (except it
  be of very vast extent,) that produceth all things needfull for the
  maintenance, and motion of the whole Body; and few that produce not
  something more than necessary; the superfluous commodities to be had
  within, become no more superfluous, but supply these wants at home, by
  importation of that which may be had abroad, either by Exchange, or by
  just Warre, or by Labour: for a mans Labour also, is a commodity
  exchangeable for benefit, as well as any other thing: And there have been
  Common-wealths that having no more Territory, than hath served them for
  habitation, have neverthelesse, not onely maintained, but also encreased
  their Power, partly by the labour of trading from one place to another,
  and partly by selling the Manifactures, whereof the Materials were brought
  in from other places.

  And The Right Of Distribution Of Them


  The Distribution of the Materials of this Nourishment, is the constitution
  of Mine, and Thine, and His, that is to say, in one word Propriety; and
  belongeth in all kinds of Common-wealth to the Soveraign Power. For where
  there is no Common-wealth, there is, (as hath been already shewn) a
  perpetuall warre of every man against his neighbour; And therefore every
  thing is his that getteth it, and keepeth it by force; which is neither
  Propriety nor Community; but Uncertainty. Which is so evident, that even
  Cicero, (a passionate defender of Liberty,) in a publique pleading,
  attributeth all Propriety to the Law Civil, &ldquo;Let the Civill Law,&rdquo; saith
  he, &ldquo;be once abandoned, or but negligently guarded, (not to say
  oppressed,) and there is nothing, that any man can be sure to receive from
  his Ancestor, or leave to his Children.&rdquo; And again; &ldquo;Take away the Civill
  Law, and no man knows what is his own, and what another mans.&rdquo; Seeing
  therefore the Introduction of Propriety is an effect of Common-wealth;
  which can do nothing but by the Person that Represents it, it is the act
  onely of the Soveraign; and consisteth in the Lawes, which none can make
  that have not the Soveraign Power. And this they well knew of old, who
  called that Nomos, (that is to say, Distribution,) which we call Law; and
  defined Justice, by distributing to every man his own.

  All Private Estates Of Land Proceed Originally From The Arbitrary
  Distribution Of The Soveraign


  In this Distribution, the First Law, is for Division of the Land it selfe:
  wherein the Soveraign assigneth to every man a portion, according as he,
  and not according as any Subject, or any number of them, shall judge
  agreeable to Equity, and the Common Good. The Children of Israel, were a
  Common-wealth in the Wildernesse; but wanted the commodities of the Earth,
  till they were masters of the Land of Promise; which afterward was divided
  amongst them, not by their own discretion, but by the discretion of
  Eleazar the Priest, and Joshua their Generall: who when there were twelve
  Tribes, making them thirteen by subdivision of the Tribe of Joseph; made
  neverthelesse but twelve portions of the Land; and ordained for the Tribe
  of Levi no land; but assigned them the Tenth part of the whole fruits;
  which division was therefore Arbitrary. And though a People comming into
  possession of a land by warre, do not alwaies exterminate the antient
  Inhabitants, (as did the Jewes,) but leave to many, or most, or all of
  them their Estates; yet it is manifest they hold them afterwards, as of
  the Victors distribution; as the people of England held all theirs of
  William the Conquerour.

  Propriety Of A Subject Excludes Not The Dominion Of The Soveraign, But
  Onely Of Another Subject


  From whence we may collect, that the Propriety which a subject hath in his
  lands, consisteth in a right to exclude all other subjects from the use of
  them; and not to exclude their Soveraign, be it an Assembly, or a Monarch.
  For seeing the Soveraign, that is to say, the Common-wealth (whose Person
  he representeth,) is understood to do nothing but in order to the common
  Peace and Security, this Distribution of lands, is to be understood as
  done in order to the same: And consequently, whatsoever Distribution he
  shall make in prejudice thereof, is contrary to the will of every subject,
  that committed his Peace, and safety to his discretion, and conscience;
  and therefore by the will of every one of them, is to be reputed voyd. It
  is true, that a Soveraign Monarch, or the greater part of a Soveraign
  Assembly, may ordain the doing of many things in pursuit of their
  Passions, contrary to their own consciences, which is a breach of trust,
  and of the Law of Nature; but this is not enough to authorise any subject,
  either to make warre upon, or so much as to accuse of Injustice, or any
  way to speak evill of their Soveraign; because they have authorised all
  his actions, and in bestowing the Soveraign Power, made them their own.
  But in what cases the Commands of Soveraigns are contrary to Equity, and
  the Law of Nature, is to be considered hereafter in another place.

  The Publique Is Not To Be Dieted


  In the Distribution of land, the Common-wealth it selfe, may be conceived
  to have a portion, and possesse, and improve the same by their
  Representative; and that such portion may be made sufficient, to susteine
  the whole expence to the common Peace, and defence necessarily required:
  Which were very true, if there could be any Representative conceived free
  from humane passions, and infirmities. But the nature of men being as it
  is, the setting forth of Publique Land, or of any certaine Revenue for the
  Common-wealth, is in vaine; and tendeth to the dissolution of Government,
  and to the condition of meere Nature, and War, assoon as ever the
  Soveraign Power falleth into the hands of a Monarch, or of an Assembly,
  that are either too negligent of mony, or too hazardous in engaging the
  publique stock, into a long, or costly war. Common-wealths can endure no
  Diet: For seeing their expence is not limited by their own appetite, but
  by externall Accidents, and the appetites of their neighbours, the
  Publique Riches cannot be limited by other limits, than those which the
  emergent occasions shall require. And whereas in England, there were by
  the Conquerour, divers Lands reserved to his own use, (besides Forrests,
  and Chases, either for his recreation, or for preservation of Woods,) and
  divers services reserved on the Land he gave his Subjects; yet it seems
  they were not reserved for his Maintenance in his Publique, but in his
  Naturall capacity: For he, and his Successors did for all that, lay
  Arbitrary Taxes on all Subjects land, when they judged it necessary. Or if
  those publique Lands, and Services, were ordained as a sufficient
  maintenance of the Common-wealth, it was contrary to the scope of the
  Institution; being (as it appeared by those ensuing Taxes) insufficient,
  and (as it appeares by the late Revenue of the Crown) Subject to
  Alienation, and Diminution. It is therefore in vaine, to assign a portion
  to the Common-wealth; which may sell, or give it away; and does sell, and
  give it away when tis done by their Representative.

  The Places And Matter Of Traffique Depend, As Their Distribution, On Th
  Soveraign


  As the Distribution of Lands at home; so also to assigne in what places,
  and for what commodities, the Subject shall traffique abroad, belongeth to
  the Soveraign. For if it did belong to private persons to use their own
  discretion therein, some of them would bee drawn for gaine, both to
  furnish the enemy with means to hurt the Common-wealth, and hurt it
  themselves, by importing such things, as pleasing mens appetites, be
  neverthelesse noxious, or at least unprofitable to them. And therefore it
  belongeth to the Common-wealth, (that is, to the Soveraign only,) to
  approve, or disapprove both of the places, and matter of forraign
  Traffique.

  The Laws Of Transferring Property Belong Also To The Soveraign


  Further, seeing it is not enough to the Sustentation of a Common-wealth,
  that every man have a propriety in a portion of Land, or in some few
  commodities, or a naturall property in some usefull art, and there is no
  art in the world, but is necessary either for the being, or well being
  almost of every particular man; it is necessary, that men distribute that
  which they can spare, and transferre their propriety therein, mutually one
  to another, by exchange, and mutuall contract. And therefore it belongeth
  to the Common-wealth, (that is to say, to the Soveraign,) to appoint in
  what manner, all kinds of contract between Subjects, (as buying, selling,
  exchanging, borrowing, lending, letting, and taking to hire,) are to bee
  made; and by what words, and signes they shall be understood for valid.
  And for the Matter, and Distribution of the Nourishment, to the severall
  Members of the Common-wealth, thus much (considering the modell of the
  whole worke) is sufficient.

  Mony The Bloud Of A Common-wealth


  By Concoction, I understand the reducing of all commodities, which are not
  presently consumed, but reserved for Nourishment in time to come, to some
  thing of equal value, and withall so portably, as not to hinder the motion
  of men from place to place; to the end a man may have in what place
  soever, such Nourishment as the place affordeth. And this is nothing else
  but Gold, and Silver, and Mony. For Gold and Silver, being (as it happens)
  almost in all Countries of the world highly valued, is a commodious
  measure for the value of all things else between Nations; and Mony (of
  what matter soever coyned by the Soveraign of a Common-wealth,) is a
  sufficient measure of the value of all things else, between the Subjects
  of that Common-wealth. By the means of which measures, all commodities,
  Moveable, and Immoveable, are made to accompany a man, to all places of
  his resort, within and without the place of his ordinary residence; and
  the same passeth from Man to Man, within the Common-wealth; and goes round
  about, Nourishing (as it passeth) every part thereof; In so much as this
  Concoction, is as it were the Sanguification of the Common-wealth: For
  naturall Bloud is in like manner made of the fruits of the Earth; and
  circulating, nourisheth by the way, every Member of the Body of Man.
<br />
  And because Silver and Gold, have their value from the matter it self;
  they have first this priviledge, that the value of them cannot be altered
  by the power of one, nor of a few Common-wealths; as being a common
  measure of the commodities of all places. But base Mony, may easily be
  enhanced, or abased. Secondly, they have the priviledge to make
  Common-wealths, move, and stretch out their armes, when need is, into
  forraign Countries; and supply, not only private Subjects that travell,
  but also whole Armies with provision. But that Coyne, which is not
  considerable for the Matter, but for the Stamp of the place, being unable
  to endure change of ayr, hath its effect at home only; where also it is
  subject to the change of Laws, and thereby to have the value diminished,
  to the prejudice many times of those that have it.

  The Conduits And Way Of Mony To The Publique Use


  The Conduits, and Wayes by which it is conveyed to the Publique use, are
  of two sorts; One, that Conveyeth it to the Publique Coffers; The other,
  that Issueth the same out againe for publique payments. Of the first sort,
  are Collectors, Receivers, and Treasurers; of the second are the
  Treasurers againe, and the Officers appointed for payment of severall
  publique or private Ministers. And in this also, the Artificiall Man
  maintains his resemblance with the Naturall; whose Veins receiving the
  Bloud from the severall Parts of the Body, carry it to the Heart; where
  being made Vitall, the Heart by the Arteries sends it out again, to
  enliven, and enable for motion all the Members of the same.

  The Children Of A Common-wealth Colonies


  The Procreation, or Children of a Common-wealth, are those we call
  Plantations, or Colonies; which are numbers of men sent out from the
  Common-wealth, under a Conductor, or Governour, to inhabit a Forraign
  Country, either formerly voyd of Inhabitants, or made voyd then, by warre.
  And when a Colony is setled, they are either a Common-wealth of
  themselves, discharged of their subjection to their Soveraign that sent
  them, (as hath been done by many Common-wealths of antient time,) in which
  case the Common-wealth from which they went was called their Metropolis,
  or Mother, and requires no more of them, then Fathers require of the
  Children, whom they emancipate, and make free from their domestique
  government, which is Honour, and Friendship; or else they remain united to
  their Metropolis, as were the Colonies of the people of Rome; and then
  they are no Common-wealths themselves, but Provinces, and parts of the
  Common-wealth that sent them. So that the Right of Colonies (saving
  Honour, and League with their Metropolis,) dependeth wholly on their
  Licence, or Letters, by which their Soveraign authorised them to Plant.

  CHAPTER XXV.<br />OF COUNSELL

  Counsell What


  How fallacious it is to judge of the nature of things, by the ordinary and
  inconstant use of words, appeareth in nothing more, than in the confusion
  of Counsels, and Commands, arising from the Imperative manner of speaking
  in them both, and in many other occasions besides. For the words &ldquo;Doe
  this,&rdquo; are the words not onely of him that Commandeth; but also of him
  that giveth Counsell; and of him that Exhorteth; and yet there are but
  few, that see not, that these are very different things; or that cannot
  distinguish between them, when they perceive who it is that speaketh, and
  to whom the Speech is directed, and upon what occasion. But finding those
  phrases in mens writings, and being not able, or not willing to enter into
  a consideration of the circumstances, they mistake sometimes the Precepts
  of Counsellours, for the Precepts of them that command; and sometimes the
  contrary; according as it best agreeth with the conclusions they would
  inferre, or the actions they approve. To avoyd which mistakes, and render
  to those termes of Commanding, Counselling, and Exhorting, their proper
  and distinct significations, I define them thus.

  Differences Between Command And Counsell


  COMMAND is, where a man saith, &ldquo;Doe this,&rdquo; or &ldquo;Doe this not,&rdquo; without
  expecting other reason than the Will of him that sayes it. From this it
  followeth manifestly, that he that Commandeth, pretendeth thereby his own
  Benefit: For the reason of his Command is his own Will onely, and the
  proper object of every mans Will, is some Good to himselfe.
<br />
  COUNSELL, is where a man saith, &ldquo;Doe&rdquo; or &ldquo;Doe not this,&rdquo; and deduceth his
  own reasons from the benefit that arriveth by it to him to whom he saith
  it. And from this it is evident, that he that giveth Counsell, pretendeth
  onely (whatsoever he intendeth) the good of him, to whom he giveth it.
<br />
  Therefore between Counsell and Command, one great difference is, that
  Command is directed to a mans own benefit; and Counsell to the benefit of
  another man. And from this ariseth another difference, that a man may be
  obliged to do what he is Commanded; as when he hath covenanted to obey:
  But he cannot be obliged to do as he is Counselled, because the hurt of
  not following it, is his own; or if he should covenant to follow it, then
  is the Counsell turned into the nature of a Command. A third difference
  between them is, that no man can pretend a right to be of another mans
  Counsell; because he is not to pretend benefit by it to himselfe; but to
  demand right to Counsell another, argues a will to know his designes, or
  to gain some other Good to himselfe; which (as I said before) is of every
  mans will the proper object.
<br />
  This also is incident to the nature of Counsell; that whatsoever it be, he
  that asketh it, cannot in equity accuse, or punish it: For to ask Counsell
  of another, is to permit him to give such Counsell as he shall think best;
  And consequently, he that giveth counsell to his Soveraign, (whether a
  Monarch, or an Assembly) when he asketh it, cannot in equity be punished
  for it, whether the same be conformable to the opinion of the most, or
  not, so it be to the Proposition in debate. For if the sense of the
  Assembly can be taken notice of, before the Debate be ended, they should
  neither ask, nor take any further Counsell; For the Sense of the Assembly,
  is the Resolution of the Debate, and End of all Deliberation. And
  generally he that demandeth Counsell, is Author of it; and therefore
  cannot punish it; and what the Soveraign cannot, no man else can. But if
  one Subject giveth Counsell to another, to do any thing contrary to the
  Lawes, whether that Counsell proceed from evill intention, or from
  ignorance onely, it is punishable by the Common-wealth; because ignorance
  of the Law, is no good excuse, where every man is bound to take notice of
  the Lawes to which he is subject.

  Exhortation And Dehortation What


  EXHORTATION, and DEHORTATION, is Counsell, accompanied with signes in him
  that giveth it, of vehement desire to have it followed; or to say it more
  briefly, Counsell Vehemently Pressed. For he that Exhorteth, doth not
  deduce the consequences of what he adviseth to be done, and tye himselfe
  therein to the rigour of true reasoning; but encourages him he
  Counselleth, to Action: As he that Dehorteth, deterreth him from it. And
  therefore they have in their speeches, a regard to the common Passions,
  and opinions of men, in deducing their reasons; and make use of
  Similitudes, Metaphors, Examples, and other tooles of Oratory, to perswade
  their Hearers of the Utility, Honour, or Justice of following their
  advise.
<br />
  From whence may be inferred, First, that Exhortation and Dehortation, is
  directed to the Good of him that giveth the Counsell, not of him that
  asketh it, which is contrary to the duty of a Counsellour; who (by the
  definition of Counsell) ought to regard, not his own benefits, but his
  whom he adviseth. And that he directeth his Counsell to his own benefit,
  is manifest enough, by the long and vehement urging, or by the artificial
  giving thereof; which being not required of him, and consequently
  proceeding from his own occasions, is directed principally to his own
  benefit, and but accidentarily to the good of him that is Counselled, or
  not at all.
<br />
  Secondly, that the use of Exhortation and Dehortation lyeth onely, where a
  man is to speak to a Multitude; because when the Speech is addressed to
  one, he may interrupt him, and examine his reasons more rigorously, than
  can be done in a Multitude; which are too many to enter into Dispute, and
  Dialogue with him that speaketh indifferently to them all at once.
  Thirdly, that they that Exhort and Dehort, where they are required to give
  Counsell, are corrupt Counsellours, and as it were bribed by their own
  interest. For though the Counsell they give be never so good; yet he that
  gives it, is no more a good Counsellour, than he that giveth a Just
  Sentence for a reward, is a just Judge. But where a man may lawfully
  Command, as a Father in his Family, or a Leader in an Army, his
  Exhortations and Dehortations, are not onely lawfull, but also necessary,
  and laudable: But then they are no more Counsells, but Commands; which
  when they are for Execution of soure labour; sometimes necessity, and
  alwayes humanity requireth to be sweetned in the delivery, by
  encouragement, and in the tune and phrase of Counsell, rather then in
  harsher language of Command.
<br />
  Examples of the difference between Command and Counsell, we may take from
  the formes of Speech that expresse them in Holy Scripture. &ldquo;Have no other
  Gods but me; Make to thy selfe no graven Image; Take not Gods name in
  vain; Sanctifie the Sabbath; Honour thy Parents; Kill not; Steale not,&rdquo;
  &c. are Commands; because the reason for which we are to obey them, is
  drawn from the will of God our King, whom we are obliged to obey. But
  these words, &ldquo;Sell all thou hast; give it to the poore; and follow me,&rdquo;
  are Counsell; because the reason for which we are to do so, is drawn from
  our own benefit; which is this, that we shall have &ldquo;Treasure in Heaven.&rdquo;
  These words, &ldquo;Go into the village over against you, and you shall find an
  Asse tyed, and her Colt; loose her, and bring her to me,&rdquo; are a Command:
  for the reason of their fact is drawn from the will of their Master: but
  these words, &ldquo;Repent, and be Baptized in the Name of Jesus,&rdquo; are Counsell;
  because the reason why we should so do, tendeth not to any benefit of God
  Almighty, who shall still be King in what manner soever we rebell; but of
  our selves, who have no other means of avoyding the punishment hanging
  over us for our sins.

  Differences Of Fit And Unfit Counsellours


  As the difference of Counsell from Command, hath been now deduced from the
  nature of Counsell, consisting in a deducing of the benefit, or hurt that
  may arise to him that is to be Counselled, by the necessary or probable
  consequences of the action he propoundeth; so may also the differences
  between apt, and inept counsellours be derived from the same. For
  Experience, being but Memory of the consequences of like actions formerly
  observed, and Counsell but the Speech whereby that experience is made
  known to another; the Vertues, and Defects of Counsell, are the same with
  the Vertues, and Defects Intellectuall: And to the Person of a
  Common-wealth, his Counsellours serve him in the place of Memory, and
  Mentall Discourse. But with this resemblance of the Common-wealth, to a
  naturall man, there is one dissimilitude joyned, of great importance;
  which is, that a naturall man receiveth his experience, from the naturall
  objects of sense, which work upon him without passion, or interest of
  their own; whereas they that give Counsell to the Representative person of
  a Common-wealth, may have, and have often their particular ends, and
  passions, that render their Counsells alwayes suspected, and many times
  unfaithfull. And therefore we may set down for the first condition of a
  good Counsellour, That His Ends, And Interest, Be Not Inconsistent With
  The Ends And Interest Of Him He Counselleth.
<br />
  Secondly, Because the office of a Counsellour, when an action comes into
  deliberation, is to make manifest the consequences of it, in such manner,
  as he that is Counselled may be truly and evidently informed; he ought to
  propound his advise, in such forme of speech, as may make the truth most
  evidently appear; that is to say, with as firme ratiocination, as
  significant and proper language, and as briefly, as the evidence will
  permit. And therefore Rash, And Unevident Inferences; (such as are fetched
  onely from Examples, or authority of Books, and are not arguments of what
  is good, or evill, but witnesses of fact, or of opinion,) Obscure,
  Confused, And Ambiguous Expressions, Also All Metaphoricall Speeches,
  Tending To The Stirring Up Of Passion, (because such reasoning, and such
  expressions, are usefull onely to deceive, or to lead him we Counsell
  towards other ends than his own) Are Repugnant To The Office Of A
  Counsellour.
<br />
  Thirdly, Because the Ability of Counselling proceedeth from Experience,
  and long study; and no man is presumed to have experience in all those
  things that to the Administration of a great Common-wealth are necessary
  to be known, No Man Is Presumed To Be A Good Counsellour, But In Such
  Businesse, As He Hath Not Onely Been Much Versed In, But Hath Also Much
  Meditated On, And Considered. For seeing the businesse of a Common-wealth
  is this, to preserve the people at home, and defend them against forraign
  Invasion, we shall find, it requires great knowledge of the disposition of
  Man-kind, of the Rights of Government, and of the nature of Equity, Law,
  Justice, and Honour, not to be attained without study; And of the
  Strength, Commodities, Places, both of their own Country, and their
  Neighbours; as also of the inclinations, and designes of all Nations that
  may any way annoy them. And this is not attained to, without much
  experience. Of which things, not onely the whole summe, but every one of
  the particulars requires the age, and observation of a man in years, and
  of more than ordinary study. The wit required for Counsel, as I have said
  before is Judgement. And the differences of men in that point come from
  different education, of some to one kind of study, or businesse, and of
  others to another. When for the doing of any thing, there be Infallible
  rules, (as in Engines, and Edifices, the rules of Geometry,) all the
  experience of the world cannot equall his Counsell, that has learnt, or
  found out the Rule. And when there is no such Rule, he that hath most
  experience in that particular kind of businesse, has therein the best
  Judgement, and is the best Counsellour.
<br />
  Fourthly, to be able to give Counsell to a Common-wealth, in a businesse
  that hath reference to another Common-wealth, It Is Necessary To Be
  Acquainted With The Intelligences, And Letters That Come From Thence, And
  With All The Records Of Treaties, And Other Transactions Of State Between
  Them; which none can doe, but such as the Representative shall think fit.
  By which we may see, that they who are not called to Counsell, can have no
  good Counsell in such cases to obtrude.
<br />
  Fifthly, Supposing the number of Counsellors equall, a man is better
  Counselled by hearing them apart, then in an Assembly; and that for many
  causes. First, in hearing them apart, you have the advice of every man;
  but in an Assembly may of them deliver their advise with I, or No, or with
  their hands, or feet, not moved by their own sense, but by the eloquence
  of another, or for feare of displeasing some that have spoken, or the
  whole Assembly, by contradiction; or for feare of appearing duller in
  apprehension, than those that have applauded the contrary opinion.
  Secondly, in an Assembly of many, there cannot choose but be some whose
  interests are contrary to that of the Publique; and these their Interests
  make passionate, and Passion eloquent, and Eloquence drawes others into
  the same advice. For the Passions of men, which asunder are moderate, as
  the heat of one brand; in Assembly are like many brands, that enflame one
  another, (especially when they blow one another with Orations) to the
  setting of the Common-wealth on fire, under pretence of Counselling it.
  Thirdly, in hearing every man apart, one may examine (when there is need)
  the truth, or probability of his reasons, and of the grounds of the advise
  he gives, by frequent interruptions, and objections; which cannot be done
  in an Assembly, where (in every difficult question) a man is rather
  astonied, and dazled with the variety of discourse upon it, than informed
  of the course he ought to take. Besides, there cannot be an Assembly of
  many, called together for advice, wherein there be not some, that have the
  ambition to be thought eloquent, and also learned in the Politiques; and
  give not their advice with care of the businesse propounded, but of the
  applause of their motly orations, made of the divers colored threds, or
  shreds of Authors; which is an Impertinence at least, that takes away the
  time of serious Consultation, and in the secret way of Counselling apart,
  is easily avoided. Fourthly, in Deliberations that ought to be kept
  secret, (whereof there be many occasions in Publique Businesse,) the
  Counsells of many, and especially in Assemblies, are dangerous; And
  therefore great Assemblies are necessitated to commit such affaires to
  lesser numbers, and of such persons as are most versed, and in whose
  fidelity they have most confidence.
<br />
  To conclude, who is there that so far approves the taking of Counsell from
  a great Assembly of Counsellours, that wisheth for, or would accept of
  their pains, when there is a question of marrying his Children, disposing
  of his Lands, governing his Household, or managing his private Estate,
  especially if there be amongst them such as wish not his prosperity? A man
  that doth his businesse by the help of many and prudent Counsellours, with
  every one consulting apart in his proper element, does it best, as he that
  useth able Seconds at Tennis play, placed in their proper stations. He
  does next best, that useth his own Judgement only; as he that has no
  Second at all. But he that is carried up and down to his businesse in a
  framed Counsell, which cannot move but by the plurality of consenting
  opinions, the execution whereof is commonly (out of envy, or interest)
  retarded by the part dissenting, does it worst of all, and like one that
  is carried to the ball, though by good Players, yet in a Wheele-barrough,
  or other frame, heavy of it self, and retarded also by the inconcurrent
  judgements, and endeavours of them that drive it; and so much the more, as
  they be more that set their hands to it; and most of all, when there is
  one, or more amongst them, that desire to have him lose. And though it be
  true, that many eys see more then one; yet it is not to be understood of
  many Counsellours; but then only, when the finall Resolution is in one
  man. Otherwise, because many eyes see the same thing in divers lines, and
  are apt to look asquint towards their private benefit; they that desire
  not to misse their marke, though they look about with two eyes, yet they
  never ayme but with one; And therefore no great Popular Common-wealth was
  ever kept up; but either by a forraign Enemy that united them; or by the
  reputation of some one eminent Man amongst them; or by the secret Counsell
  of a few; or by the mutuall feare of equall factions; and not by the open
  Consultations of the Assembly. And as for very little Common-wealths, be
  they Popular, or Monarchicall, there is no humane wisdome can uphold them,
  longer then the Jealousy lasteth of their potent Neighbours.

  CHAPTER XXVI.<br />OF CIVILL LAWES

  Civill Law what


  By CIVILL LAWES, I understand the Lawes, that men are therefore bound to
  observe, because they are Members, not of this, or that Common-wealth in
  particular, but of a Common-wealth. For the knowledge of particular Lawes
  belongeth to them, that professe the study of the Lawes of their severall
  Countries; but the knowledge of Civill Law in generall, to any man. The
  antient Law of Rome was called their Civil Law, from the word Civitas,
  which signifies a Common-wealth; And those Countries, which having been
  under the Roman Empire, and governed by that Law, retaine still such part
  thereof as they think fit, call that part the Civill Law, to distinguish
  it from the rest of their own Civill Lawes. But that is not it I intend to
  speak of here; my designe being not to shew what is Law here, and there;
  but what is Law; as Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and divers others have done,
  without taking upon them the profession of the study of the Law.
<br />
  And first it manifest, that Law in generall, is not Counsell, but Command;
  nor a Command of any man to any man; but only of him, whose Command is
  addressed to one formerly obliged to obey him. And as for Civill Law, it
  addeth only the name of the person Commanding, which is Persona Civitatis,
  the Person of the Common-wealth.
<br />
  Which considered, I define Civill Law in this Manner. &ldquo;CIVILL LAW, Is to
  every Subject, those Rules, which the Common-wealth hath Commanded him, by
  Word, Writing, or other sufficient Sign of the Will, to make use of, for
  the Distinction of Right, and Wrong; that is to say, of what is contrary,
  and what is not contrary to the Rule.&rdquo;
<br />
  In which definition, there is nothing that is not at first sight evident.
  For every man seeth, that some Lawes are addressed to all the Subjects in
  generall; some to particular Provinces; some to particular Vocations; and
  some to particular Men; and are therefore Lawes, to every of those to whom
  the Command is directed; and to none else. As also, that Lawes are the
  Rules of Just, and Unjust; nothing being reputed Unjust, that is not
  contrary to some Law. Likewise, that none can make Lawes but the
  Common-wealth; because our Subjection is to the Common-wealth only: and
  that Commands, are to be signified by sufficient Signs; because a man
  knows not otherwise how to obey them. And therefore, whatsoever can from
  this definition by necessary consequence be deduced, ought to be
  acknowledged for truth. Now I deduce from it this that followeth.

  The Soveraign Is Legislator


  1. The Legislator in all Common-wealths, is only the Soveraign, be he one
  Man, as in a Monarchy, or one Assembly of men, as in a Democracy, or
  Aristocracy. For the Legislator, is he that maketh the Law. And the
  Common-wealth only, praescribes, and commandeth the observation of those
  rules, which we call Law: Therefore the Common-wealth is the Legislator.
  But the Common-wealth is no Person, nor has capacity to doe any thing, but
  by the Representative, (that is, the Soveraign;) and therefore the
  Soveraign is the sole Legislator. For the same reason, none can abrogate a
  Law made, but the Soveraign; because a Law is not abrogated, but by
  another Law, that forbiddeth it to be put in execution.

  And Not Subject To Civill Law


  2. The Soveraign of a Common-wealth, be it an Assembly, or one Man, is not
  subject to the Civill Lawes. For having power to make, and repeale Lawes,
  he may when he pleaseth, free himselfe from that subjection, by repealing
  those Lawes that trouble him, and making of new; and consequently he was
  free before. For he is free, that can be free when he will: Nor is it
  possible for any person to be bound to himselfe; because he that can bind,
  can release; and therefore he that is bound to himselfe onely, is not
  bound.

  Use, A Law Not By Vertue Of Time, But Of The Soveraigns Consent


  3. When long Use obtaineth the authority of a Law, it is not the Length of
  Time that maketh the Authority, but the Will of the Soveraign signified by
  his silence, (for Silence is sometimes an argument of Consent;) and it is
  no longer Law, then the Soveraign shall be silent therein. And therefore
  if the Soveraign shall have a question of Right grounded, not upon his
  present Will, but upon the Lawes formerly made; the Length of Time shal
  bring no prejudice to his Right; but the question shal be judged by
  Equity. For many unjust Actions, and unjust Sentences, go uncontrolled a
  longer time, than any man can remember. And our Lawyers account no
  Customes Law, but such as are reasonable, and that evill Customes are to
  be abolished; But the Judgement of what is reasonable, and of what is to
  be abolished, belongeth to him that maketh the Law, which is the Soveraign
  Assembly, or Monarch.

  The Law Of Nature, And The Civill Law Contain Each Other


  4. The Law of Nature, and the Civill Law, contain each other, and are of
  equall extent. For the Lawes of Nature, which consist in Equity, Justice,
  Gratitude, and other morall Vertues on these depending, in the condition
  of meer Nature (as I have said before in the end of the 15th Chapter,) are
  not properly Lawes, but qualities that dispose men to peace, and to
  obedience. When a Common-wealth is once settled, then are they actually
  Lawes, and not before; as being then the commands of the Common-wealth;
  and therefore also Civill Lawes: for it is the Soveraign Power that
  obliges men to obey them. For in the differences of private men, to
  declare, what is Equity, what is Justice, and what is morall Vertue, and
  to make them binding, there is need of the Ordinances of Soveraign Power,
  and Punishments to be ordained for such as shall break them; which
  Ordinances are therefore part of the Civill Law. The Law of Nature
  therefore is a part of the Civill Law in all Common-wealths of the world.
  Reciprocally also, the Civill Law is a part of the Dictates of Nature. For
  Justice, that is to say, Performance of Covenant, and giving to every man
  his own, is a Dictate of the Law of Nature. But every subject in a
  Common-wealth, hath covenanted to obey the Civill Law, (either one with
  another, as when they assemble to make a common Representative, or with
  the Representative it selfe one by one, when subdued by the Sword they
  promise obedience, that they may receive life;) And therefore Obedience to
  the Civill Law is part also of the Law of Nature. Civill, and Naturall Law
  are not different kinds, but different parts of Law; whereof one part
  being written, is called Civill, the other unwritten, Naturall. But the
  Right of Nature, that is, the naturall Liberty of man, may by the Civill
  Law be abridged, and restrained: nay, the end of making Lawes, is no
  other, but such Restraint; without the which there cannot possibly be any
  Peace. And Law was brought into the world for nothing else, but to limit
  the naturall liberty of particular men, in such manner, as they might not
  hurt, but assist one another, and joyn together against a common Enemy.

  Provinciall Lawes Are Not Made By Custome, But By The Soveraign Power


  5. If the Soveraign of one Common-wealth, subdue a people that have lived
  under other written Lawes, and afterwards govern them by the same Lawes,
  by which they were governed before; yet those Lawes are the Civill Lawes
  of the Victor, and not of the Vanquished Common-wealth, For the Legislator
  is he, not by whose authority the Lawes were first made, but by whose
  authority they now continue to be Lawes. And therefore where there be
  divers Provinces, within the Dominion of a Common-wealth, and in those
  Provinces diversity of Lawes, which commonly are called the Customes of
  each severall Province, we are not to understand that such Customes have
  their Force, onely from Length of Time; but that they were antiently Lawes
  written, or otherwise made known, for the Constitutions, and Statutes of
  their Soveraigns; and are now Lawes, not by vertue of the Praescription of
  time, but by the Constitutions of their present Soveraigns. But if an
  unwritten Law, in all the Provinces of a Dominion, shall be generally
  observed, and no iniquity appear in the use thereof; that law can be no
  other but a Law of Nature, equally obliging all man-kind.

  Some Foolish Opinions Of Lawyers Concerning The Making Of Lawes


  6. Seeing then all Lawes, written, and unwritten, have their Authority,
  and force, from the Will of the Common-wealth; that is to say, from the
  Will of the Representative; which in a Monarchy is the Monarch, and in
  other Common-wealths the Soveraign Assembly; a man may wonder from whence
  proceed such opinions, as are found in the Books of Lawyers of eminence in
  severall Common-wealths, directly, or by consequence making the
  Legislative Power depend on private men, or subordinate Judges. As for
  example, &ldquo;That the Common Law, hath no Controuler but the Parlament;&rdquo;
  which is true onely where a Parlament has the Soveraign Power, and cannot
  be assembled, nor dissolved, but by their own discretion. For if there be
  a right in any else to dissolve them, there is a right also to controule
  them, and consequently to controule their controulings. And if there be no
  such right, then the Controuler of Lawes is not Parlamentum, but Rex In
  Parlamento. And where a Parlament is Soveraign, if it should assemble
  never so many, or so wise men, from the Countries subject to them, for
  whatsoever cause; yet there is no man will believe, that such an Assembly
  hath thereby acquired to themselves a Legislative Power. Item, that the
  two arms of a Common-wealth, are Force, and Justice; The First Whereof Is
  In The King; The Other Deposited In The Hands Of The Parlament. As if a
  Common-wealth could consist, where the Force were in any hand, which
  Justice had not the Authority to command and govern.
<br />
  7. That Law can never be against Reason, our Lawyers are agreed; and that
  not the Letter,(that is, every construction of it,) but that which is
  according to the Intention of the Legislator, is the Law. And it is true:
  but the doubt is, of whose Reason it is, that shall be received for Law.
  It is not meant of any private Reason; for then there would be as much
  contradiction in the Lawes, as there is in the Schooles; nor yet (as Sr.
  Ed, Coke makes it (Sir Edward Coke, upon Littleton Lib.2. Ch.6 fol 97.b),)
  an Artificiall Perfection of Reason, Gotten By Long Study, Observation,
  And Experience, (as his was.) For it is possible long study may encrease,
  and confirm erroneous Sentences: and where men build on false grounds, the
  more they build, the greater is the ruine; and of those that study, and
  observe with equall time, and diligence, the reasons and resolutions are,
  and must remain discordant: and therefore it is not that Juris Prudentia,
  or wisedome of subordinate Judges; but the Reason of this our Artificiall
  Man the Common-wealth, and his Command, that maketh Law: And the
  Common-wealth being in their Representative but one Person, there cannot
  easily arise any contradiction in the Lawes; and when there doth, the same
  Reason is able, by interpretation, or alteration, to take it away. In all
  Courts of Justice, the Soveraign (which is the Person of the
  Common-wealth,) is he that Judgeth: The subordinate Judge, ought to have
  regard to the reason, which moved his Soveraign to make such Law, that his
  Sentence may be according thereunto; which then is his Soveraigns
  Sentence; otherwise it is his own, and an unjust one.

  Law Made, If Not Also Made Known, Is No Law


  8. From this, that the Law is a Command, and a Command consisteth in
  declaration, or manifestation of the will of him that commandeth, by
  voyce, writing, or some other sufficient argument of the same, we may
  understand, that the Command of the Common-wealth, is Law onely to those,
  that have means to take notice of it. Over naturall fooles, children, or
  mad-men there is no Law, no more than over brute beasts; nor are they
  capable of the title of just, or unjust; because they had never power to
  make any covenant, or to understand the consequences thereof; and
  consequently never took upon them to authorise the actions of any
  Soveraign, as they must do that make to themselves a Common-wealth. And as
  those from whom Nature, or Accident hath taken away the notice of all
  Lawes in generall; so also every man, from whom any accident, not
  proceeding from his own default, hath taken away the means to take notice
  of any particular Law, is excused, if he observe it not; And to speak
  properly, that Law is no Law to him. It is therefore necessary, to
  consider in this place, what arguments, and signes be sufficient for the
  knowledge of what is the Law; that is to say, what is the will of the
  Soveraign, as well in Monarchies, as in other formes of government.

  Unwritten Lawes Are All Of Them Lawes Of Nature


  And first, if it be a Law that obliges all the Subjects without exception,
  and is not written, nor otherwise published in such places as they may
  take notice thereof, it is a Law of Nature. For whatsoever men are to take
  knowledge of for Law, not upon other mens words, but every one from his
  own reason, must be such as is agreeable to the reason of all men; which
  no Law can be, but the Law of Nature. The Lawes of Nature therefore need
  not any publishing, nor Proclamation; as being contained in this one
  Sentence, approved by all the world, &ldquo;Do not that to another, which thou
  thinkest unreasonable to be done by another to thy selfe.&rdquo;
<br />
  Secondly, if it be a Law that obliges only some condition of men, or one
  particular man and be not written, nor published by word, then also it is
  a Law of Nature; and known by the same arguments, and signs, that
  distinguish those in such a condition, from other Subjects. For whatsoever
  Law is not written, or some way published by him that makes it Law, can be
  known no way, but by the reason of him that is to obey it; and is
  therefore also a Law not only Civill, but Naturall. For example, if the
  Soveraign employ a Publique Minister, without written Instructions what to
  doe; he is obliged to take for Instructions the Dictates of Reason; As if
  he make a Judge, The Judge is to take notice, that his Sentence ought to
  be according to the reason of his Soveraign, which being alwaies
  understood to be Equity, he is bound to it by the Law of Nature: Or if an
  Ambassador, he is (in al things not conteined in his written Instructions)
  to take for Instruction that which Reason dictates to be most conducing to
  his Soveraigns interest; and so of all other Ministers of the Soveraignty,
  publique and private. All which Instructions of naturall Reason may be
  comprehended under one name of Fidelity; which is a branch of naturall
  Justice.
<br />
  The Law of Nature excepted, it belongeth to the essence of all other
  Lawes, to be made known, to every man that shall be obliged to obey them,
  either by word, or writing, or some other act, known to proceed from the
  Soveraign Authority. For the will of another, cannot be understood, but by
  his own word, or act, or by conjecture taken from his scope and purpose;
  which in the person of the Common-wealth, is to be supposed alwaies
  consonant to Equity and Reason. And in antient time, before letters were
  in common use, the Lawes were many times put into verse; that the rude
  people taking pleasure in singing, or reciting them, might the more easily
  reteine them in memory. And for the same reason Solomon adviseth a man, to
  bind the ten Commandements (Prov. 7. 3) upon his ten fingers. And for the
  Law which Moses gave to the people of Israel at the renewing of the
  Covenant, (Deut. 11. 19) he biddeth them to teach it their Children, by
  discoursing of it both at home, and upon the way; at going to bed, and at
  rising from bed; and to write it upon the posts, and dores of their
  houses; and (Deut. 31. 12) to assemble the people, man, woman, and child,
  to heare it read.

  Nothing Is Law Where The Legislator Cannot Be Known


  Nor is it enough the Law be written, and published; but also that there be
  manifest signs, that it proceedeth from the will of the Soveraign. For
  private men, when they have, or think they have force enough to secure
  their unjust designes, and convoy them safely to their ambitious ends, may
  publish for Lawes what they please, without, or against the Legislative
  Authority. There is therefore requisite, not only a Declaration of the
  Law, but also sufficient signes of the Author, and Authority. The Author,
  or Legislator is supposed in every Common-wealth to be evident, because he
  is the Soveraign, who having been Constituted by the consent of every one,
  is supposed by every one to be sufficiently known. And though the
  ignorance, and security of men be such, for the most part, as that when
  the memory of the first Constitution of their Common-wealth is worn out,
  they doe not consider, by whose power they use to be defended against
  their enemies, and to have their industry protected, and to be righted
  when injury is done them; yet because no man that considers, can make
  question of it, no excuse can be derived from the ignorance of where the
  Soveraignty is placed. And it is a Dictate of Naturall Reason, and
  consequently an evident Law of Nature, that no man ought to weaken that
  power, the protection whereof he hath himself demanded, or wittingly
  received against others. Therefore of who is Soveraign, no man, but by his
  own fault, (whatsoever evill men suggest,) can make any doubt. The
  difficulty consisteth in the evidence of the Authority derived from him;
  The removing whereof, dependeth on the knowledge of the publique
  Registers, publique Counsels, publique Ministers, and publique Seales; by
  which all Lawes are sufficiently verified.

  Difference Between Verifying And Authorising


  Verifyed, I say, not Authorised: for the Verification, is but the
  Testimony and Record; not the Authority of the law; which consisteth in
  the Command of the Soveraign only.

  The Law Verifyed By The Subordinate Judge


  If therefore a man have a question of Injury, depending on the Law of
  Nature; that is to say, on common Equity; the Sentence of the Judge, that
  by Commission hath Authority to take cognisance of such causes, is a
  sufficient Verification of the Law of Nature in that individuall case. For
  though the advice of one that professeth the study of the Law, be usefull
  for the avoyding of contention; yet it is but advice; tis the Judge must
  tell men what is Law, upon the hearing of the Controversy.

  By The Publique Registers


  But when the question is of injury, or crime, upon a written Law; every
  man by recourse to the Registers, by himself, or others, may (if he will)
  be sufficiently enformed, before he doe such injury, or commit the crime,
  whither it be an injury, or not: Nay he ought to doe so: for when a man
  doubts whether the act he goeth about, be just, or injust; and may informe
  himself, if he will; the doing is unlawfull. In like manner, he that
  supposeth himself injured, in a case determined by the written Law, which
  he may by himself, or others see and consider; if he complaine before he
  consults with the Law, he does unjustly, and bewrayeth a disposition
  rather to vex other men, than to demand his own right.

  By Letters Patent, And Publique Seale


  If the question be of Obedience to a publique Officer; To have seen his
  Commission, with the Publique Seale, and heard it read; or to have had the
  means to be informed of it, if a man would, is a sufficient Verification
  of his Authority. For every man is obliged to doe his best endeavour, to
  informe himself of all written Lawes, that may concerne his own future
  actions.

  The Interpretation Of The Law Dependeth On The Soveraign Power


  The Legislator known; and the Lawes, either by writing, or by the light of
  Nature, sufficiently published; there wanteth yet another very materiall
  circumstance to make them obligatory. For it is not the Letter, but the
  Intendment, or Meaning; that is to say, the authentique Interpretation of
  the Law (which is the sense of the Legislator,) in which the nature of the
  Law consisteth; And therefore the Interpretation of all Lawes dependeth on
  the Authority Soveraign; and the Interpreters can be none but those, which
  the Soveraign, (to whom only the Subject oweth obedience) shall appoint.
  For else, by the craft of an Interpreter, the Law my be made to beare a
  sense, contrary to that of the Soveraign; by which means the Interpreter
  becomes the Legislator.

  All Lawes Need Interpretation


  All Laws, written, and unwritten, have need of Interpretation. The
  unwritten Law of Nature, though it be easy to such, as without partiality,
  and passion, make use of their naturall reason, and therefore leaves the
  violators thereof without excuse; yet considering there be very few,
  perhaps none, that in some cases are not blinded by self love, or some
  other passion, it is now become of all Laws the most obscure; and has
  consequently the greatest need of able Interpreters. The written Laws, if
  they be short, are easily mis-interpreted, from the divers significations
  of a word, or two; if long, they be more obscure by the diverse
  significations of many words: in so much as no written Law, delivered in
  few, or many words, can be well understood, without a perfect
  understanding of the finall causes, for which the Law was made; the
  knowledge of which finall causes is in the Legislator. To him therefore
  there can not be any knot in the Law, insoluble; either by finding out the
  ends, to undoe it by; or else by making what ends he will, (as Alexander
  did with his sword in the Gordian knot,) by the Legislative power; which
  no other Interpreter can doe.

  The Authenticall Interpretation Of Law Is Not That Of Writers


  The Interpretation of the Lawes of Nature, in a Common-wealth, dependeth
  not on the books of Morall Philosophy. The Authority of writers, without
  the Authority of the Common-wealth, maketh not their opinions Law, be they
  never so true. That which I have written in this Treatise, concerning the
  Morall Vertues, and of their necessity, for the procuring, and maintaining
  peace, though it bee evident Truth, is not therefore presently Law; but
  because in all Common-wealths in the world, it is part of the Civill Law:
  For though it be naturally reasonable; yet it is by the Soveraigne Power
  that it is Law: Otherwise, it were a great errour, to call the Lawes of
  Nature unwritten Law; whereof wee see so many volumes published, and in
  them so many contradictions of one another, and of themselves.

  The Interpreter Of The Law Is The Judge Giving Sentence Vivâ Voce In
  Every Particular Case


  The Interpretation of the Law of Nature, is the Sentence of the Judge
  constituted by the Soveraign Authority, to heare and determine such
  controversies, as depend thereon; and consisteth in the application of the
  Law to the present case. For in the act of Judicature, the Judge doth no
  more but consider, whither the demand of the party, be consonant to
  naturall reason, and Equity; and the Sentence he giveth, is therefore the
  Interpretation of the Law of Nature; which Interpretation is Authentique;
  not because it is his private Sentence; but because he giveth it by
  Authority of the Soveraign, whereby it becomes the Soveraigns Sentence;
  which is Law for that time, to the parties pleading.

  The Sentence Of A Judge, Does Not Bind Him, Or Another Judge To Give Like
  Sentence In Like Cases Ever After


  But because there is no Judge Subordinate, nor Soveraign, but may erre in
  a Judgement of Equity; if afterward in another like case he find it more
  consonant to Equity to give a contrary Sentence, he is obliged to doe it.
  No mans error becomes his own Law; nor obliges him to persist in it.
  Neither (for the same reason) becomes it a Law to other Judges, though
  sworn to follow it. For though a wrong Sentence given by authority of the
  Soveraign, if he know and allow it, in such Lawes as are mutable, be a
  constitution of a new Law, in cases, in which every little circumstance is
  the same; yet in Lawes immutable, such as are the Lawes of Nature, they
  are no Lawes to the same, or other Judges, in the like cases for ever
  after. Princes succeed one another; and one Judge passeth, another
  commeth; nay, Heaven and Earth shall passe; but not one title of the Law
  of Nature shall passe; for it is the Eternall Law of God. Therefore all
  the Sentences of precedent Judges that have ever been, cannot all together
  make a Law contrary to naturall Equity: Nor any Examples of former Judges,
  can warrant an unreasonable Sentence, or discharge the present Judge of
  the trouble of studying what is Equity (in the case he is to Judge,) from
  the principles of his own naturall reason. For example sake, &rsquo;Tis against
  the Law of Nature, To Punish The Innocent; and Innocent is he that
  acquitteth himselfe Judicially, and is acknowledged for Innocent by the
  Judge. Put the case now, that a man is accused of a capitall crime, and
  seeing the powers and malice of some enemy, and the frequent corruption
  and partiality of Judges, runneth away for feare of the event, and
  afterwards is taken, and brought to a legall triall, and maketh it
  sufficiently appear, he was not guilty of the crime, and being thereof
  acquitted, is neverthelesse condemned to lose his goods; this is a
  manifest condemnation of the Innocent. I say therefore, that there is no
  place in the world, where this can be an interpretation of a Law of
  Nature, or be made a Law by the Sentences of precedent Judges, that had
  done the same. For he that judged it first, judged unjustly; and no
  Injustice can be a pattern of Judgement to succeeding Judges. A written
  Law may forbid innocent men to fly, and they may be punished for flying:
  But that flying for feare of injury, should be taken for presumption of
  guilt, after a man is already absolved of the crime Judicially, is
  contrary to the nature of a Presumption, which hath no place after
  Judgement given. Yet this is set down by a great Lawyer for the common Law
  of England. &ldquo;If a man,&rdquo; saith he, &ldquo;that is Innocent, be accused of Felony,
  and for feare flyeth for the same; albeit he judicially acquitteth
  himselfe of the Felony; yet if it be found that he fled for the Felony, he
  shall notwithstanding his Innocency, Forfeit all his goods, chattels,
  debts, and duties. For as to the Forfeiture of them, the Law will admit no
  proofe against the Presumption in Law, grounded upon his flight.&rdquo; Here you
  see, An Innocent Man, Judicially Acquitted, Notwithstanding His Innocency,
  (when no written Law forbad him to fly) after his acquitall, Upon A
  Presumption In Law, condemned to lose all the goods he hath. If the Law
  ground upon his flight a Presumption of the fact, (which was Capitall,)
  the Sentence ought to have been Capitall: if the presumption were not of
  the Fact, for what then ought he to lose his goods? This therefore is no
  Law of England; nor is the condemnation grounded upon a Presumption of
  Law, but upon the Presumption of the Judges. It is also against Law, to
  say that no Proofe shall be admitted against a Presumption of Law. For all
  Judges, Soveraign and subordinate, if they refuse to heare Proofe, refuse
  to do Justice: for though the Sentence be Just, yet the Judges that
  condemn without hearing the Proofes offered, are Unjust Judges; and their
  Presumption is but Prejudice; which no man ought to bring with him to the
  Seat of Justice, whatsoever precedent judgements, or examples he shall
  pretend to follow. There be other things of this nature, wherein mens
  Judgements have been perverted, by trusting to Precedents: but this is
  enough to shew, that though the Sentence of the Judge, be a Law to the
  party pleading, yet it is no Law to any Judge, that shall succeed him in
  that Office.
<br />
  In like manner, when question is of the Meaning of written Lawes, he is
  not the Interpreter of them, that writeth a Commentary upon them. For
  Commentaries are commonly more subject to cavill, than the Text; and
  therefore need other Commentaries; and so there will be no end of such
  Interpretation. And therefore unlesse there be an Interpreter authorised
  by the Soveraign, from which the subordinate Judges are not to recede, the
  Interpreter can be no other than the ordinary Judges, in the some manner,
  as they are in cases of the unwritten Law; and their Sentences are to be
  taken by them that plead, for Lawes in that particular case; but not to
  bind other Judges, in like cases to give like judgements. For a Judge may
  erre in the Interpretation even of written Lawes; but no errour of a
  subordinate Judge, can change the Law, which is the generall Sentence of
  the Soveraigne.

  The Difference Between The Letter And Sentence Of The Law


  In written Lawes, men use to make a difference between the Letter, and the
  Sentence of the Law: And when by the Letter, is meant whatsoever can be
  gathered from the bare words, &rsquo;tis well distinguished. For the
  significations of almost all words, are either in themselves, or in the
  metaphoricall use of them, ambiguous; and may be drawn in argument, to
  make many senses; but there is onely one sense of the Law. But if by the
  Letter, be meant the Literall sense, then the Letter, and the Sentence or
  intention of the Law, is all one. For the literall sense is that, which
  the Legislator is alwayes supposed to be Equity: For it were a great
  contumely for a Judge to think otherwise of the Soveraigne. He ought
  therefore, if the Word of the Law doe not fully authorise a reasonable
  Sentence, to supply it with the Law of Nature; or if the case be
  difficult, to respit Judgement till he have received more ample authority.
  For Example, a written Law ordaineth, that he which is thrust out of his
  house by force, shall be restored by force: It happens that a man by
  negligence leaves his house empty, and returning is kept out by force, in
  which case there is no speciall Law ordained. It is evident, that this
  case is contained in the same Law: for else there is no remedy for him at
  all; which is to be supposed against the Intention of the Legislator.
  Again, the word of the Law, commandeth to Judge according to the Evidence:
  A man is accused falsly of a fact, which the Judge saw himself done by
  another; and not by him that is accused. In this case neither shall the
  Letter of the Law be followed to the condemnation of the Innocent, nor
  shall the Judge give Sentence against the evidence of the Witnesses;
  because the Letter of the Law is to the contrary: but procure of the
  Soveraign that another be made Judge, and himselfe Witnesse. So that the
  incommodity that follows the bare words of a written Law, may lead him to
  the Intention of the Law, whereby to interpret the same the better; though
  no Incommodity can warrant a Sentence against the Law. For every Judge of
  Right, and Wrong, is not Judge of what is Commodious, or Incommodious to
  the Common-wealth.

  The Abilities Required In A Judge


  The abilities required in a good Interpreter of the Law, that is to say,
  in a good Judge, are not the same with those of an Advocate; namely the
  study of the Lawes. For a Judge, as he ought to take notice of the Fact,
  from none but the Witnesses; so also he ought to take notice of the Law,
  from nothing but the Statutes, and Constitutions of the Soveraign,
  alledged in the pleading, or declared to him by some that have authority
  from the Soveraign Power to declare them; and need not take care
  before-hand, what hee shall Judge; for it shall bee given him what hee
  shall say concerning the Fact, by Witnesses; and what hee shall say in
  point of Law, from those that shall in their pleadings shew it, and by
  authority interpret it upon the place. The Lords of Parlament in England
  were Judges, and most difficult causes have been heard and determined by
  them; yet few of them were much versed in the study of the Lawes, and
  fewer had made profession of them: and though they consulted with Lawyers,
  that were appointed to be present there for that purpose; yet they alone
  had the authority of giving Sentence. In like manner, in the ordinary
  trialls of Right, Twelve men of the common People, are the Judges, and
  give Sentence, not onely of the Fact, but of the Right; and pronounce
  simply for the Complaynant, or for the Defendant; that is to say, are
  Judges not onely of the Fact, but also of the Right: and in a question of
  crime, not onely determine whether done, or not done; but also whether it
  be Murder, Homicide, Felony, Assault, and the like, which are
  determinations of Law: but because they are not supposed to know the Law
  of themselves, there is one that hath Authority to enforme them of it, in
  the particular case they are to Judge of. But yet if they judge not
  according to that he tells them, they are not subject thereby to any
  penalty; unlesse it be made appear, they did it against their consciences,
  or had been corrupted by reward. The things that make a good Judge, or
  good Interpreter of the Lawes, are, first A Right Understanding of that
  principall Law of Nature called Equity; which depending not on the reading
  of other mens Writings, but on the goodnesse of a mans own naturall
  Reason, and Meditation, is presumed to be in those most, that have had
  most leisure, and had the most inclination to meditate thereon. Secondly,
  Contempt Of Unnecessary Riches, and Preferments. Thirdly, To Be Able In
  Judgement To Devest Himselfe Of All Feare, Anger, Hatred, Love, And
  Compassion. Fourthly, and lastly, Patience To Heare; Diligent Attention In
  Hearing; And Memory To Retain, Digest And Apply What He Hath Heard.

  Divisions Of Law


  The difference and division of the Lawes, has been made in divers manners,
  according to the different methods, of those men that have written of
  them. For it is a thing that dependeth not on Nature, but on the scope of
  the Writer; and is subservient to every mans proper method. In the
  Institutions of Justinian, we find seven sorts of Civill Lawes.
<br />
  1. The Edicts, Constitutions, and Epistles Of The Prince, that is, of the
  Emperour; because the whole power of the people was in him. Like these,
  are the Proclamations of the Kings of England.
<br />
  2. The Decrees Of The Whole People Of Rome (comprehending the Senate,)
  when they were put to the Question by the Senate. These were Lawes, at
  first, by the vertue of the Soveraign Power residing in the people; and
  such of them as by the Emperours were not abrogated, remained Lawes by the
  Authority Imperiall. For all Lawes that bind, are understood to be Lawes
  by his authority that has power to repeale them. Somewhat like to these
  Lawes, are the Acts of Parliament in England.
<br />
  3. The Decrees Of The Common People (excluding the Senate,) when they were
  put to the question by the Tribune of the people. For such of them as were
  not abrogated by the Emperours, remained Lawes by the Authority Imperiall.
  Like to these, were the Orders of the House of Commons in England.
<br />
  4. Senatus Consulta, the Orders Of The Senate; because when the people of
  Rome grew so numerous, as it was inconvenient to assemble them; it was
  thought fit by the Emperour, that men should Consult the Senate in stead
  of the people: And these have some resemblance with the Acts of Counsell.
<br />
  5. The Edicts Of Praetors, and (in some Cases) of the Aediles: such as are
  the Chiefe Justices in the Courts of England.
<br />
  6. Responsa Prudentum; which were the Sentences, and Opinions of those
  Lawyers, to whom the Emperour gave Authority to interpret the Law, and to
  give answer to such as in matter of Law demanded their advice; which
  Answers, the Judges in giving Judgement were obliged by the Constitutions
  of the Emperour to observe; And should be like the Reports of Cases
  Judged, if other Judges be by the Law of England bound to observe them.
  For the Judges of the Common Law of England, are not properly Judges, but
  Juris Consulti; of whom the Judges, who are either the Lords, or Twelve
  men of the Country, are in point of Law to ask advice.
<br />
  7. Also, Unwritten Customes, (which in their own nature are an imitation
  of Law,) by the tacite consent of the Emperour, in case they be not
  contrary to the Law of Nature, are very Lawes.
<br />
  Another division of Lawes, is into Naturall and Positive. Naturall are
  those which have been Lawes from all Eternity; and are called not onely
  Naturall, but also Morall Lawes; consisting in the Morall Vertues, as
  Justice, Equity, and all habits of the mind that conduce to Peace, and
  Charity; of which I have already spoken in the fourteenth and fifteenth
  Chapters.
<br />
  Positive, are those which have not been for Eternity; but have been made
  Lawes by the Will of those that have had the Soveraign Power over others;
  and are either written, or made known to men, by some other argument of
  the Will of their Legislator.

  Another Division Of Law


  Again, of Positive Lawes some are Humane, some Divine; And of Humane
  positive lawes, some are Distributive, some Penal. Distributive are those
  that determine the Rights of the Subjects, declaring to every man what it
  is, by which he acquireth and holdeth a propriety in lands, or goods, and
  a right or liberty of action; and these speak to all the Subjects. Penal
  are those, which declare, what Penalty shall be inflicted on those that
  violate the Law; and speak to the Ministers and Officers ordained for
  execution. For though every one ought to be informed of the Punishments
  ordained beforehand for their transgression; neverthelesse the Command is
  not addressed to the Delinquent, (who cannot be supposed will faithfully
  punish himselfe,) but to publique Ministers appointed to see the Penalty
  executed. And these Penal Lawes are for the most part written together
  with the Lawes Distributive; and are sometimes called Judgements. For all
  Lawes are generall judgements, or Sentences of the Legislator; as also
  every particular Judgement, is a Law to him, whose case is Judged.

  Divine Positive Law How Made Known To Be Law


  Divine Positive Lawes (for Naturall Lawes being Eternall, and Universall,
  are all Divine,) are those, which being the Commandements of God, (not
  from all Eternity, nor universally addressed to all men, but onely to a
  certain people, or to certain persons,) are declared for such, by those
  whom God hath authorised to declare them. But this Authority of man to
  declare what be these Positive Lawes of God, how can it be known? God may
  command a man by a supernaturall way, to deliver Lawes to other men. But
  because it is of the essence of Law, that he who is to be obliged, be
  assured of the Authority of him that declareth it, which we cannot
  naturally take notice to be from God, How Can A Man Without Supernaturall
  Revelation Be Assured Of The Revelation Received By The Declarer? and How
  Can He Be Bound To Obey Them? For the first question, how a man can be
  assured of the Revelation of another, without a Revelation particularly to
  himselfe, it is evidently impossible: for though a man may be induced to
  believe such Revelation, from the Miracles they see him doe, or from
  seeing the Extraordinary sanctity of his life, or from seeing the
  Extraordinary wisedome, or Extraordinary felicity of his Actions, all
  which are marks of Gods extraordinary favour; yet they are not assured
  evidence of speciall Revelation. Miracles are Marvellous workes: but that
  which is marvellous to one, may not be so to another. Sanctity may be
  feigned; and the visible felicities of this world, are most often the work
  of God by Naturall, and ordinary causes. And therefore no man can
  infallibly know by naturall reason, that another has had a supernaturall
  revelation of Gods will; but only a beliefe; every one (as the signs
  thereof shall appear greater, or lesser) a firmer, or a weaker belief.
<br />
  But for the second, how he can be bound to obey them; it is not so hard.
  For if the Law declared, be not against the Law of Nature (which is
  undoubtedly Gods Law) and he undertake to obey it, he is bound by his own
  act; bound I say to obey it, but not bound to believe it: for mens
  beliefe, and interiour cogitations, are not subject to the commands, but
  only to the operation of God, ordinary, or extraordinary. Faith of
  Supernaturall Law, is not a fulfilling, but only an assenting to the same;
  and not a duty that we exhibite to God, but a gift which God freely giveth
  to whom he pleaseth; as also Unbelief is not a breach of any of his Lawes;
  but a rejection of them all, except the Lawes Naturall. But this that I
  say, will be made yet cleerer, by the Examples, and Testimonies concerning
  this point in holy Scripture. The Covenant God made with Abraham (in a
  Supernaturall Manner) was thus, (Gen. 17. 10) &ldquo;This is the Covenant which
  thou shalt observe between Me and Thee and thy Seed after thee.&rdquo; Abrahams
  Seed had not this revelation, nor were yet in being; yet they are a party
  to the Covenant, and bound to obey what Abraham should declare to them for
  Gods Law; which they could not be, but in vertue of the obedience they
  owed to their Parents; who (if they be Subject to no other earthly power,
  as here in the case of Abraham) have Soveraign power over their children,
  and servants. Againe, where God saith to Abraham, &ldquo;In thee shall all
  Nations of the earth be blessed: For I know thou wilt command thy
  children, and thy house after thee to keep the way of the Lord, and to
  observe Righteousnesse and Judgement,&rdquo; it is manifest, the obedience of
  his Family, who had no Revelation, depended on their former obligation to
  obey their Soveraign. At Mount Sinai Moses only went up to God; the people
  were forbidden to approach on paine of death; yet were they bound to obey
  all that Moses declared to them for Gods Law. Upon what ground, but on
  this submission of their own, &ldquo;Speak thou to us, and we will heare thee;
  but let not God speak to us, lest we dye?&rdquo; By which two places it
  sufficiently appeareth, that in a Common-wealth, a subject that has no
  certain and assured Revelation particularly to himself concerning the Will
  of God, is to obey for such, the Command of the Common-wealth: for if men
  were at liberty, to take for Gods Commandements, their own dreams, and
  fancies, or the dreams and fancies of private men; scarce two men would
  agree upon what is Gods Commandement; and yet in respect of them, every
  man would despise the Commandements of the Common-wealth. I conclude
  therefore, that in all things not contrary to the Morall Law, (that is to
  say, to the Law of Nature,) all Subjects are bound to obey that for divine
  Law, which is declared to be so, by the Lawes of the Common-wealth. Which
  also is evident to any mans reason; for whatsoever is not against the Law
  of Nature, may be made Law in the name of them that have the Soveraign
  power; and there is no reason men should be the lesse obliged by it, when
  tis propounded in the name of God. Besides, there is no place in the world
  where men are permitted to pretend other Commandements of God, than are
  declared for such by the Common-wealth. Christian States punish those that
  revolt from Christian Religion, and all other States, those that set up
  any Religion by them forbidden. For in whatsoever is not regulated by the
  Common-wealth, tis Equity (which is the Law of Nature, and therefore an
  eternall Law of God) that every man equally enjoy his liberty.

  Another Division Of Lawes


  There is also another distinction of Laws, into Fundamentall, and Not
  Fundamentall: but I could never see in any Author, what a Fundamentall Law
  signifieth. Neverthelesse one may very reasonably distinguish Laws in that
  manner.

  A Fundamentall Law What


  For a Fundamentall Law in every Common-wealth is that, which being taken
  away, the Common-wealth faileth, and is utterly dissolved; as a building
  whose Foundation is destroyed. And therefore a Fundamentall Law is that,
  by which Subjects are bound to uphold whatsoever power is given to the
  Soveraign, whether a Monarch, or a Soveraign Assembly, without which the
  Common-wealth cannot stand, such as is the power of War and Peace, of
  Judicature, of Election of Officers, and of doing whatsoever he shall
  think necessary for the Publique good. Not Fundamentall is that the
  abrogating whereof, draweth not with it the dissolution of the
  Common-Wealth; such as are the Lawes Concerning Controversies between
  subject and subject. Thus much of the Division of Lawes.

  Difference Between Law And Right


  I find the words Lex Civilis, and Jus Civile, that is to say, Law and
  Right Civil, promiscuously used for the same thing, even in the most
  learned Authors; which neverthelesse ought not to be so. For Right is
  Liberty, namely that Liberty which the Civil Law leaves us: But Civill Law
  is an Obligation; and takes from us the Liberty which the Law of Nature
  gave us. Nature gave a Right to every man to secure himselfe by his own
  strength, and to invade a suspected neighbour, by way of prevention; but
  the Civill Law takes away that Liberty, in all cases where the protection
  of the Lawe may be safely stayd for. Insomuch as Lex and Jus, are as
  different as Obligation and Liberty.

  And Between A Law And A Charter


  Likewise Lawes and Charters are taken promiscuously for the same thing.
  Yet Charters are Donations of the Soveraign; and not Lawes, but exemptions
  from Law. The phrase of a Law is Jubeo, Injungo, I Command, and Enjoyn:
  the phrase of a Charter is Dedi, Concessi, I Have Given, I Have Granted:
  but what is given or granted, to a man, is not forced upon him, by a Law.
  A Law may be made to bind All the Subjects of a Common-wealth: a Liberty,
  or Charter is only to One man, or some One part of the people. For to say
  all the people of a Common-wealth, have Liberty in any case whatsoever; is
  to say, that in such case, there hath been no Law made; or else having
  been made, is now abrogated.

  CHAPTER XXVII.<br />OF CRIMES, EXCUSES, AND EXTENUATIONS


  Sinne What
<br />
  A Sinne, is not onely a Transgression of a Law, but also any Contempt of
  the Legislator. For such Contempt, is a breach of all his Lawes at once.
  And therefore may consist, not onely in the Commission of a Fact, or in
  the Speaking of Words by the Lawes forbidden, or in the Omission of what
  the Law commandeth, but also in the Intention, or purpose to transgresse.
  For the purpose to breake the Law, is some degree of Contempt of him, to
  whom it belongeth to see it executed. To be delighted in the Imagination
  onely, of being possessed of another mans goods, servants, or wife,
  without any intention to take them from him by force, or fraud, is no
  breach of the Law, that sayth, &ldquo;Thou shalt not covet:&rdquo; nor is the pleasure
  a man my have in imagining, or dreaming of the death of him, from whose
  life he expecteth nothing but dammage, and displeasure, a Sinne; but the
  resolving to put some Act in execution, that tendeth thereto. For to be
  pleased in the fiction of that, which would please a man if it were reall,
  is a Passion so adhaerent to the Nature both of a man, and every other
  living creature, as to make it a Sinne, were to make Sinne of being a man.
  The consideration of this, has made me think them too severe, both to
  themselves, and others, that maintain, that the First motions of the mind,
  (though checked with the fear of God) be Sinnes. But I confesse it is
  safer to erre on that hand, than on the other.

  A Crime What


  A Crime, is a sinne, consisting in the Committing (by Deed, or Word) of
  that which the Law forbiddeth, or the Omission of what it hath commanded.
  So that every Crime is a sinne; but not every sinne a Crime. To intend to
  steale, or kill, is a sinne, though it never appeare in Word, or Fact: for
  God that seeth the thoughts of man, can lay it to his charge: but till it
  appear by some thing done, or said, by which the intention may be Crime;
  which distinction the Greeks observed in the word amartema, and egklema,
  or aitia; wherof the former, (which is translated Sinne,) signifieth any
  swarving from the Law whatsoever; but the two later, (which are translated
  Crime,) signifie that sinne onely, whereof one man may accuse another. But
  of Intentions, which never appear by any outward act, there is no place
  for humane accusation. In like manner the Latines by Peccatum, which is
  Sinne, signifie all manner of deviation from the Law; but by crimen,
  (which word they derive from Cerno, which signifies to perceive,) they
  mean onely such sinnes, as my be made appear before a Judge; and therfore
  are not meer Intentions.

  Where No Civill Law Is, There Is No Crime


  From this relation of Sinne to the Law, and of Crime to the Civill Law,
  may be inferred, First, that where Law ceaseth, Sinne ceaseth. But because
  the Law of Nature is eternall, Violation of Covenants, Ingratitude,
  Arrogance, and all Facts contrary to any Morall vertue, can never cease to
  be Sinne. Secondly, that the Civill Law ceasing, Crimes cease: for there
  being no other Law remaining, but that of Nature, there is no place for
  Accusation; every man being his own Judge, and accused onely by his own
  Conscience, and cleared by the Uprightnesse of his own Intention. When
  therefore his Intention is Right, his fact is no Sinne: if otherwise, his
  fact is Sinne; but not Crime. Thirdly, That when the Soveraign Power
  ceaseth, Crime also ceaseth: for where there is no such Power, there is no
  protection to be had from the Law; and therefore every one may protect
  himself by his own power: for no man in the Institution of Soveraign Power
  can be supposed to give away the Right of preserving his own body; for the
  safety whereof all Soveraignty was ordained. But this is to be understood
  onely of those, that have not themselves contributed to the taking away of
  the Power that protected them: for that was a Crime from the beginning.

  Ignorance Of The Law Of Nature Excuseth No Man


  The source of every Crime, is some defect of the Understanding; or some
  errour in Reasoning, or some sudden force of the Passions. Defect in the
  Understanding, is Ignorance; in Reasoning, Erroneous Opinion. Again,
  ignorance is of three sort; of the Law, and of the Soveraign, and of the
  Penalty. Ignorance of the Law of Nature Excuseth no man; because every man
  that hath attained to the use of Reason, is supposed to know, he ought not
  to do to another, what he would not have done to himselfe. Therefore into
  what place soever a man shall come, if he do any thing contrary to that
  Law, it is a Crime. If a man come from the Indies hither, and perswade men
  here to receive a new Religion, or teach them any thing that tendeth to
  disobedience of the Lawes of this Country, though he be never so well
  perswaded of the truth of what he teacheth, he commits a Crime, and may be
  justly punished for the same, not onely because his doctrine is false, but
  also because he does that which he would not approve in another, namely,
  that comming from hence, he should endeavour to alter the Religion there.
  But ignorance of the Civill Law, shall Excuse a man in a strange Country,
  till it be declared to him; because, till then no Civill Law is binding.

  Ignorance Of The Civill Law Excuseth Sometimes


  In the like manner, if the Civill Law of a mans own Country, be not so
  sufficiently declared, as he may know it if he will; nor the Action
  against the Law of Nature; the Ignorance is a good Excuse: In other cases
  ignorance of the Civill Law, Excuseth not.

  Ignorance Of The Soveraign Excuseth Not


  Ignorance of the Soveraign Power, in the place of a mans ordinary
  residence, Excuseth him not; because he ought to take notice of the Power,
  by which he hath been protected there.

  Ignorance Of The Penalty Excuseth Not


  Ignorance of the Penalty, where the Law is declared, Excuseth no man: For
  in breaking the Law, which without a fear of penalty to follow, were not a
  Law, but vain words, he undergoeth the penalty, though he know not what it
  is; because, whosoever voluntarily doth any action, accepteth all the
  known consequences of it; but Punishment is a known consequence of the
  violation of the Lawes, in every Common-wealth; which punishment, if it be
  determined already by the Law, he is subject to that; if not, then is he
  subject to Arbitrary punishment. For it is reason, that he which does
  Injury, without other limitation than that of his own Will, should suffer
  punishment without other limitation, than that of his Will whose Law is
  thereby violated.

  Punishments Declared Before The Fact, Excuse From Greater Punishments
  After It


  But when a penalty, is either annexed to the Crime in the Law it selfe, or
  hath been usually inflicted in the like cases; there the Delinquent is
  Excused from a greater penalty. For the punishment foreknown, if not great
  enough to deterre men from the action, is an invitement to it: because
  when men compare the benefit of their Injustice, with the harm of their
  punishment, by necessity of Nature they choose that which appeareth best
  for themselves; and therefore when they are punished more than the Law had
  formerly determined, or more than others were punished for the same Crime;
  it the Law that tempted, and deceiveth them.

  Nothing Can Be Made A Crime By A Law Made After The Fact


  No Law, made after a Fact done, can make it a Crime: because if the Fact
  be against the Law of Nature, the Law was before the Fact; and a Positive
  Law cannot be taken notice of, before it be made; and therefore cannot be
  Obligatory. But when the Law that forbiddeth a Fact, is made before the
  Fact be done; yet he that doth the Fact, is lyable to the Penalty ordained
  after, in case no lesser Penalty were made known before, neither by
  Writing, nor by Example, for the reason immediatly before alledged.

  False Principles Of Right And Wrong Causes Of Crime


  From defect in Reasoning, (that is to say, from Errour,) men are prone to
  violate the Lawes, three wayes. First, by Presumption of false Principles;
  as when men from having observed how in all places, and in all ages,
  unjust Actions have been authorised, by the force, and victories of those
  who have committed them; and that potent men, breaking through the Cob-web
  Lawes of their Country, the weaker sort, and those that have failed in
  their Enterprises, have been esteemed the onely Criminals; have thereupon
  taken for Principles, and grounds of their Reasoning, &ldquo;That Justice is but
  a vain word: That whatsoever a man can get by his own Industry, and
  hazard, is his own: That the Practice of all Nations cannot be unjust:
  That examples of former times are good Arguments of doing the like again;&rdquo;
  and many more of that kind: Which being granted, no Act in it selfe can be
  a Crime, but must be made so (not by the Law, but) by the successe of them
  that commit it; and the same Fact be vertuous, or vicious, as Fortune
  pleaseth; so that what Marius makes a Crime, Sylla shall make meritorious,
  and Caesar (the same Lawes standing) turn again into a Crime, to the
  perpetuall disturbance of the Peace of the Common-wealth.

  False Teachers Mis-interpreting The Law Of Nature Secondly, by false


  Teachers, that either mis-interpret the Law of Nature, making it thereby
  repugnant to the Law Civill; or by teaching for Lawes, such Doctrines of
  their own, or Traditions of former times, as are inconsistent with the
  duty of a Subject.

  And False Inferences From True Principles, By Teachers


  Thirdly, by Erroneous Inferences from True Principles; which happens
  commonly to men that are hasty, and praecipitate in concluding, and
  resolving what to do; such as are they, that have both a great opinion of
  their own understanding, and believe that things of this nature require
  not time and study, but onely common experience, and a good naturall wit;
  whereof no man thinks himselfe unprovided: whereas the knowledge, of Right
  and Wrong, which is no lesse difficult, there is no man will pretend to,
  without great and long study. And of those defects in Reasoning, there is
  none that can Excuse (though some of them may Extenuate) a Crime, in any
  man, that pretendeth to the administration of his own private businesse;
  much lesse in them that undertake a publique charge; because they pretend
  to the Reason, upon the want whereof they would ground their Excuse.

  By Their Passions;


  Of the Passions that most frequently are the causes of Crime, one, is
  Vain-glory, or a foolish over-rating of their own worth; as if difference
  of worth, were an effect of their wit, or riches, or bloud, or some other
  naturall quality, not depending on the Will of those that have the
  Soveraign Authority. From whence proceedeth a Presumption that the
  punishments ordained by the Lawes, and extended generally to all Subjects,
  ought not to be inflicted on them, with the same rigour they are inflicted
  on poore, obscure, and simple men, comprehended under the name of the
  Vulgar.

  Presumption Of Riches


  Therefore it happeneth commonly, that such as value themselves by the
  greatnesse of their wealth, adventure on Crimes, upon hope of escaping
  punishment, by corrupting publique Justice, or obtaining Pardon by Mony,
  or other rewards.

  And Friends


  And that such as have multitude of Potent Kindred; and popular men, that
  have gained reputation amongst the Multitude, take courage to violate the
  Lawes, from a hope of oppressing the Power, to whom it belongeth to put
  them in execution.

  Wisedome


  And that such as have a great, and false opinion of their own Wisedome,
  take upon them to reprehend the actions, and call in question the
  Authority of them that govern, and so to unsettle the Lawes with their
  publique discourse, as that nothing shall be a Crime, but what their own
  designes require should be so. It happeneth also to the same men, to be
  prone to all such Crimes, as consist in Craft, and in deceiving of their
  Neighbours; because they think their designes are too subtile to be
  perceived. These I say are effects of a false presumption of their own
  Wisdome. For of them that are the first movers in the disturbance of
  Common-wealth, (which can never happen without a Civill Warre,) very few
  are left alive long enough, to see their new Designes established: so that
  the benefit of their Crimes, redoundeth to Posterity, and such as would
  least have wished it: which argues they were not as wise, as they thought
  they were. And those that deceive upon hope of not being observed, do
  commonly deceive themselves, (the darknesse in which they believe they lye
  hidden, being nothing else but their own blindnesse;) and are no wiser
  than Children, that think all hid, by hiding their own eyes.
<br />
  And generally all vain-glorious men, (unlesse they be withall timorous,)
  are subject to Anger; as being more prone than others to interpret for
  contempt, the ordinary liberty of conversation: And there are few Crimes
  that may not be produced by Anger.

  Hatred, Lust, Ambition, Covetousnesse, Causes Of Crime


  As for the Passions, of Hate, Lust, Ambition, and Covetousnesse, what
  Crimes they are apt to produce, is so obvious to every mans experience and
  understanding, as there needeth nothing to be said of them, saving that
  they are infirmities, so annexed to the nature, both of man, and all other
  living creatures, as that their effects cannot be hindred, but by
  extraordinary use of Reason, or a constant severity in punishing them. For
  in those things men hate, they find a continuall, and unavoydable
  molestation; whereby either a mans patience must be everlasting, or he
  must be eased by removing the power of that which molesteth him; The
  former is difficult; the later is many times impossible, without some
  violation of the Law. Ambition, and Covetousnesse are Passions also that
  are perpetually incumbent, and pressing; whereas Reason is not perpetually
  present, to resist them: and therefore whensoever the hope of impunity
  appears, their effects proceed. And for Lust, what it wants in the
  lasting, it hath in the vehemence, which sufficeth to weigh down the
  apprehension of all easie, or uncertain punishments.

  Fear Sometimes Cause Of Crime, As When The Danger Is Neither Present, Nor
  Corporeall


  Of all Passions, that which enclineth men least to break the Lawes, is
  Fear. Nay, (excepting some generous natures,) it is the onely thing, (when
  there is apparence of profit, or pleasure by breaking the Lawes,) that
  makes men keep them. And yet in many cases a Crime may be committed
  through Feare.
<br />
  For not every Fear justifies the Action it produceth, but the fear onely
  of corporeall hurt, which we call Bodily Fear, and from which a man cannot
  see how to be delivered, but by the action. A man is assaulted, fears
  present death, from which he sees not how to escape, but by wounding him
  that assaulteth him; If he wound him to death, this is no Crime; because
  no man is supposed at the making of a Common-wealth, to have abandoned the
  defence of his life, or limbes, where the Law cannot arrive time enough to
  his assistance. But to kill a man, because from his actions, or his
  threatnings, I may argue he will kill me when he can, (seeing I have time,
  and means to demand protection, from the Soveraign Power,) is a Crime.
  Again, a man receives words of disgrace, or some little injuries (for
  which they that made the Lawes, had assigned no punishment, nor thought it
  worthy of a man that hath the use of Reason, to take notice of,) and is
  afraid, unlesse he revenge it, he shall fall into contempt, and
  consequently be obnoxious to the like injuries from others; and to avoyd
  this, breaks the Law, and protects himselfe for the future, by the terrour
  of his private revenge. This is a Crime; For the hurt is not Corporeall,
  but Phantasticall, and (though in this corner of the world, made sensible
  by a custome not many years since begun, amongst young and vain men,) so
  light, as a gallant man, and one that is assured of his own courage,
  cannot take notice of. Also a man may stand in fear of Spirits, either
  through his own superstition, or through too much credit given to other
  men, that tell him of strange Dreams and visions; and thereby be made
  believe they will hurt him, for doing, or omitting divers things, which
  neverthelesse, to do, or omit, is contrary to the Lawes; And that which is
  so done, or omitted, is not to be Excused by this fear; but is a Crime.
  For (as I have shewn before in the second Chapter) Dreams be naturally but
  the fancies remaining in sleep, after the impressions our Senses had
  formerly received waking; and when men are by any accident unassured they
  have slept, seem to be reall Visions; and therefore he that presumes to
  break the Law upon his own, or anothers Dream, or pretended Vision, or
  upon other Fancy of the power of Invisible Spirits, than is permitted by
  the Common-wealth, leaveth the Law of Nature, which is a certain offence,
  and followeth the imagery of his own, or another private mans brain, which
  he can never know whether it signifieth any thing, or nothing, nor whether
  he that tells his Dream, say true, or lye; which if every private man
  should have leave to do, (as they must by the Law of Nature, if any one
  have it) there could no Law be made to hold, and so all Common-wealth
  would be dissolved.

  Crimes Not Equall


  From these different sources of Crimes, it appeares already, that all
  Crimes are not (as the Stoicks of old time maintained) of the same allay.
  There is place, not only for EXCUSE, by which that which seemed a Crime,
  is proved to be none at all; but also for EXTENUATION, by which the Crime,
  that seemed great, is made lesse. For though all Crimes doe equally
  deserve the name of Injustice, as all deviation from a strait line is
  equally crookednesse, which the Stoicks rightly observed; yet it does not
  follow that all Crimes are equally unjust, no more than that all crooked
  lines are equally crooked; which the Stoicks not observing, held it as
  great a Crime, to kill a Hen, against the Law, as to kill ones Father.

  Totall Excuses


  That which totally Excuseth a Fact, and takes away from it the nature of a
  Crime, can be none but that, which at the same time, taketh away the
  obligation of the Law. For the fact committed once against the Law, if he
  that committed it be obliged to the Law, can be no other than a Crime.
<br />
  The want of means to know the Law, totally Excuseth: For the Law whereof a
  man has no means to enforme himself, is not obligatory. But the want of
  diligence to enquire, shall not be considered as a want of means; Nor
  shall any man, that pretendeth to reason enough for the Government of his
  own affairs, be supposed to want means to know the Lawes of Nature;
  because they are known by the reason he pretends to: only Children, and
  Madmen are Excused from offences against the Law Naturall.
<br />
  Where a man is captive, or in the power of the enemy, (and he is then in
  the power of the enemy, when his person, or his means of living, is so,)
  if it be without his own fault, the Obligation of the Law ceaseth; because
  he must obey the enemy, or dye; and consequently such obedience is no
  Crime: for no man is obliged (when the protection of the Law faileth,) not
  to protect himself, by the best means he can.
<br />
  If a man by the terrour of present death, be compelled to doe a fact
  against the Law, he is totally Excused; because no Law can oblige a man to
  abandon his own preservation. And supposing such a Law were obligatory;
  yet a man would reason thus, &ldquo;If I doe it not, I die presently; if I doe
  it, I die afterwards; therefore by doing it, there is time of life
  gained;&rdquo; Nature therefore compells him to the fact.
<br />
  When a man is destitute of food, or other thing necessary for his life,
  and cannot preserve himselfe any other way, but by some fact against the
  Law; as if in a great famine he take the food by force, or stealth, which
  he cannot obtaine for mony nor charity; or in defence of his life, snatch
  away another mans Sword, he is totally Excused, for the reason next before
  alledged.

  Excuses Against The Author


  Again, Facts done against the Law, by the authority of another, are by
  that authority Excused against the Author; because no man ought to accuse
  his own fact in another, that is but his instrument: but it is not Excused
  against a third person thereby injured; because in the violation of the
  law, bothe the Author, and Actor are Criminalls. From hence it followeth
  that when that Man, or Assembly, that hath the Soveraign Power, commandeth
  a man to do that which is contrary to a former Law, the doing of it is
  totally Excused: For he ought not to condemn it himselfe, because he is
  the Author; and what cannot justly be condemned by the Soveraign, cannot
  justly be punished by any other. Besides, when the Soveraign commandeth
  any thing to be done against his own former Law, the Command, as to that
  particular fact, is an abrogation of the Law.
<br />
  If that Man, or Assembly, that hath the Soveraign Power, disclaime any
  Right essentiall to the Soveraignty, whereby there accrueth to the
  Subject, any liberty inconsistent with the Soveraign Power, that is to
  say, with the very being of a Common-wealth, if the Subject shall refuse
  to obey the Command in any thing, contrary to the liberty granted, this is
  neverthelesse a Sinne, and contrary to the duty of the Subject: for he
  ought to take notice of what is inconsistent with the Soveraignty, because
  it was erected by his own consent, and for his own defence; and that such
  liberty as is inconsistent with it, was granted through ignorance of the
  evill consequence thereof. But if he not onely disobey, but also resist a
  publique Minister in the execution of it, then it is a Crime; because he
  might have been righted, (without any breach of the Peace,) upon
  complaint.
<br />
  The Degrees of Crime are taken on divers Scales, and measured, First, by
  the malignity of the Source, or Cause: Secondly, by the contagion of the
  Example: Thirdly, by the mischiefe of the Effect; and Fourthly, by the
  concurrence of Times, Places, and Persons.

  Presumption Of Power, Aggravateth


  The same Fact done against the Law, if it proceed from Presumption of
  strength, riches, or friends to resist those that are to execute the Law,
  is a greater Crime, than if it proceed from hope of not being discovered,
  or of escape by flight: For Presumption of impunity by force, is a Root,
  from whence springeth, at all times, and upon all temptations, a contempt
  of all Lawes; whereas in the later case, the apprehension of danger, that
  makes a man fly, renders him more obedient for the future. A Crime which
  we know to be so, is greater than the same Crime proceeding from a false
  perswasion that it is lawfull: For he that committeth it against his own
  conscience, presumeth on his force, or other power, which encourages him
  to commit the same again: but he that doth it by errour, after the errour
  shewn him, is conformable to the Law.

  Evill Teachers, Extenuate


  Hee, whose errour proceeds from the authority of a Teacher, or an
  Interpreter of the Law publiquely authorised, is not so faulty, as he
  whose errour proceedeth from a peremptory pursute of his own principles,
  and reasoning: For what is taught by one that teacheth by publique
  Authority, the Common-wealth teacheth, and hath a resemblance of Law, till
  the same Authority controuleth it; and in all Crimes that contain not in
  them a denyall of the Soveraign Power, nor are against an evident Law,
  Excuseth totally: whereas he that groundeth his actions, on his private
  Judgement, ought according to the rectitude, or errour thereof, to stand,
  or fall.

  Examples Of Impunity, Extenuate


  The same Fact, if it have been constantly punished in other men, as a
  greater Crime, than if there have been may precedent Examples of impunity.
  For those Examples, are so many hopes of Impunity given by the Soveraign
  himselfe: And because he which furnishes a man with such a hope, and
  presumption of mercy, as encourageth him to offend, hath his part in the
  offence; he cannot reasonably charge the offender with the whole.

  Praemeditation, Aggravateth


  A Crime arising from a sudden Passion, is not so great, as when the same
  ariseth from long meditation: For in the former case there is a place for
  Extenuation, in the common infirmity of humane nature: but he that doth it
  with praemeditation, has used circumspection, and cast his eye, on the
  Law, on the punishment, and on the consequence thereof to humane society;
  all which in committing the Crime, hee hath contemned, and postposed to
  his own appetite. But there is no suddennesse of Passion sufficient for a
  totall Excuse: For all the time between the first knowing of the Law, and
  the Commission of the Fact, shall be taken for a time of deliberation;
  because he ought by meditation of the Law, to rectifie the irregularity of
  his Passions.
<br />
  Where the Law is publiquely, and with assiduity, before all the people
  read, and interpreted; a fact done against it, is a greater Crime, than
  where men are left without such instruction, to enquire of it with
  difficulty, uncertainty, and interruption of their Callings, and be
  informed by private men: for in this case, part of the fault is discharged
  upon common infirmity; but in the former there is apparent negligence,
  which is not without some contempt of the Soveraign Power.

  Tacite Approbation Of The Soveraign, Extenuates


  Those facts which the Law expresly condemneth, but the Law-maker by other
  manifest signes of his will tacitly approveth, are lesse Crimes, than the
  same facts, condemned both by the Law, and Lawmaker. For seeing the will
  of the Law-maker is a Law, there appear in this case two contradictory
  Lawes; which would totally Excuse, if men were bound to take notice of the
  Soveraigns approbation, by other arguments, than are expressed by his
  command. But because there are punishments consequent, not onely to the
  transgression of his Law, but also to the observing of it, he is in part a
  cause of the transgression, and therefore cannot reasonably impute the
  whole Crime to the Delinquent. For example, the Law condemneth Duells; the
  punishment is made capitall: On the contrary part, he that refuseth Duell,
  is subject to contempt and scorne, without remedy; and sometimes by the
  Soveraign himselfe thought unworthy to have any charge, or preferment in
  Warre: If thereupon he accept Duell, considering all men lawfully
  endeavour to obtain the good opinion of them that have the Soveraign
  Power, he ought not in reason to be rigorously punished; seeing part of
  the fault may be discharged on the punisher; which I say, not as wishing
  liberty of private revenges, or any other kind of disobedience; but a care
  in Governours, not to countenance any thing obliquely, which directly they
  forbid. The examples of Princes, to those that see them, are, and ever
  have been, more potent to govern their actions, than the Lawes themselves.
  And though it be our duty to do, not what they do, but what they say; yet
  will that duty never be performed, till it please God to give men an
  extraordinary, and supernaturall grace to follow that Precept.

  Comparison Of Crimes From Their Effects


  Again, if we compare Crimes by the mischiefe of their Effects, First, the
  same fact, when it redounds to the dammage of many, is greater, than when
  it redounds to the hurt of few. And therefore, when a fact hurteth, not
  onely in the present, but also, (by example) in the future, it is a
  greater Crime, than if it hurt onely in the present: for the former, is a
  fertile Crime, and multiplyes to the hurt of many; the later is barren. To
  maintain doctrines contrary to the Religion established in the
  Common-wealth, is a greater fault, in an authorised Preacher, than in a
  private person: So also is it, to live prophanely, incontinently, or do
  any irreligious act whatsoever. Likewise in a Professor of the Law, to
  maintain any point, on do any act, that tendeth to the weakning of the
  Soveraign Power, as a greater Crime, than in another man: Also in a man
  that hath such reputation for wisedome, as that his counsells are
  followed, or his actions imitated by many, his fact against the Law, is a
  greater Crime, than the same fact in another: For such men not onely
  commit Crime, but teach it for Law to all other men. And generally all
  Crimes are the greater, by the scandall they give; that is to say, by
  becoming stumbling-blocks to the weak, that look not so much upon the way
  they go in, as upon the light that other men carry before them.

  Laesae Majestas


  Also Facts of Hostility against the present state of the Common-wealth,
  are greater Crimes, than the same acts done to private men; For the
  dammage extends it selfe to all: Such are the betraying of the strengths,
  or revealing of the secrets of the Common-wealth to an Enemy; also all
  attempts upon the Representative of the Common-wealth, be it a monarch, or
  an Assembly; and all endeavours by word, or deed to diminish the Authority
  of the same, either in the present time, or in succession: which Crimes
  the Latines understand by Crimina Laesae Majestatis, and consist in
  designe, or act, contrary to a Fundamentall Law.

  Bribery And False Testimony


  Likewise those Crimes, which render Judgements of no effect, are greater
  Crimes, than Injuries done to one, or a few persons; as to receive mony to
  give False judgement, or testimony, is a greater Crime, than otherwise to
  deceive a man of the like, or a greater summe; because not onely he has
  wrong, that falls by such judgements; but all Judgements are rendered
  uselesse, and occasion ministred to force, and private revenges.

  Depeculation


  Also Robbery, and Depeculation of the Publique treasure, or Revenues, is a
  greater Crime, than the robbing, or defrauding of a Private man; because
  to robbe the publique, is to robbe many at once.

  Counterfeiting Authority


  Also the Counterfeit usurpation of publique Ministery, the Counterfeiting
  of publique Seales, or publique Coine, than counterfeiting of a private
  mans person, or his seale; because the fraud thereof, extendeth to the
  dammage of many.

  Crimes Against Private Men Compared


  Of facts against the Law, done to private men, the greater Crime, is that,
  where the dammage in the common opinion of men, is most sensible. And
  therefore
<br />
  To kill against the Law, is a greater Crime, that any other injury, life
  preserved.
<br />
  And to kill with Torment, greater, than simply to kill.
<br />
  And Mutilation of a limbe, greater, than the spoyling a man of his goods.
<br />
  And the spoyling a man of his goods, by Terrour of death, or wounds, than
  by clandestine surreption.
<br />
  And by clandestine Surreption, than by consent fraudulently obtained.
<br />
  And the violation of chastity by Force, greater, than by flattery.
<br />
  And of a woman Married, than of a woman not married.
<br />
  For all these things are commonly so valued; though some men are more, and
  some lesse sensible of the same offence. But the Law regardeth not the
  particular, but the generall inclination of mankind.
<br />
  And therefore the offence men take, from contumely, in words, or gesture,
  when they produce no other harme, than the present griefe of him that is
  reproached, hath been neglected in the Lawes of the Greeks, Romans, and
  other both antient, and moderne Common-wealths; supposing the true cause
  of such griefe to consist, not in the contumely, (which takes no hold upon
  men conscious of their own Vertue,) but in the Pusillanimity of him that
  is offended by it.
<br />
  Also a Crime against a private man, is much aggravated by the person,
  time, and place. For to kill ones Parent, is a greater Crime, than to kill
  another: for the Parent ought to have the honour of a Soveraign, (though
  he have surrendred his Power to the Civill Law,) because he had it
  originally by Nature. And to Robbe a poore man, is a greater Crime, than
  to robbe a rich man; because &rsquo;tis to the poore a more sensible dammage.
<br />
  And a Crime committed in the Time, or Place appointed for Devotion, is
  greater, than if committed at another time or place: for it proceeds from
  a greater contempt of the Law.
<br />
  Many other cases of Aggravation, and Extenuation might be added: but by
  these I have set down, it is obvious to every man, to take the altitude of
  any other Crime proposed.

  Publique Crimes What


  Lastly, because in almost all Crimes there is an Injury done, not onely to
  some Private man, but also to the Common-wealth; the same Crime, when the
  accusation is in the name of the Common-wealth, is called Publique Crime;
  and when in the name of a Private man, a Private Crime; And the Pleas
  according thereunto called Publique, Judicia Publica, Pleas of the Crown;
  or Private Pleas. As in an Accusation of Murder, if the accuser be a
  Private man, the plea is a Private plea; if the accuser be the Soveraign,
  the plea is a Publique plea.

  CHAPTER XXVIII.<br />OF PUNISHMENTS, AND REWARDS

  The Definition Of Punishment


  &ldquo;A PUNISHMENT, is an Evill inflicted by publique Authority, on him that
  hath done, or omitted that which is Judged by the same Authority to be a
  Transgression of the Law; to the end that the will of men may thereby the
  better be disposed to obedience.&rdquo;

  Right To Punish Whence Derived


  Before I inferre any thing from this definition, there is a question to be
  answered, of much importance; which is, by what door the Right, or
  Authority of Punishing in any case, came in. For by that which has been
  said before, no man is supposed bound by Covenant, not to resist violence;
  and consequently it cannot be intended, that he gave any right to another
  to lay violent hands upon his person. In the making of a Common-wealth,
  every man giveth away the right of defending another; but not of defending
  himselfe. Also he obligeth himselfe, to assist him that hath the
  Soveraignty, in the Punishing of another; but of himselfe not. But to
  covenant to assist the Soveraign, in doing hurt to another, unlesse he
  that so covenanteth have a right to doe it himselfe, is not to give him a
  Right to Punish. It is manifest therefore that the Right which the
  Common-wealth (that is, he, or they that represent it) hath to Punish, is
  not grounded on any concession, or gift of the Subjects. But I have also
  shewed formerly, that before the Institution of Common-wealth, every man
  had a right to every thing, and to do whatsoever he thought necessary to
  his own preservation; subduing, hurting, or killing any man in order
  thereunto. And this is the foundation of that right of Punishing, which is
  exercised in every Common-wealth. For the Subjects did not give the
  Soveraign that right; but onely in laying down theirs, strengthned him to
  use his own, as he should think fit, for the preservation of them all: so
  that it was not given, but left to him, and to him onely; and (excepting
  the limits set him by naturall Law) as entire, as in the condition of meer
  Nature, and of warre of every one against his neighbour.

  Private Injuries, And Revenges No Punishments


  From the definition of Punishment, I inferre, First, that neither private
  revenges, nor injuries of private men, can properly be stiled Punishment;
  because they proceed not from publique Authority.

  Nor Denyall Of Preferment


  Secondly, that to be neglected, and unpreferred by the publique favour, is
  not a Punishment; because no new evill is thereby on any man Inflicted; he
  is onely left in the estate he was in before.

  Nor Pain Inflicted Without Publique Hearing


  Thirdly, that the evill inflicted by publique Authority, without precedent
  publique condemnation, is not to be stiled by the name of Punishment; but
  of an hostile act; because the fact for which a man is Punished, ought
  first to be Judged by publique Authority, to be a transgression of the
  Law.

  Nor Pain Inflicted By Usurped Power


  Fourthly, that the evill inflicted by usurped power, and Judges without
  Authority from the Soveraign, is not Punishment; but an act of hostility;
  because the acts of power usurped, have not for Author, the person
  condemned; and therefore are not acts of publique Authority.

  Nor Pain Inflicted Without Respect To The Future Good


  Fifthly, that all evill which is inflicted without intention, or
  possibility of disposing the Delinquent, or (by his example) other men, to
  obey the Lawes, is not Punishment; but an act of hostility; because
  without such an end, no hurt done is contained under that name.

  Naturall Evill Consequences, No Punishments


  Sixthly, whereas to certain actions, there be annexed by Nature, divers
  hurtfull consequences; as when a man in assaulting another, is himselfe
  slain, or wounded; or when he falleth into sicknesse by the doing of some
  unlawfull act; such hurt, though in respect of God, who is the author of
  Nature, it may be said to be inflicted, and therefore a Punishment divine;
  yet it is not contaned in the name of Punishment in respect of men,
  because it is not inflicted by the Authority of man.

  Hurt Inflicted, If Lesse Than The Benefit Of Transgressing, Is Not
  Punishment


  Seventhly, If the harm inflicted be lesse than the benefit, or contentment
  that naturally followeth the crime committed, that harm is not within the
  definition; and is rather the Price, or Redemption, than the Punishment of
  a Crime: Because it is of the nature of Punishment, to have for end, the
  disposing of men to obey the Law; which end (if it be lesse that the
  benefit of the transgression) it attaineth not, but worketh a contrary
  effect.

  Where The Punishment Is Annexed To The Law, A Greater Hurt Is Not
  Punishment, But Hostility


  Eighthly, If a Punishment be determined and prescribed in the Law it
  selfe, and after the crime committed, there be a greater Punishment
  inflicted, the excesse is not Punishment, but an act of hostility. For
  seeing the aym of Punishment is not a revenge, but terrour; and the
  terrour of a great Punishment unknown, is taken away by the declaration of
  a lesse, the unexpected addition is no part of the Punishment. But where
  there is no Punishment at all determined by the Law, there whatsoever is
  inflicted, hath the nature of Punishment. For he that goes about the
  violation of a Law, wherein no penalty is determined, expecteth an
  indeterminate, that is to say, an arbitrary Punishment.

  Hurt Inflicted For A Fact Done Before The Law, No Punishment


  Ninthly, Harme inflicted for a Fact done before there was a Law that
  forbad it, is not Punishment, but an act of Hostility: For before the Law,
  there is no transgression of the Law: But Punishment supposeth a fact
  judged, to have been a transgression of the Law; Therefore Harme inflicted
  before the Law made, is not Punishment, but an act of Hostility.

  The Representative Of The Common-wealth Unpunishable


  Tenthly, Hurt inflicted on the Representative of the Common-wealth, is not
  Punishment, but an act of Hostility: Because it is of the nature of
  Punishment, to be inflicted by publique Authority, which is the Authority
  only of the Representative it self.

  Hurt To Revolted Subjects Is Done By Right Of War, Not By Way Of
  Punishment


  Lastly, Harme inflicted upon one that is a declared enemy, fals not under
  the name of Punishment: Because seeing they were either never subject to
  the Law, and therefore cannot transgresse it; or having been subject to
  it, and professing to be no longer so, by consequence deny they can
  transgresse it, all the Harmes that can be done them, must be taken as
  acts of Hostility. But in declared Hostility, all infliction of evill is
  lawfull. From whence it followeth, that if a subject shall by fact, or
  word, wittingly, and deliberatly deny the authority of the Representative
  of the Common-wealth, (whatsoever penalty hath been formerly ordained for
  Treason,) he may lawfully be made to suffer whatsoever the Representative
  will: For in denying subjection, he denyes such Punishment as by the Law
  hath been ordained; and therefore suffers as an enemy of the
  Common-wealth; that is, according to the will of the Representative. For
  the Punishments set down in the Law, are to Subjects, not to Enemies; such
  as are they, that having been by their own act Subjects, deliberately
  revolting, deny the Soveraign Power.
<br />
  The first, and most generall distribution of Punishments, is into Divine,
  and Humane. Of the former I shall have occasion, to speak, in a more
  convenient place hereafter.
<br />
  Humane, are those Punishments that be inflicted by the Commandement of
  Man; and are either Corporall, or Pecuniary, or Ignominy, or Imprisonment,
  or Exile, or mixt of these.

  Punishments Corporall


  Corporall Punishment is that, which is inflicted on the body directly, and
  according to the intention of him that inflicteth it: such as are stripes,
  or wounds, or deprivation of such pleasures of the body, as were before
  lawfully enjoyed.

  Capitall


  And of these, some be Capitall, some Lesse than Capitall. Capitall, is the
  Infliction of Death; and that either simply, or with torment. Lesse than
  Capitall, are Stripes, Wounds, Chains, and any other corporall Paine, not
  in its own nature mortall. For if upon the Infliction of a Punishment
  death follow not in the Intention of the Inflicter, the Punishment is not
  be bee esteemed Capitall, though the harme prove mortall by an accident
  not to be foreseen; in which case death is not inflicted, but hastened.
<br />
  Pecuniary Punishment, is that which consisteth not only in the deprivation
  of a Summe of Mony, but also of Lands, or any other goods which are
  usually bought and sold for mony. And in case the Law, that ordaineth such
  a punishment, be made with design to gather mony, from such as shall
  transgresse the same, it is not properly a Punishment, but the Price of
  priviledge, and exemption from the Law, which doth not absolutely forbid
  the fact, but only to those that are not able to pay the mony: except
  where the Law is Naturall, or part of Religion; for in that case it is not
  an exemption from the Law, but a transgression of it. As where a Law
  exacteth a Pecuniary mulct, of them that take the name of God in vaine,
  the payment of the mulct, is not the price of a dispensation to sweare,
  but the Punishment of the transgression of a Law undispensable. In like
  manner if the Law impose a Summe of Mony to be payd, to him that has been
  Injured; this is but a satisfaction for the hurt done him; and
  extinguisheth the accusation of the party injured, not the crime of the
  offender.

  Ignominy


  Ignominy, is the infliction of such Evill, as is made Dishonorable; or the
  deprivation of such Good, as is made Honourable by the Common-wealth. For
  there be some things Honorable by Nature; as the effects of Courage,
  Magnanimity, Strength, Wisdome, and other abilities of body and mind:
  Others made Honorable by the Common-wealth; as Badges, Titles, Offices, or
  any other singular marke of the Soveraigns favour. The former, (though
  they may faile by nature, or accident,) cannot be taken away by a Law; and
  therefore the losse of them is not Punishment. But the later, may be taken
  away by the publique authority that made them Honorable, and are properly
  Punishments: Such are degrading men condemned, of their Badges, Titles,
  and Offices; or declaring them uncapable of the like in time to come.

  Imprisonment


  Imprisonment, is when a man is by publique Authority deprived of liberty;
  and may happen from two divers ends; whereof one is the safe custody of a
  man accused; the other is the inflicting of paine on a man condemned. The
  former is not Punishment; because no man is supposed to be Punisht, before
  he be Judicially heard, and declared guilty. And therefore whatsoever hurt
  a man is made to suffer by bonds, or restraint, before his cause be heard,
  over and above that which is necessary to assure his custody, is against
  the Law of Nature. But the Later is Punishment, because Evill, and
  inflicted by publique Authority, for somewhat that has by the same
  Authority been Judged a Transgression of the Law. Under this word
  Imprisonment, I comprehend all restraint of motion, caused by an externall
  obstacle, be it a House, which is called by the generall name of a Prison;
  or an Iland, as when men are said to be confined to it; or a place where
  men are set to worke, as in old time men have been condemned to Quarries,
  and in these times to Gallies; or be it a Chaine, or any other such
  impediment.

  Exile


  Exile, (Banishment) is when a man is for a crime, condemned to depart out
  of the dominion of the Common-wealth, or out of a certaine part thereof;
  and during a prefixed time, or for ever, not to return into it: and
  seemeth not in its own nature, without other circumstances, to be a
  Punishment; but rather an escape, or a publique commandement to avoid
  Punishment by flight. And Cicero sayes, there was never any such
  Punishment ordained in the City of Rome; but cals it a refuge of men in
  danger. For if a man banished, be neverthelesse permitted to enjoy his
  Goods, and the Revenue of his Lands, the meer change of ayr is no
  punishment; nor does it tend to that benefit of the Common-wealth, for
  which all Punishments are ordained, (that is to say, to the forming of
  mens wils to the observation of the Law;) but many times to the dammage of
  the Common-wealth. For a Banished man, is a lawfull enemy of the
  Common-wealth that banished him; as being no more a Member of the same.
  But if he be withall deprived of his Lands, or Goods, then the Punishment
  lyeth not in the Exile, but is to be reckoned amongst Punishments
  Pecuniary.

  The Punishment Of Innocent Subjects Is Contrary To The Law Of Nature


  All Punishments of Innocent subjects, be they great or little, are against
  the Law of Nature; For Punishment is only of Transgression of the Law, and
  therefore there can be no Punishment of the Innocent. It is therefore a
  violation, First, of that Law of Nature, which forbiddeth all men, in
  their Revenges, to look at any thing but some future good: For there can
  arrive no good to the Common-wealth, by Punishing the Innocent. Secondly,
  of that, which forbiddeth Ingratitude: For seeing all Soveraign Power, is
  originally given by the consent of every one of the Subjects, to the end
  they should as long as they are obedient, be protected thereby; the
  Punishment of the Innocent, is a rendring of Evill for Good. And thirdly,
  of the Law that commandeth Equity; that is to say, an equall distribution
  of Justice; which in Punishing the Innocent is not observed.

  But The Harme Done To Innocents In War, Not So


  But the Infliction of what evill soever, on an Innocent man, that is not a
  Subject, if it be for the benefit of the Common-wealth, and without
  violation of any former Covenant, is no breach of the Law of Nature. For
  all men that are not Subjects, are either Enemies, or else they have
  ceased from being so, by some precedent covenants. But against Enemies,
  whom the Common-wealth judgeth capable to do them hurt, it is lawfull by
  the originall Right of Nature to make warre; wherein the Sword Judgeth
  not, nor doth the Victor make distinction of Nocent and Innocent, as to
  the time past; nor has other respect of mercy, than as it conduceth to the
  good of his own People. And upon this ground it is, that also in Subjects,
  who deliberatly deny the Authority of the Common-wealth established, the
  vengeance is lawfully extended, not onely to the Fathers, but also to the
  third and fourth generation not yet in being, and consequently innocent of
  the fact, for which they are afflicted: because the nature of this
  offence, consisteth in the renouncing of subjection; which is a relapse
  into the condition of warre, commonly called Rebellion; and they that so
  offend, suffer not as Subjects, but as Enemies. For Rebellion, is but
  warre renewed.

  Reward, Is Either Salary, Or Grace


  REWARD, is either of Gift, or by Contract. When by Contract, it is called
  Salary, and Wages; which is benefit due for service performed, or
  promised. When of Gift, it is benefit proceeding from the Grace of them
  that bestow it, to encourage, or enable men to do them service. And
  therefore when the Soveraign of a Common-wealth appointeth a Salary to any
  publique Office, he that receiveth it, is bound in Justice to performe his
  office; otherwise, he is bound onely in honour, to acknowledgement, and an
  endeavour of requitall. For though men have no lawfull remedy, when they
  be commanded to quit their private businesse, to serve the publique,
  without Reward, or Salary; yet they are not bound thereto, by the Law of
  Nature, nor by the institution of the Common-wealth, unlesse the service
  cannot otherwise be done; because it is supposed the Soveraign may make
  use of all their means, insomuch as the most common Souldier, may demand
  the wages of his warrefare, as a debt.

  Benefits Bestowed For Fear, Are Not Rewards


  The benefits which a Soveraign bestoweth on a Subject, for fear of some
  power, and ability he hath to do hurt to the Common-wealth, are not
  properly Rewards; for they are not Salaryes; because there is in this case
  no contract supposed, every man being obliged already not to do the
  Common-wealth disservice: nor are they Graces; because they be extorted by
  feare, which ought not to be incident to the Soveraign Power: but are
  rather Sacrifices, which the Soveraign (considered in his naturall person,
  and not in the person of the Common-wealth) makes, for the appeasing the
  discontent of him he thinks more potent than himselfe; and encourage not
  to obedience, but on the contrary, to the continuance, and increasing of
  further extortion.

  Salaries Certain And Casuall


  And whereas some Salaries are certain, and proceed from the publique
  Treasure; and others uncertain, and casuall, proceeding from the execution
  of the Office for which the Salary is ordained; the later is in some cases
  hurtfull to the Common-wealth; as in the case of Judicature. For where the
  benefit of the Judges, and Ministers of a Court of Justice, ariseth for
  the multitude of Causes that are brought to their cognisance, there must
  needs follow two Inconveniences: One, is the nourishing of sutes; for the
  more sutes, the greater benefit: and another that depends on that, which
  is contention about Jurisdiction; each Court drawing to it selfe, as many
  Causes as it can. But in offices of Execution there are not those
  Inconveniences; because their employment cannot be encreased by any
  endeavour of their own. And thus much shall suffice for the nature of
  Punishment, and Reward; which are, as it were, the Nerves and Tendons,
  that move the limbes and joynts of a Common-wealth.
<br />
  Hitherto I have set forth the nature of Man, (whose Pride and other
  Passions have compelled him to submit himselfe to Government;) together
  with the great power of his Governour, whom I compared to Leviathan,
  taking that comparison out of the two last verses of the one and fortieth
  of Job; where God having set forth the great power of Leviathan, called
  him King of the Proud. &ldquo;There is nothing,&rdquo; saith he, &ldquo;on earth, to be
  compared with him. He is made so as not be afraid. Hee seeth every high
  thing below him; and is King of all the children of pride.&rdquo; But because he
  is mortall, and subject to decay, as all other Earthly creatures are; and
  because there is that in heaven, (though not on earth) that he should
  stand in fear of, and whose Lawes he ought to obey; I shall in the next
  following Chapters speak of his Diseases, and the causes of his Mortality;
  and of what Lawes of Nature he is bound to obey.

  CHAPTER XXIX.<br />OF THOSE THINGS THAT WEAKEN, OR TEND TO THE DISSOLUTION OF
  A COMMON-WEALTH


  Dissolution Of Common-wealths Proceedeth From Imperfect Institution
<br />
  Though nothing can be immortall, which mortals make; yet, if men had the
  use of reason they pretend to, their Common-wealths might be secured, at
  least, from perishing by internall diseases. For by the nature of their
  Institution, they are designed to live, as long as Man-kind, or as the
  Lawes of Nature, or as Justice it selfe, which gives them life. Therefore
  when they come to be dissolved, not by externall violence, but intestine
  disorder, the fault is not in men, as they are the Matter; but as they are
  the Makers, and orderers of them. For men, as they become at last weary of
  irregular justling, and hewing one another, and desire with all their
  hearts, to conforme themselves into one firme and lasting edifice; so for
  want, both of the art of making fit Laws, to square their actions by, and
  also of humility, and patience, to suffer the rude and combersome points
  of their present greatnesse to be taken off, they cannot without the help
  of a very able Architect, be compiled, into any other than a crasie
  building, such as hardly lasting out their own time, must assuredly fall
  upon the heads of their posterity.
<br />
  Amongst the Infirmities therefore of a Common-wealth, I will reckon in the
  first place, those that arise from an Imperfect Institution, and resemble
  the diseases of a naturall body, which proceed from a Defectuous
  Procreation.

  Want Of Absolute Power


  Of which, this is one, &ldquo;That a man to obtain a Kingdome, is sometimes
  content with lesse Power, than to the Peace, and defence of the
  Common-wealth is necessarily required.&rdquo; From whence it commeth to passe,
  that when the exercise of the Power layd by, is for the publique safety to
  be resumed, it hath the resemblance of as unjust act; which disposeth
  great numbers of men (when occasion is presented) to rebell; In the same
  manner as the bodies of children, gotten by diseased parents, are subject
  either to untimely death, or to purge the ill quality, derived from their
  vicious conception, by breaking out into biles and scabbs. And when Kings
  deny themselves some such necessary Power, it is not alwayes (though
  sometimes) out of ignorance of what is necessary to the office they
  undertake; but many times out of a hope to recover the same again at their
  pleasure: Wherein they reason not well; because such as will hold them to
  their promises, shall be maintained against them by forraign
  Common-wealths; who in order to the good of their own Subjects let slip
  few occasions to Weaken the estate of their Neighbours. So was Thomas
  Beckett Archbishop of Canterbury, supported against Henry the Second, by
  the Pope; the subjection of Ecclesiastiques to the Common-wealth, having
  been dispensed with by William the Conqueror at his reception, when he
  took an Oath, not to infringe the liberty of the Church. And so were the
  Barons, whose power was by William Rufus (to have their help in
  transferring the Succession from his Elder brother, to himselfe,)
  encreased to a degree, inconsistent with the Soveraign Power, maintained
  in their Rebellion against King John, by the French. Nor does this happen
  in Monarchy onely. For whereas the stile of the antient Roman
  Common-wealth, was, The Senate, and People of Rome; neither Senate, nor
  People pretended to the whole Power; which first caused the seditions, of
  Tiberius Gracchus, Caius Gracchus, Lucius Saturnius, and others; and
  afterwards the warres between the Senate and the People, under Marius and
  Sylla; and again under Pompey and Caesar, to the Extinction of their
  Democraty, and the setting up of Monarchy.
<br />
  The people of Athens bound themselves but from one onely Action; which
  was, that no man on pain of death should propound the renewing of the
  warre for the Island of Salamis; And yet thereby, if Solon had not caused
  to be given out he was mad, and afterwards in gesture and habit of a
  mad-man, and in verse, propounded it to the People that flocked about him,
  they had had an enemy perpetually in readinesse, even at the gates of
  their Citie; such dammage, or shifts, are all Common-wealths forced to,
  that have their Power never so little limited.

  Private Judgement Of Good and Evill


  In the second place, I observe the Diseases of a Common-wealth, that
  proceed from the poyson of seditious doctrines; whereof one is, &ldquo;That
  every private man is Judge of Good and Evill actions.&rdquo; This is true in the
  condition of meer Nature, where there are no Civill Lawes; and also under
  Civill Government, in such cases as are not determined by the Law. But
  otherwise, it is manifest, that the measure of Good and Evill actions, is
  the Civill Law; and the Judge the Legislator, who is alwayes
  Representative of the Common-wealth. From this false doctrine, men are
  disposed to debate with themselves, and dispute the commands of the
  Common-wealth; and afterwards to obey, or disobey them, as in their
  private judgements they shall think fit. Whereby the Common-wealth is
  distracted and Weakened.

  Erroneous Conscience


  Another doctrine repugnant to Civill Society, is, that &ldquo;Whatsoever a man
  does against his Conscience, is Sinne;&rdquo; and it dependeth on the
  presumption of making himself judge of Good and Evill. For a mans
  Conscience, and his Judgement is the same thing; and as the Judgement, so
  also the Conscience may be erroneous. Therefore, though he that is subject
  to no Civill Law, sinneth in all he does against his Conscience, because
  he has no other rule to follow but his own reason; yet it is not so with
  him that lives in a Common-wealth; because the Law is the publique
  Conscience, by which he hath already undertaken to be guided. Otherwise in
  such diversity, as there is of private Consciences, which are but private
  opinions, the Common-wealth must needs be distracted, and no man dare to
  obey the Soveraign Power, farther than it shall seem good in his own eyes.

  Pretence Of Inspiration


  It hath been also commonly taught, &ldquo;That Faith and Sanctity, are not to be
  attained by Study and Reason, but by supernaturall Inspiration, or
  Infusion,&rdquo; which granted, I see not why any man should render a reason of
  his Faith; or why every Christian should not be also a Prophet; or why any
  man should take the Law of his Country, rather than his own Inspiration,
  for the rule of his action. And thus wee fall again into the fault of
  taking upon us to Judge of Good and Evill; or to make Judges of it, such
  private men as pretend to be supernaturally Inspired, to the Dissolution
  of all Civill Government. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by those
  accidents, which guide us into the presence of them that speak to us;
  which accidents are all contrived by God Almighty; and yet are not
  supernaturall, but onely, for the great number of them that concurre to
  every effect, unobservable. Faith, and Sanctity, are indeed not very
  frequent; but yet they are not Miracles, but brought to passe by
  education, discipline, correction, and other naturall wayes, by which God
  worketh them in his elect, as such time as he thinketh fit. And these
  three opinions, pernicious to Peace and Government, have in this part of
  the world, proceeded chiefly from the tongues, and pens of unlearned
  Divines; who joyning the words of Holy Scripture together, otherwise than
  is agreeable to reason, do what they can, to make men think, that Sanctity
  and Naturall Reason, cannot stand together.

  Subjecting The Soveraign Power To Civill Lawes


  A fourth opinion, repugnant to the nature of a Common-wealth, is this,
  &ldquo;That he that hath the Soveraign Power, is subject to the Civill Lawes.&rdquo;
  It is true, that Soveraigns are all subjects to the Lawes of Nature;
  because such lawes be Divine, and cannot by any man, or Common-wealth be
  abrogated. But to those Lawes which the Soveraign himselfe, that is, which
  the Common-wealth maketh, he is not subject. For to be subject to Lawes,
  is to be subject to the Common-wealth, that is to the Soveraign
  Representative, that is to himselfe; which is not subjection, but freedome
  from the Lawes. Which errour, because it setteth the Lawes above the
  Soveraign, setteth also a Judge above him, and a Power to punish him;
  which is to make a new Soveraign; and again for the same reason a third,
  to punish the second; and so continually without end, to the Confusion,
  and Dissolution of the Common-wealth.

  Attributing Of Absolute Propriety To The Subjects


  A Fifth doctrine, that tendeth to the Dissolution of a Common-wealth, is,
  &ldquo;That every private man has an absolute Propriety in his Goods; such, as
  excludeth the Right of the Soveraign.&rdquo; Every man has indeed a Propriety
  that excludes the Right of every other Subject: And he has it onely from
  the Soveraign Power; without the protection whereof, every other man
  should have equall Right to the same. But if the Right of the Soveraign
  also be excluded, he cannot performe the office they have put him into;
  which is, to defend them both from forraign enemies, and from the injuries
  of one another; and consequently there is no longer a Common-wealth.
<br />
  And if the Propriety of Subjects, exclude not the Right of the Soveraign
  Representative to their Goods; much lesse to their offices of Judicature,
  or Execution, in which they Represent the Soveraign himselfe.

  Dividing Of The Soveraign Power


  There is a Sixth doctrine, plainly, and directly against the essence of a
  Common-wealth; and &rsquo;tis this, &ldquo;That the Soveraign Power may be divided.&rdquo;
  For what is it to divide the Power of a Common-wealth, but to Dissolve it;
  for Powers divided mutually destroy each other. And for these doctrines,
  men are chiefly beholding to some of those, that making profession of the
  Lawes, endeavour to make them depend upon their own learning, and not upon
  the Legislative Power.

  Imitation Of Neighbour Nations


  And as False Doctrine, so also often-times the Example of different
  Government in a neighbouring Nation, disposeth men to alteration of the
  forme already setled. So the people of the Jewes were stirred up to reject
  God, and to call upon the Prophet Samuel, for a King after the manner of
  the Nations; So also the lesser Cities of Greece, were continually
  disturbed, with seditions of the Aristocraticall, and Democraticall
  factions; one part of almost every Common-wealth, desiring to imitate the
  Lacedaemonians; the other, the Athenians. And I doubt not, but many men,
  have been contented to see the late troubles in England, out of an
  imitation of the Low Countries; supposing there needed no more to grow
  rich, than to change, as they had done, the forme of their Government. For
  the constitution of mans nature, is of it selfe subject to desire novelty:
  When therefore they are provoked to the same, by the neighbourhood also of
  those that have been enriched by it, it is almost impossible for them, not
  to be content with those that solicite them to change; and love the first
  beginnings, though they be grieved with the continuance of disorder; like
  hot blouds, that having gotten the itch, tear themselves with their own
  nayles, till they can endure the smart no longer.

  Imitation Of The Greeks, And Romans


  And as to Rebellion in particular against Monarchy; one of the most
  frequent causes of it, is the Reading of the books of Policy, and
  Histories of the antient Greeks, and Romans; from which, young men, and
  all others that are unprovided of the Antidote of solid Reason, receiving
  a strong, and delightfull impression, of the great exploits of warre,
  atchieved by the Conductors of their Armies, receive withall a pleasing
  Idea, of all they have done besides; and imagine their great prosperity,
  not to have proceeded from the aemulation of particular men, but from the
  vertue of their popular form of government: Not considering the frequent
  Seditions, and Civill Warres, produced by the imperfection of their
  Policy. From the reading, I say, of such books, men have undertaken to
  kill their Kings, because the Greek and Latine writers, in their books,
  and discourses of Policy, make it lawfull, and laudable, for any man so to
  do; provided before he do it, he call him Tyrant. For they say not
  Regicide, that is, killing of a King, but Tyrannicide, that is, killing of
  a Tyrant is lawfull. From the same books, they that live under a Monarch
  conceive an opinion, that the Subjects in a Popular Common-wealth enjoy
  Liberty; but that in a Monarchy they are all Slaves. I say, they that live
  under a Monarchy conceive such an opinion; not they that live under a
  Popular Government; for they find no such matter. In summe, I cannot
  imagine, how anything can be more prejudiciall to a Monarchy, than the
  allowing of such books to be publikely read, without present applying such
  correctives of discreet Masters, as are fit to take away their Venime;
  Which Venime I will not doubt to compare to the biting of a mad Dogge,
  which is a disease the Physicians call Hydrophobia, or Fear Of Water. For
  as he that is so bitten, has a continuall torment of thirst, and yet
  abhorreth water; and is in such an estate, as if the poyson endeavoured to
  convert him into a Dogge: So when a Monarchy is once bitten to the quick,
  by those Democraticall writers, that continually snarle at that estate; it
  wanteth nothing more than a strong Monarch, which neverthelesse out of a
  certain Tyrannophobia, or feare of being strongly governed, when they have
  him, they abhorre.
<br />
  As here have been Doctors, that hold there be three Soules in a man; so
  there be also that think there may be more Soules, (that is, more
  Soveraigns,) than one, in a Common-wealth; and set up a Supremacy against
  the Soveraignty; Canons against Lawes; and a Ghostly Authority against the
  Civill; working on mens minds, with words and distinctions, that of
  themselves signifie nothing, but bewray (by their obscurity) that there
  walketh (as some think invisibly) another Kingdome, as it were a Kingdome
  of Fayries, in the dark. Now seeing it is manifest, that the Civill Power,
  and the Power of the Common-wealth is the same thing; and that Supremacy,
  and the Power of making Canons, and granting Faculties, implyeth a
  Common-wealth; it followeth, that where one is Soveraign, another Supreme;
  where one can make Lawes, and another make Canons; there must needs be two
  Common-wealths, of one & the same Subjects; which is a Kingdome
  divided in it selfe, and cannot stand. For notwithstanding the
  insignificant distinction of Temporall, and Ghostly, they are still two
  Kingdomes, and every Subject is subject to two Masters. For seeing the
  Ghostly Power challengeth the Right to declare what is Sinne it
  challengeth by consequence to declare what is Law, (Sinne being nothing
  but the transgression of the Law;) and again, the Civill Power challenging
  to declare what is Law, every Subject must obey two Masters, who bothe
  will have their Commands be observed as Law; which is impossible. Or, if
  it be but one Kingdome, either the Civill, which is the Power of the
  Common-wealth, must be subordinate to the Ghostly; or the Ghostly must be
  subordinate to the Temporall and then there is no Supremacy but the
  Temporall. When therefore these two Powers oppose one another, the
  Common-wealth cannot but be in great danger of Civill warre, and
  Dissolution. For the Civill Authority being more visible, and standing in
  the cleerer light of naturall reason cannot choose but draw to it in all
  times a very considerable part of the people: And the Spirituall, though
  it stand in the darknesse of Schoole distinctions, and hard words; yet
  because the fear of Darknesse, and Ghosts, is greater than other fears,
  cannot want a party sufficient to Trouble, and sometimes to Destroy a
  Common-wealth. And this is a Disease which not unfitly may be compared to
  the Epilepsie, or Falling-sicknesse (which the Jewes took to be one kind
  of possession by Spirits) in the Body Naturall. For as in this Disease,
  there is an unnaturall spirit, or wind in the head that obstructeth the
  roots of the Nerves, and moving them violently, taketh away the motion
  which naturally they should have from the power of the Soule in the Brain,
  and thereby causeth violent, and irregular motions (which men call
  Convulsions) in the parts; insomuch as he that is seized therewith,
  falleth down sometimes into the water, and sometimes into the fire, as a
  man deprived of his senses; so also in the Body Politique, when the
  Spirituall power, moveth the Members of a Common-wealth, by the terrour of
  punishments, and hope of rewards (which are the Nerves of it,) otherwise
  than by the Civill Power (which is the Soule of the Common-wealth) they
  ought to be moved; and by strange, and hard words suffocates the people,
  and either Overwhelm the Common-wealth with Oppression, or cast it into
  the Fire of a Civill warre.

  Mixt Government


  Sometimes also in the meerly Civill government, there be more than one
  Soule: As when the Power of levying mony, (which is the Nutritive
  faculty,) has depended on a generall Assembly; the Power of conduct and
  command, (which is the Motive Faculty,) on one man; and the Power of
  making Lawes, (which is the Rationall faculty,) on the accidentall
  consent, not onely of those two, but also of a third; This endangereth the
  Common-wealth, somtimes for want of consent to good Lawes; but most often
  for want of such Nourishment, as is necessary to Life, and Motion. For
  although few perceive, that such government, is not government, but
  division of the Common-wealth into three Factions, and call it mixt
  Monarchy; yet the truth is, that it is not one independent Common-wealth,
  but three independent Factions; nor one Representative Person, but three.
  In the Kingdome of God, there may be three Persons independent, without
  breach of unity in God that Reigneth; but where men Reigne, that be
  subject to diversity of opinions, it cannot be so. And therefore if the
  King bear the person of the People, and the generall Assembly bear also
  the person of the People, and another assembly bear the person of a Part
  of the people, they are not one Person, nor one Soveraign, but three
  Persons, and three Soveraigns.
<br />
  To what Disease in the Naturall Body of man, I may exactly compare this
  irregularity of a Common-wealth, I know not. But I have seen a man, that
  had another man growing out of his side, with an head, armes, breast, and
  stomach, of his own: If he had had another man growing out of his other
  side, the comparison might then have been exact.

  Want Of Mony


  Hitherto I have named such Diseases of a Common-wealth, as are of the
  greatest, and most present danger. There be other, not so great; which
  neverthelesse are not unfit to be observed. As first, the difficulty of
  raising Mony, for the necessary uses of the Common-wealth; especially in
  the approach of warre. This difficulty ariseth from the opinion, that
  every Subject hath of a Propriety in his lands and goods, exclusive of the
  Soveraigns Right to the use of the same. From whence it commeth to passe,
  that the Soveraign Power, which foreseeth the necessities and dangers of
  the Common-wealth, (finding the passage of mony to the publique Treasure
  obstructed, by the tenacity of the people,) whereas it ought to extend it
  selfe, to encounter, and prevent such dangers in their beginnings,
  contracteth it selfe as long as it can, and when it cannot longer,
  struggles with the people by strategems of Law, to obtain little summes,
  which not sufficing, he is fain at last violently to open the way for
  present supply, or Perish; and being put often to these extremities, at
  last reduceth the people to their due temper; or else the Common-wealth
  must perish. Insomuch as we may compare this Distemper very aptly to an
  Ague; wherein, the fleshy parts being congealed, or by venomous matter
  obstructed; the Veins which by their naturall course empty themselves into
  the Heart, are not (as they ought to be) supplyed from the Arteries,
  whereby there succeedeth at first a cold contraction, and trembling of the
  limbes; and afterwards a hot, and strong endeavour of the Heart, to force
  a passage for the Bloud; and before it can do that, contenteth it selfe
  with the small refreshments of such things as coole of a time, till (if
  Nature be strong enough) it break at last the contumacy of the parts
  obstructed, and dissipateth the venome into sweat; or (if Nature be too
  weak) the Patient dyeth.

  Monopolies And Abuses Of Publicans


  Again, there is sometimes in a Common-wealth, a Disease, which resembleth
  the Pleurisie; and that is, when the Treasure of the Common-wealth,
  flowing out of its due course, is gathered together in too much abundance,
  in one, or a few private men, by Monopolies, or by Farmes of the Publique
  Revenues; in the same manner as the Blood in a Pleurisie, getting into the
  Membrane of the breast, breedeth there an Inflammation, accompanied with a
  Fever, and painfull stitches.

  Popular Men


  Also, the Popularity of a potent Subject, (unlesse the Common-wealth have
  very good caution of his fidelity,) is a dangerous Disease; because the
  people (which should receive their motion from the Authority of the
  Soveraign,) by the flattery, and by the reputation of an ambitious man,
  are drawn away from their obedience to the Lawes, to follow a man, of
  whose vertues, and designes they have no knowledge. And this is commonly
  of more danger in a Popular Government, than in a Monarchy; as it may
  easily be made believe, they are the People. By this means it was, that
  Julius Caesar, who was set up by the People against the Senate, having won
  to himselfe the affections of his Army, made himselfe Master, both of
  Senate and People. And this proceeding of popular, and ambitious men, is
  plain Rebellion; and may be resembled to the effects of Witchcraft.

  Excessive Greatnesse Of A Town, Multitude Of Corporations


  Another infirmity of a Common-wealth, is the immoderate greatnesse of a
  Town, when it is able to furnish out of its own Circuit, the number, and
  expence of a great Army: As also the great number of Corporations; which
  are as it were many lesser Common-wealths in the bowels of a greater, like
  wormes in the entrayles of a naturall man.

  Liberty Of Disputing Against Soveraign Power


  To which may be added, the Liberty of Disputing against absolute Power, by
  pretenders to Politicall Prudence; which though bred for the most part in
  the Lees of the people; yet animated by False Doctrines, are perpetually
  medling with the Fundamentall Lawes, to the molestation of the
  Common-wealth; like the little Wormes, which Physicians call Ascarides.
<br />
  We may further adde, the insatiable appetite, or Bulimia, of enlarging
  Dominion; with the incurable Wounds thereby many times received from the
  enemy; And the Wens, of ununited conquests, which are many times a
  burthen, and with lesse danger lost, than kept; As also the Lethargy of
  Ease, and Consumption of Riot and Vain Expence.

  Dissolution Of The Common-wealth


  Lastly, when in a warre (forraign, or intestine,) the enemies got a final
  Victory; so as (the forces of the Common-wealth keeping the field no
  longer) there is no farther protection of Subjects in their loyalty; then
  is the Common-wealth DISSOLVED, and every man at liberty to protect
  himselfe by such courses as his own discretion shall suggest unto him. For
  the Soveraign, is the publique Soule, giving Life and Motion to the
  Common-wealth; which expiring, the Members are governed by it no more,
  than the Carcasse of a man, by his departed (though Immortal) Soule. For
  though the Right of a Soveraign Monarch cannot be extinguished by the act
  of another; yet the Obligation of the members may. For he that wants
  protection, may seek it anywhere; and when he hath it, is obliged (without
  fraudulent pretence of having submitted himselfe out of fear,) to protect
  his Protection as long as he is able. But when the Power of an Assembly is
  once suppressed, the Right of the same perisheth utterly; because the
  Assembly it selfe is extinct; and consequently, there is no possibility
  for the Soveraignty to re-enter.

  CHAPTER XXX.<br />OF THE OFFICE OF THE SOVERAIGN REPRESENTATIVE

  The Procuration Of The Good Of The People


  The OFFICE of the Soveraign, (be it a Monarch, or an Assembly,) consisteth
  in the end, for which he was trusted with the Soveraign Power, namely the
  procuration of the Safety Of The People; to which he is obliged by the Law
  of Nature, and to render an account thereof to God, the Author of that
  Law, and to none but him. But by Safety here, is not meant a bare
  Preservation, but also all other Contentments of life, which every man by
  lawfull Industry, without danger, or hurt to the Common-wealth, shall
  acquire to himselfe.

  By Instruction & Lawes


  And this is intended should be done, not by care applyed to Individualls,
  further than their protection from injuries, when they shall complain; but
  by a generall Providence, contained in publique Instruction, both of
  Doctrine, and Example; and in the making, and executing of good Lawes, to
  which individuall persons may apply their own cases.

  Against The Duty Of A Soveraign To Relinquish Any Essentiall Right of
  Soveraignty Or Not To See The People Taught The Grounds Of Them


  And because, if the essentiall Rights of Soveraignty (specified before in
  the eighteenth Chapter) be taken away, the Common-wealth is thereby
  dissolved, and every man returneth into the condition, and calamity of a
  warre with every other man, (which is the greatest evill that can happen
  in this life;) it is the Office of the Soveraign, to maintain those Rights
  entire; and consequently against his duty, First, to transferre to
  another, or to lay from himselfe any of them. For he that deserteth the
  Means, deserteth the Ends; and he deserteth the Means, that being the
  Soveraign, acknowledgeth himselfe subject to the Civill Lawes; and
  renounceth the Power of Supreme Judicature; or of making Warre, or Peace
  by his own Authority; or of Judging of the Necessities of the
  Common-wealth; or of levying Mony, and Souldiers, when, and as much as in
  his own conscience he shall judge necessary; or of making Officers, and
  Ministers both of Warre, and Peace; or of appointing Teachers, and
  examining what Doctrines are conformable, or contrary to the Defence,
  Peace, and Good of the people. Secondly, it is against his duty, to let
  the people be ignorant, or mis-in-formed of the grounds, and reasons of
  those his essentiall Rights; because thereby men are easie to be seduced,
  and drawn to resist him, when the Common-wealth shall require their use
  and exercise.
<br />
  And the grounds of these Rights, have the rather need to be diligently,
  and truly taught; because they cannot be maintained by any Civill Law, or
  terrour of legal punishment. For a Civill Law, that shall forbid
  Rebellion, (and such is all resistance to the essentiall Rights of
  Soveraignty,) is not (as a Civill Law) any obligation, but by vertue onely
  of the Law of Nature, that forbiddeth the violation of Faith; which
  naturall obligation if men know not, they cannot know the Right of any Law
  the Soveraign maketh. And for the Punishment, they take it but for an act
  of Hostility; which when they think they have strength enough, they will
  endeavour by acts of Hostility, to avoyd.

  Objection Of Those That Say There Are No Principles Of Reason For
  Absolute Soveraignty


  As I have heard some say, that Justice is but a word, without substance;
  and that whatsoever a man can by force, or art, acquire to himselfe, (not
  onely in the condition of warre, but also in a Common-wealth,) is his own,
  which I have already shewed to be false: So there be also that maintain,
  that there are no grounds, nor Principles of Reason, to sustain those
  essentiall Rights, which make Soveraignty absolute. For if there were,
  they would have been found out in some place, or other; whereas we see,
  there has not hitherto been any Common-wealth, where those Rights have
  been acknowledged, or challenged. Wherein they argue as ill, as if the
  Savage people of America, should deny there were any grounds, or
  Principles of Reason, so to build a house, as to last as long as the
  materials, because they never yet saw any so well built. Time, and
  Industry, produce every day new knowledge. And as the art of well
  building, is derived from Principles of Reason, observed by industrious
  men, that had long studied the nature of materials, and the divers effects
  of figure, and proportion, long after mankind began (though poorly) to
  build: So, long time after men have begun to constitute Common-wealths,
  imperfect, and apt to relapse into disorder, there may, Principles of
  Reason be found out, by industrious meditation, to make use of them, or be
  neglected by them, or not, concerneth my particular interest, at this day,
  very little. But supposing that these of mine are not such Principles of
  Reason; yet I am sure they are Principles from Authority of Scripture; as
  I shall make it appear, when I shall come to speak of the Kingdome of God,
  (administred by Moses,) over the Jewes, his peculiar people by Covenant.

  Objection From The Incapacity Of The Vulgar


  But they say again, that though the Principles be right, yet Common people
  are not of capacity enough to be made to understand them. I should be
  glad, that the Rich, and Potent Subjects of a Kingdome, or those that are
  accounted the most Learned, were no lesse incapable than they. But all men
  know, that the obstructions to this kind of doctrine, proceed not so much
  from the difficulty of the matter, as from the interest of them that are
  to learn. Potent men, digest hardly any thing that setteth up a Power to
  bridle their affections; and Learned men, any thing that discovereth their
  errours, and thereby lesseneth their Authority: whereas the Common-peoples
  minds, unlesse they be tainted with dependance on the Potent, or scribbled
  over with the opinions of their Doctors, are like clean paper, fit to
  receive whatsoever by Publique Authority shall be imprinted in them. Shall
  whole Nations be brought to Acquiesce in the great Mysteries of Christian
  Religion, which are above Reason; and millions of men be made believe,
  that the same Body may be in innumerable places, at one and the same time,
  which is against Reason; and shall not men be able, by their teaching, and
  preaching, protected by the Law, to make that received, which is so
  consonant to Reason, that any unprejudicated man, needs no more to learn
  it, than to hear it? I conclude therefore, that in the instruction of the
  people in the Essentiall Rights (which are the Naturall, and Fundamentall
  Lawes) of Soveraignty, there is no difficulty, (whilest a Soveraign has
  his Power entire,) but what proceeds from his own fault, or the fault of
  those whom he trusteth in the administration of the Common-wealth; and
  consequently, it is his Duty, to cause them so to be instructed; and not
  onely his Duty, but his Benefit also, and Security, against the danger
  that may arrive to himselfe in his naturall Person, from Rebellion.

  Subjects Are To Be Taught, Not To Affect Change Of Government


  And (to descend to particulars) the People are to be taught, First, that
  they ought not to be in love with any forme of Government they see in
  their neighbour Nations, more than with their own, nor (whatsoever present
  prosperity they behold in Nations that are otherwise governed than they,)
  to desire change. For the prosperity of a People ruled by an
  Aristocraticall, or Democraticall assembly, commeth not from Aristocracy,
  nor from Democracy, but from the Obedience, and Concord of the Subjects;
  nor do the people flourish in a Monarchy, because one man has the right to
  rule them, but because they obey him. Take away in any kind of State, the
  Obedience, (and consequently the Concord of the People,) and they shall
  not onely not flourish, but in short time be dissolved. And they that go
  about by disobedience, to doe no more than reforme the Common-wealth,
  shall find they do thereby destroy it; like the foolish daughters of
  Peleus (in the fable;) which desiring to renew the youth of their decrepit
  Father, did by the Counsell of Medea, cut him in pieces, and boyle him,
  together with strange herbs, but made not of him a new man. This desire of
  change, is like the breach of the first of Gods Commandements: For there
  God says, Non Habebis Deos Alienos; Thou shalt not have the Gods of other
  Nations; and in another place concerning Kings, that they are Gods.

  Nor Adhere (Against The Soveraign) To Popular Men


  Secondly, they are to be taught, that they ought not to be led with
  admiration of the vertue of any of their fellow Subjects, how high soever
  he stand, nor how conspicuously soever he shine in the Common-wealth; nor
  of any Assembly, (except the Soveraign Assembly,) so as to deferre to them
  any obedience, or honour, appropriate to the Soveraign onely, whom (in
  their particular stations) they represent; nor to receive any influence
  from them, but such as is conveighed by them from the Soveraign Authority.
  For that Soveraign, cannot be imagined to love his People as he ought,
  that is not Jealous of them, but suffers them by the flattery of Popular
  men, to be seduced from their loyalty, as they have often been, not onely
  secretly, but openly, so as to proclaime Marriage with them In Facie
  Ecclesiae by Preachers; and by publishing the same in the open streets:
  which may fitly be compared to the violation of the second of the ten
  Commandements.
<br />
  Nor To Dispute The Soveraign Power
<br />
  Thirdly, in consequence to this, they ought to be informed, how great
  fault it is, to speak evill of the Soveraign Representative, (whether One
  man, or an Assembly of men;) or to argue and dispute his Power, or any way
  to use his Name irreverently, whereby he may be brought into Contempt with
  his People, and their Obedience (in which the safety of the Common-wealth
  consisteth) slackened. Which doctrine the third Commandement by
  resemblance pointeth to.

  And To Have Dayes Set Apart To Learn Their Duty


  Fourthly, seeing people cannot be taught this, nor when &rsquo;tis taught,
  remember it, nor after one generation past, so much as know in whom the
  Soveraign Power is placed, without setting a part from their ordinary
  labour, some certain times, in which they may attend those that are
  appointed to instruct them; It is necessary that some such times be
  determined, wherein they may assemble together, and (after prayers and
  praises given to God, the Soveraign of Soveraigns) hear those their Duties
  told them, and the Positive Lawes, such as generally concern them all,
  read and expounded, and be put in mind of the Authority that maketh them
  Lawes. To this end had the Jewes every seventh day, a Sabbath, in which
  the Law was read and expounded; and in the solemnity whereof they were put
  in mind, that their King was God; that having created the world in six
  days, he rested the seventh day; and by their resting on it from their
  labour, that that God was their King, which redeemed them from their
  servile, and painfull labour in Egypt, and gave them a time, after they
  had rejoyced in God, to take joy also in themselves, by lawfull
  recreation. So that the first Table of the Commandements, is spent all, in
  setting down the summe of Gods absolute Power; not onely as God, but as
  King by pact, (in peculiar) of the Jewes; and may therefore give light, to
  those that have the Soveraign Power conferred on them by the consent of
  men, to see what doctrine they Ought to teach their Subjects.

  And To Honour Their Parents


  And because the first instruction of Children, dependeth on the care of
  their Parents; it is necessary that they should be obedient to them,
  whilest they are under their tuition; and not onely so, but that also
  afterwards (as gratitude requireth,) they acknowledge the benefit of their
  education, by externall signes of honour. To which end they are to be
  taught, that originally the Father of every man was also his Soveraign
  Lord, with power over him of life and death; and that the Fathers of
  families, when by instituting a Common-wealth, they resigned that absolute
  Power, yet it was never intended, they should lose the honour due unto
  them for their education. For to relinquish such right, was not necessary
  to the Institution of Soveraign Power; nor would there be any reason, why
  any man should desire to have children, or take the care to nourish, and
  instruct them, if they were afterwards to have no other benefit from them,
  than from other men. And this accordeth with the fifth Commandement.

  And To Avoyd Doing Of Injury:


  Again, every Soveraign Ought to cause Justice to be taught, which
  (consisting in taking from no man what is his) is as much as to say, to
  cause men to be taught not to deprive their Neighbour, by violence, or
  fraud, of any thing which by the Soveraign Authority is theirs. Of things
  held in propriety, those that are dearest to a man are his own life, &
  limbs; and in the next degree, (in most men,) those that concern conjugall
  affection; and after them riches and means of living. Therefore the People
  are to be taught, to abstain from violence to one anothers person, by
  private revenges; from violation of conjugall honour; and from forcibly
  rapine, and fraudulent surreption of one anothers goods. For which purpose
  also it is necessary they be shewed the evill consequences of false
  Judgement, by corruption either of Judges or Witnesses, whereby the
  distinction of propriety is taken away, and Justice becomes of no effect:
  all which things are intimated in the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth
  Commandements.

  And To Do All This Sincerely From The Heart


  Lastly, they are to be taught, that not onely the unjust facts, but the
  designes and intentions to do them, (though by accident hindred,) are
  Injustice; which consisteth in the pravity of the will, as well as in the
  irregularity of the act. And this is the intention of the tenth
  Commandement, and the summe of the Second Table; which is reduced all to
  this one Commandement of mutuall Charity, &ldquo;Thou shalt love thy neighbour
  as thy selfe:&rdquo; as the summe of the first Table is reduced to &ldquo;the love of
  God;&rdquo; whom they had then newly received as their King.

  The Use Of Universities


  As for the Means, and Conduits, by which the people may receive this
  Instruction, wee are to search, by what means so may Opinions, contrary to
  the peace of Man-kind, upon weak and false Principles, have neverthelesse
  been so deeply rooted in them. I mean those, which I have in the precedent
  Chapter specified: as That men shall Judge of what is lawfull and
  unlawfull, not by the Law it selfe, but by their own private Judgements;
  That Subjects sinne in obeying the Commands of the Common-wealth, unlesse
  they themselves have first judged them to be lawfull: That their Propriety
  in their riches is such, as to exclude the Dominion, which the
  Common-wealth hath over the same: That it is lawfull for Subjects to kill
  such, as they call Tyrants: That the Soveraign Power may be divided, and
  the like; which come to be instilled into the People by this means. They
  whom necessity, or covetousnesse keepeth attent on their trades, and
  labour; and they, on the other side, whom superfluity, or sloth carrieth
  after their sensuall pleasures, (which two sorts of men take up the
  greatest part of Man-kind,) being diverted from the deep meditation, which
  the learning of truth, not onely in the matter of Naturall Justice, but
  also of all other Sciences necessarily requireth, receive the Notions of
  their duty, chiefly from Divines in the Pulpit, and partly from such of
  their Neighbours, or familiar acquaintance, as having the Faculty of
  discoursing readily, and plausibly, seem wiser and better learned in cases
  of Law, and Conscience, than themselves. And the Divines, and such others
  as make shew of Learning, derive their knowledge from the Universities,
  and from the Schooles of Law, or from the Books, which by men eminent in
  those Schooles, and Universities have been published. It is therefore
  manifest, that the Instruction of the people, dependeth wholly, on the
  right teaching of Youth in the Universities. But are not (may some men
  say) the Universities of England learned enough already to do that? or is
  it you will undertake to teach the Universities? Hard questions. Yet to
  the first, I doubt not to answer; that till towards the later end of Henry
  the Eighth, the Power of the Pope, was alwayes upheld against the Power of
  the Common-wealth, principally by the Universities; and that the doctrines
  maintained by so many Preachers, against the Soveraign Power of the King,
  and by so many Lawyers, and others, that had their education there, is a
  sufficient argument, that though the Universities were not authors of
  those false doctrines, yet they knew not how to plant the true. For in
  such a contradiction of Opinions, it is most certain, that they have not
  been sufficiently instructed; and &rsquo;tis no wonder, if they yet retain a
  relish of that subtile liquor, wherewith they were first seasoned, against
  the Civill Authority. But to the later question, it is not fit, nor
  needfull for me to say either I, or No: for any man that sees what I am
  doing, may easily perceive what I think.
<br />
  The safety of the People, requireth further, from him, or them that have
  the Soveraign Power, that Justice be equally administred to all degrees of
  People; that is, that as well the rich, and mighty, as poor and obscure
  persons, may be righted of the injuries done them; so as the great, may
  have no greater hope of impunity, when they doe violence, dishonour, or
  any Injury to the meaner sort, than when one of these, does the like to
  one of them: For in this consisteth Equity; to which, as being a Precept
  of the Law of Nature, a Soveraign is as much subject, as any of the
  meanest of his People. All breaches of the Law, are offences against the
  Common-wealth: but there be some, that are also against private Persons.
  Those that concern the Common-wealth onely, may without breach of Equity
  be pardoned; for every man may pardon what is done against himselfe,
  according to his own discretion. But an offence against a private man,
  cannot in Equity be pardoned, without the consent of him that is injured;
  or reasonable satisfaction.
<br />
  The Inequality of Subjects, proceedeth from the Acts of Soveraign Power;
  and therefore has no more place in the presence of the Soveraign; that is
  to say, in a Court of Justice, then the Inequality between Kings, and
  their Subjects, in the presence of the King of Kings. The honour of great
  Persons, is to be valued for their beneficence, and the aydes they give to
  men of inferiour rank, or not at all. And the violences, oppressions, and
  injuries they do, are not extenuated, but aggravated by the greatnesse of
  their persons; because they have least need to commit them. The
  consequences of this partiality towards the great, proceed in this manner.
  Impunity maketh Insolence; Insolence Hatred; and Hatred, an Endeavour to
  pull down all oppressing and contumelious greatnesse, though with the
  ruine of the Common-wealth.

  Equall Taxes


  To Equall Justice, appertaineth also the Equall imposition of Taxes; the
  equality whereof dependeth not on the Equality of riches, but on the
  Equality of the debt, that every man oweth to the Common-wealth for his
  defence. It is not enough, for a man to labour for the maintenance of his
  life; but also to fight, (if need be,) for the securing of his labour.
  They must either do as the Jewes did after their return from captivity, in
  re-edifying the Temple, build with one hand, and hold the Sword in the
  other; or else they must hire others to fight for them. For the
  Impositions that are layd on the People by the Soveraign Power, are
  nothing else but the Wages, due to them that hold the publique Sword, to
  defend private men in the exercise of severall Trades, and Callings.
  Seeing then the benefit that every one receiveth thereby, is the enjoyment
  of life, which is equally dear to poor, and rich; the debt which a poor
  man oweth them that defend his life, is the same which a rich man oweth
  for the defence of his; saving that the rich, who have the service of the
  poor, may be debtors not onely for their own persons, but for many more.
  Which considered, the Equality of Imposition, consisteth rather in the
  Equality of that which is consumed, than of the riches of the persons that
  consume the same. For what reason is there, that he which laboureth much,
  and sparing the fruits of his labour, consumeth little, should be more
  charged, then he that living idlely, getteth little, and spendeth all he
  gets; seeing the one hath no more protection from the Common-wealth, then
  the other? But when the Impositions, are layd upon those things which men
  consume, every man payeth Equally for what he useth: Nor is the
  Common-wealth defrauded, by the luxurious waste of private men.

  Publique Charity


  And whereas many men, by accident unevitable, become unable to maintain
  themselves by their labour; they ought not to be left to the Charity of
  private persons; but to be provided for, (as far-forth as the necessities
  of Nature require,) by the Lawes of the Common-wealth. For as it is
  Uncharitablenesse in any man, to neglect the impotent; so it is in the
  Soveraign of a Common-wealth, to expose them to the hazard of such
  uncertain Charity.

  Prevention Of Idlenesse


  But for such as have strong bodies, the case is otherwise: they are to be
  forced to work; and to avoyd the excuse of not finding employment, there
  ought to be such Lawes, as may encourage all manner of Arts; as
  Navigation, Agriculture, Fishing, and all manner of Manifacture that
  requires labour. The multitude of poor, and yet strong people still
  encreasing, they are to be transplanted into Countries not sufficiently
  inhabited: where neverthelesse, they are not to exterminate those they
  find there; but constrain them to inhabit closer together, and not range a
  great deal of ground, to snatch what they find; but to court each little
  Plot with art and labour, to give them their sustenance in due season. And
  when all the world is overchargd with Inhabitants, then the last remedy of
  all is Warre; which provideth for every man, by Victory, or Death.

  Good Lawes What


  To the care of the Soveraign, belongeth the making of Good Lawes. But what
  is a good Law? By a Good Law, I mean not a Just Law: for no Law can be
  Unjust. The Law is made by the Soveraign Power, and all that is done by
  such Power, is warranted, and owned by every one of the people; and that
  which every man will have so, no man can say is unjust. It is in the Lawes
  of a Common-wealth, as in the Lawes of Gaming: whatsoever the Gamesters
  all agree on, is Injustice to none of them. A good Law is that, which is
  Needfull, for the Good Of The People, and withall Perspicuous.

  Such As Are Necessary


  For the use of Lawes, (which are but Rules Authorised) is not to bind the
  People from all Voluntary actions; but to direct and keep them in such a
  motion, as not to hurt themselves by their own impetuous desires,
  rashnesse, or indiscretion, as Hedges are set, not to stop Travellers, but
  to keep them in the way. And therefore a Law that is not Needfull, having
  not the true End of a Law, is not Good. A Law may be conceived to be Good,
  when it is for the benefit of the Soveraign; though it be not Necessary
  for the People; but it is not so. For the good of the Soveraign and
  People, cannot be separated. It is a weak Soveraign, that has weak
  Subjects; and a weak People, whose Soveraign wanteth Power to rule them at
  his will. Unnecessary Lawes are not good Lawes; but trapps for Mony: which
  where the right of Soveraign Power is acknowledged, are superfluous; and
  where it is not acknowledged, unsufficient to defend the People.

  Such As Are Perspicuous


  The Perspicuity, consisteth not so much in the words of the Law it selfe,
  as in a Declaration of the Causes, and Motives, for which it was made.
  That is it, that shewes us the meaning of the Legislator, and the meaning
  of the Legislator known, the Law is more easily understood by few, than
  many words. For all words, are subject to ambiguity; and therefore
  multiplication of words in the body of the Law, is multiplication of
  ambiguity: Besides it seems to imply, (by too much diligence,) that
  whosoever can evade the words, is without the compasse of the Law. And
  this is a cause of many unnecessary Processes. For when I consider how
  short were the Lawes of antient times; and how they grew by degrees still
  longer; me thinks I see a contention between the Penners, and Pleaders of
  the Law; the former seeking to circumscribe the later; and the later to
  evade their circumscriptions; and that the Pleaders have got the Victory.
  It belongeth therefore to the Office of a Legislator, (such as is in all
  Common-wealths the Supreme Representative, be it one Man, or an Assembly,)
  to make the reason Perspicuous, why the Law was made; and the Body of the
  Law it selfe, as short, but in as proper, and significant termes, as may
  be.

  Punishments


  It belongeth also to the Office of the Soveraign, to make a right
  application of Punishments, and Rewards. And seeing the end of punishing
  is not revenge, and discharge of choler; but correction, either of the
  offender, or of others by his example; the severest Punishments are to be
  inflicted for those Crimes, that are of most Danger to the Publique; such
  as are those which proceed from malice to the Government established;
  those that spring from contempt of Justice; those that provoke Indignation
  in the Multitude; and those, which unpunished, seem Authorised, as when
  they are committed by Sonnes, Servants, or Favorites of men in Authority:
  For Indignation carrieth men, not onely against the Actors, and Authors of
  Injustice; but against all Power that is likely to protect them; as in the
  case of Tarquin; when for the Insolent act of one of his Sonnes, he was
  driven out of Rome, and the Monarchy it selfe dissolved. But Crimes of
  Infirmity; such as are those which proceed from great provocation, from
  great fear, great need, or from ignorance whether the Fact be a great
  Crime, or not, there is place many times for Lenity, without prejudice to
  the Common-wealth; and Lenity when there is such place for it, is required
  by the Law of Nature. The Punishment of the Leaders, and teachers in a
  Commotion; not the poore seduced People, when they are punished, can
  profit the Common-wealth by their example. To be severe to the People, is
  to punish that ignorance, which may in great part be imputed to the
  Soveraign, whose fault it was, they were no better instructed.

  Rewards


  In like manner it belongeth to the Office, and Duty of the Soveraign, to
  apply his Rewards alwayes so, as there may arise from them benefit to the
  Common-wealth: wherein consisteth their Use, and End; and is then done,
  when they that have well served the Common-wealth, are with as little
  expence of the Common Treasure, as is possible, so well recompenced, as
  others thereby may be encouraged, both to serve the same as faithfully as
  they can, and to study the arts by which they may be enabled to do it
  better. To buy with Mony, or Preferment, from a Popular ambitious Subject,
  to be quiet, and desist from making ill impressions in the mindes of the
  People, has nothing of the nature of Reward; (which is ordained not for
  disservice, but for service past;) nor a signe of Gratitude, but of Fear:
  nor does it tend to the Benefit, but to the Dammage of the Publique. It is
  a contention with Ambition, like that of Hercules with the Monster Hydra,
  which having many heads, for every one that was vanquished, there grew up
  three. For in like manner, when the stubbornnesse of one Popular man, is
  overcome with Reward, there arise many more (by the Example) that do the
  same Mischiefe, in hope of like Benefit: and as all sorts of Manifacture,
  so also Malice encreaseth by being vendible. And though sometimes a Civill
  warre, may be differred, by such wayes as that, yet the danger growes
  still the greater, and the Publique ruine more assured. It is therefore
  against the Duty of the Soveraign, to whom the Publique Safety is
  committed, to Reward those that aspire to greatnesse by disturbing the
  Peace of their Country, and not rather to oppose the beginnings of such
  men, with a little danger, than after a longer time with greater.

  Counsellours


  Another Businesse of the Soveraign, is to choose good Counsellours; I mean
  such, whose advice he is to take in the Government of the Common-wealth.
  For this word Counsell, Consilium, corrupted from Considium, is a large
  signification, and comprehendeth all Assemblies of men that sit together,
  not onely to deliberate what is to be done hereafter, but also to judge of
  Facts past, and of Law for the present. I take it here in the first sense
  onely: And in this sense, there is no choyce of Counsell, neither in a
  Democracy, nor Aristocracy; because the persons Counselling are members of
  the person Counselled. The choyce of Counsellours therefore is to
  Monarchy; In which, the Soveraign that endeavoureth not to make choyce of
  those, that in every kind are the most able, dischargeth not his Office as
  he ought to do. The most able Counsellours, are they that have least hope
  of benefit by giving evill Counsell, and most knowledge of those things
  that conduce to the Peace, and Defence of the Common-wealth. It is a hard
  matter to know who expecteth benefit from publique troubles; but the
  signes that guide to a just suspicion, is the soothing of the people in
  their unreasonable, or irremediable grievances, by men whose estates are
  not sufficient to discharge their accustomed expences, and may easily be
  observed by any one whom it concerns to know it. But to know, who has most
  knowledge of the Publique affaires, is yet harder; and they that know
  them, need them a great deale the lesse. For to know, who knowes the Rules
  almost of any Art, is a great degree of the knowledge of the same Art;
  because no man can be assured of the truth of anothers Rules, but he that
  is first taught to understand them. But the best signes of Knowledge of
  any Art, are, much conversing in it, and constant good effects of it. Good
  Counsell comes not by Lot, nor by Inheritance; and therefore there is no
  more reason to expect good Advice from the rich, or noble, in matter of
  State, than in delineating the dimensions of a fortresse; unlesse we shall
  think there needs no method in the study of the Politiques, (as there does
  in the study of Geometry,) but onely to be lookers on; which is not so.
  For the Politiques is the harder study of the two. Whereas in these parts
  of Europe, it hath been taken for a Right of certain persons, to have
  place in the highest Councell of State by Inheritance; it is derived from
  the Conquests of the antient Germans; wherein many absolute Lords joyning
  together to conquer other Nations, would not enter in to the Confederacy,
  without such Priviledges, as might be marks of difference in time
  following, between their Posterity, and the posterity of their Subjects;
  which Priviledges being inconsistent with the Soveraign Power, by the
  favour of the Soveraign, they may seem to keep; but contending for them as
  their Right, they must needs by degrees let them go, and have at last no
  further honour, than adhaereth naturally to their abilities.
<br />
  And how able soever be the Counsellours in any affaire, the benefit of
  their Counsell is greater, when they give every one his Advice, and
  reasons of it apart, than when they do it in an Assembly, by way of
  Orations; and when they have praemeditated, than when they speak on the
  sudden; both because they have more time, to survey the consequences of
  action; and are lesse subject to be carried away to contradiction, through
  Envy, Emulation, or other Passions arising from the difference of opinion.
<br />
  The best Counsell, in those things that concern not other Nations, but
  onely the ease, and benefit the Subjects may enjoy, by Lawes that look
  onely inward, is to be taken from the generall informations, and
  complaints of the people of each Province, who are best acquainted with
  their own wants, and ought therefore, when they demand nothing in
  derogation of the essentiall Rights of Soveraignty, to be diligently taken
  notice of. For without those Essentiall Rights, (as I have often before
  said,) the Common-wealth cannot at all subsist.

  Commanders


  A Commander of an Army in chiefe, if he be not Popular, shall not be
  beloved, nor feared as he ought to be by his Army; and consequently cannot
  performe that office with good successe. He must therefore be Industrious,
  Valiant, Affable, Liberall and Fortunate, that he may gain an opinion both
  of sufficiency, and of loving his Souldiers. This is Popularity, and
  breeds in the Souldiers both desire, and courage, to recommend themselves
  to his favour; and protects the severity of the Generall, in punishing
  (when need is) the Mutinous, or negligent Souldiers. But this love of
  Souldiers, (if caution be not given of the Commanders fidelity,) is a
  dangerous thing to Soveraign Power; especially when it is in the hands of
  an Assembly not popular. It belongeth therefore to the safety of the
  People, both that they be good Conductors, and faithfull subjects, to whom
  the Soveraign Commits his Armies.
<br />
  But when the Soveraign himselfe is Popular, that is, reverenced and
  beloved of his People, there is no danger at all from the Popularity of a
  Subject. For Souldiers are never so generally unjust, as to side with
  their Captain; though they love him, against their Soveraign, when they
  love not onely his Person, but also his Cause. And therefore those, who by
  violence have at any time suppressed the Power of their Lawfull Soveraign,
  before they could settle themselves in his place, have been alwayes put to
  the trouble of contriving their Titles, to save the People from the shame
  of receiving them. To have a known Right to Soveraign Power, is so popular
  a quality, as he that has it needs no more, for his own part, to turn the
  hearts of his Subjects to him, but that they see him able absolutely to
  govern his own Family: Nor, on the part of his enemies, but a disbanding
  of their Armies. For the greatest and most active part of Mankind, has
  never hetherto been well contented with the present.
<br />
  Concerning the Offices of one Soveraign to another, which are comprehended
  in that Law, which is commonly called the Law of Nations, I need not say
  any thing in this place; because the Law of Nations, and the Law of
  Nature, is the same thing. And every Soveraign hath the same Right, in
  procuring the safety of his People, that any particular man can have, in
  procuring the safety of his own Body. And the same Law, that dictateth to
  men that have no Civil Government, what they ought to do, and what to
  avoyd in regard of one another, dictateth the same to Common-wealths, that
  is, to the Consciences of Soveraign Princes, and Soveraign Assemblies;
  there being no Court of Naturall Justice, but in the Conscience onely;
  where not Man, but God raigneth; whose Lawes, (such of them as oblige all
  Mankind,) in respect of God, as he is the Author of Nature, are Naturall;
  and in respect of the same God, as he is King of Kings, are Lawes. But of
  the Kingdome of God, as King of Kings, and as King also of a peculiar
  People, I shall speak in the rest of this discourse.

  CHAPTER XXXI.<br />OF THE KINGDOME OF GOD BY NATURE

  The Scope Of The Following Chapters


  That the condition of meer Nature, that is to say, of absolute Liberty,
  such as is theirs, that neither are Soveraigns, nor Subjects, is Anarchy,
  and the condition of Warre: That the Praecepts, by which men are guided to
  avoyd that condition, are the Lawes of Nature: That a Common-wealth,
  without Soveraign Power, is but a word, without substance, and cannot
  stand: That Subjects owe to Soveraigns, simple Obedience, in all things,
  wherein their obedience is not repugnant to the Lawes of God, I have
  sufficiently proved, in that which I have already written. There wants
  onely, for the entire knowledge of Civill duty, to know what are those
  Lawes of God. For without that, a man knows not, when he is commanded any
  thing by the Civill Power, whether it be contrary to the Law of God, or
  not: and so, either by too much civill obedience, offends the Divine
  Majesty, or through feare of offending God, transgresses the commandements
  of the Common-wealth. To avoyd both these Rocks, it is necessary to know
  what are the Lawes Divine. And seeing the knowledge of all Law, dependeth
  on the knowledge of the Soveraign Power; I shall say something in that
  which followeth, of the KINGDOME OF GOD.

  Who Are Subjects In The Kingdome Of God


  &ldquo;God is King, let the Earth rejoice,&rdquo; saith the Psalmist. (Psal. 96. 1).
  And again, &ldquo;God is King though the Nations be angry; and he that sitteth
  on the Cherubins, though the earth be moved.&rdquo; (Psal. 98. 1). Whether men
  will or not, they must be subject alwayes to the Divine Power. By denying
  the Existence, or Providence of God, men may shake off their Ease, but not
  their Yoke. But to call this Power of God, which extendeth it selfe not
  onely to Man, but also to Beasts, and Plants, and Bodies inanimate, by the
  name of Kingdome, is but a metaphoricall use of the word. For he onely is
  properly said to Raigne, that governs his Subjects, by his Word, and by
  promise of Rewards to those that obey it, and by threatning them with
  Punishment that obey it not. Subjects therefore in the Kingdome of God,
  are not Bodies Inanimate, nor creatures Irrationall; because they
  understand no Precepts as his: Nor Atheists; nor they that believe not
  that God has any care of the actions of mankind; because they acknowledge
  no Word for his, nor have hope of his rewards, or fear of his threatnings.
  They therefore that believe there is a God that governeth the world, and
  hath given Praecepts, and propounded Rewards, and Punishments to Mankind,
  are Gods Subjects; all the rest, are to be understood as Enemies.

  A Threefold Word Of God, Reason, Revelation, Prophecy


  To rule by Words, requires that such Words be manifestly made known; for
  else they are no Lawes: For to the nature of Lawes belongeth a sufficient,
  and clear Promulgation, such as may take away the excuse of Ignorance;
  which in the Lawes of men is but of one onely kind, and that is,
  Proclamation, or Promulgation by the voyce of man. But God declareth his
  Lawes three wayes; by the Dictates of Naturall Reason, By Revelation, and
  by the Voyce of some Man, to whom by the operation of Miracles, he
  procureth credit with the rest. From hence there ariseth a triple Word of
  God, Rational, Sensible, and Prophetique: to which Correspondeth a triple
  Hearing; Right Reason, Sense Supernaturall, and Faith. As for Sense
  Supernaturall, which consisteth in Revelation, or Inspiration, there have
  not been any Universall Lawes so given, because God speaketh not in that
  manner, but to particular persons, and to divers men divers things.
<br />
  A Twofold Kingdome Of God, Naturall And Prophetique From the difference
  between the other two kinds of Gods Word, Rationall, and Prophetique,
  there may be attributed to God, a two-fold Kingdome, Naturall, and
  Prophetique: Naturall, wherein he governeth as many of Mankind as
  acknowledge his Providence, by the naturall Dictates of Right Reason; And
  Prophetique, wherein having chosen out one peculiar Nation (the Jewes) for
  his Subjects, he governed them, and none but them, not onely by naturall
  Reason, but by Positive Lawes, which he gave them by the mouths of his
  holy Prophets. Of the Naturall Kingdome of God I intend to speak in this
  Chapter.
<br />
  The Right Of Gods Soveraignty Is Derived From His Omnipotence The Right of
  Nature, whereby God reigneth over men, and punisheth those that break his
  Lawes, is to be derived, not from his Creating them, as if he required
  obedience, as of Gratitude for his benefits; but from his Irresistible
  Power. I have formerly shewn, how the Soveraign Right ariseth from Pact:
  To shew how the same Right may arise from Nature, requires no more, but to
  shew in what case it is never taken away. Seeing all men by Nature had
  Right to All things, they had Right every one to reigne over all the rest.
  But because this Right could not be obtained by force, it concerned the
  safety of every one, laying by that Right, to set up men (with Soveraign
  Authority) by common consent, to rule and defend them: whereas if there
  had been any man of Power Irresistible; there had been no reason, why he
  should not by that Power have ruled, and defended both himselfe, and them,
  according to his own discretion. To those therefore whose Power is
  irresistible, the dominion of all men adhaereth naturally by their
  excellence of Power; and consequently it is from that Power, that the
  Kingdome over men, and the Right of afflicting men at his pleasure,
  belongeth Naturally to God Almighty; not as Creator, and Gracious; but as
  Omnipotent. And though Punishment be due for Sinne onely, because by that
  word is understood Affliction for Sinne; yet the Right of Afflicting, is
  not alwayes derived from mens Sinne, but from Gods Power.

  Sinne Not The Cause Of All Affliction


  This question, &ldquo;Why Evill men often Prosper, and Good men suffer
  Adversity,&rdquo; has been much disputed by the Antient, and is the same with
  this of ours, &ldquo;By what Right God dispenseth the Prosperities and
  Adversities of this life;&rdquo; and is of that difficulty, as it hath shaken
  the faith, not onely of the Vulgar, but of Philosophers, and which is
  more, of the Saints, concerning the Divine Providence. &ldquo;How Good,&rdquo; saith
  David, &ldquo;is the God of Israel to those that are Upright in Heart; and yet
  my feet were almost gone, my treadings had well-nigh slipt; for I was
  grieved at the Wicked, when I saw the Ungodly in such Prosperity.&rdquo; And
  Job, how earnestly does he expostulate with God, for the many Afflictions
  he suffered, notwithstanding his Righteousnesse? This question in the case
  of Job, is decided by God himselfe, not by arguments derived from Job&rsquo;s
  Sinne, but his own Power. For whereas the friends of Job drew their
  arguments from his Affliction to his Sinne, and he defended himselfe by
  the conscience of his Innocence, God himselfe taketh up the matter, and
  having justified the Affliction by arguments drawn from his Power, such as
  this &ldquo;Where was thou when I layd the foundations of the earth,&rdquo; and the
  like, both approved Job&rsquo;s Innocence, and reproved the Erroneous doctrine
  of his friends. Conformable to this doctrine is the sentence of our
  Saviour, concerning the man that was born Blind, in these words, &ldquo;Neither
  hath this man sinned, nor his fathers; but that the works of God might be
  made manifest in him.&rdquo; And though it be said &ldquo;That Death entred into the
  world by sinne,&rdquo; (by which is meant that if Adam had never sinned, he had
  never dyed, that is, never suffered any separation of his soule from his
  body,) it follows not thence, that God could not justly have Afflicted
  him, though he had not Sinned, as well as he afflicteth other living
  creatures, that cannot sinne.

  Divine Lawes


  Having spoken of the Right of Gods Soveraignty, as grounded onely on
  Nature; we are to consider next, what are the Divine Lawes, or Dictates of
  Naturall Reason; which Lawes concern either the naturall Duties of one man
  to another, or the Honour naturally due to our Divine Soveraign. The first
  are the same Lawes of Nature, of which I have spoken already in the 14.
  and 15. Chapters of this Treatise; namely, Equity, Justice, Mercy,
  Humility, and the rest of the Morall Vertues. It remaineth therefore that
  we consider, what Praecepts are dictated to men, by their Naturall Reason
  onely, without other word of God, touching the Honour and Worship of the
  Divine Majesty.

  Honour And Worship What


  Honour consisteth in the inward thought, and opinion of the Power, and
  Goodnesse of another: and therefore to Honour God, is to think as Highly
  of his Power and Goodnesse, as is possible. And of that opinion, the
  externall signes appearing in the Words, and Actions of men, are called
  Worship; which is one part of that which the Latines understand by the
  word Cultus: For Cultus signifieth properly, and constantly, that labour
  which a man bestowes on any thing, with a purpose to make benefit by it.
  Now those things whereof we make benefit, are either subject to us, and
  the profit they yeeld, followeth the labour we bestow upon them, as a
  naturall effect; or they are not subject to us, but answer our labour,
  according to their own Wills. In the first sense the labour bestowed on
  the Earth, is called Culture; and the education of Children a Culture of
  their mindes. In the second sense, where mens wills are to be wrought to
  our purpose, not by Force, but by Compleasance, it signifieth as much as
  Courting, that is, a winning of favour by good offices; as by praises, by
  acknowledging their Power, and by whatsoever is pleasing to them from whom
  we look for any benefit. And this is properly Worship: in which sense
  Publicola, is understood for a Worshipper of the People, and Cultus Dei,
  for the Worship of God.

  Severall Signes Of Honour


  From internall Honour, consisting in the opinion of Power and Goodnesse,
  arise three Passions; Love, which hath reference to Goodnesse; and Hope,
  and Fear, that relate to Power: And three parts of externall worship;
  Praise, Magnifying, and Blessing: The subject of Praise, being Goodnesse;
  the subject of Magnifying, and Blessing, being Power, and the effect
  thereof Felicity. Praise, and Magnifying are significant both by Words,
  and Actions: By Words, when we say a man is Good, or Great: By Actions,
  when we thank him for his Bounty, and obey his Power. The opinion of the
  Happinesse of another, can onely be expressed by words.

  Worship Naturall And Arbitrary


  There be some signes of Honour, (both in Attributes and Actions,) that be
  Naturally so; as amongst Attributes, Good, Just, Liberall, and the like;
  and amongst Actions, Prayers, Thanks, and Obedience. Others are so by
  Institution, or Custome of men; and in some times and places are
  Honourable; in others Dishonourable; in others Indifferent: such as are
  the Gestures in Salutation, Prayer, and Thanksgiving, in different times
  and places, differently used. The former is Naturall; the later Arbitrary
  Worship.

  Worship Commanded And Free


  And of Arbitrary Worship, there bee two differences: For sometimes it is a
  Commanded, sometimes Voluntary Worship: Commanded, when it is such as hee
  requireth, who is Worshipped: Free, when it is such as the Worshipper
  thinks fit. When it is Commanded, not the words, or gestures, but the
  obedience is the Worship. But when Free, the Worship consists in the
  opinion of the beholders: for if to them the words, or actions by which we
  intend honour, seem ridiculous, and tending to contumely; they are not
  Worship; because a signe is not a signe to him that giveth it, but to him
  to whom it is made; that is, to the spectator.

  Worship Publique And Private


  Again, there is a Publique, and a Private Worship. Publique, is the
  Worship that a Common-wealth performeth, as one Person. Private, is that
  which a Private person exhibiteth. Publique, in respect of the whole
  Common-wealth, is Free; but in respect of Particular men it is not so.
  Private, is in secret Free; but in the sight of the multitude, it is never
  without some Restraint, either from the Lawes, or from the Opinion of men;
  which is contrary to the nature of Liberty.

  The End Of Worship


  The End of Worship amongst men, is Power. For where a man seeth another
  worshipped he supposeth him powerfull, and is the readier to obey him;
  which makes his Power greater. But God has no Ends: the worship we do him,
  proceeds from our duty, and is directed according to our capacity, by
  those rules of Honour, that Reason dictateth to be done by the weak to the
  more potent men, in hope of benefit, for fear of dammage, or in
  thankfulnesse for good already received from them.

  Attributes Of Divine Honour


  That we may know what worship of God is taught us by the light of Nature,
  I will begin with his Attributes. Where, First, it is manifest, we ought
  to attribute to him Existence: For no man can have the will to honour
  that, which he thinks not to have any Beeing.
<br />
  Secondly, that those Philosophers, who sayd the World, or the Soule of the
  World was God, spake unworthily of him; and denyed his Existence: For by
  God, is understood the cause of the World; and to say the World is God, is
  to say there is no cause of it, that is, no God.
<br />
  Thirdly, to say the World was not Created, but Eternall, (seeing that
  which is Eternall has no cause,) is to deny there is a God.
<br />
  Fourthly, that they who attributing (as they think) Ease to God, take from
  him the care of Mankind; take from him his Honour: for it takes away mens
  love, and fear of him; which is the root of Honour.
<br />
  Fifthly, in those things that signifie Greatnesse, and Power; to say he is
  Finite, is not to Honour him: For it is not a signe of the Will to Honour
  God, to attribute to him lesse than we can; and Finite, is lesse than we
  can; because to Finite, it is easie to adde more.
<br />
  Therefore to attribute Figure to him, is not Honour; for all Figure is
  Finite:
<br />
  Nor to say we conceive, and imagine, or have an Idea of him, in our mind:
  for whatsoever we conceive is Finite:
<br />
  Not to attribute to him Parts, or Totality; which are the Attributes onely
  of things Finite:
<br />
  Nor to say he is this, or that Place: for whatsoever is in Place, is
  bounded, and Finite:
<br />
  Nor that he is Moved, or Resteth: for both these Attributes ascribe to him
  Place:
<br />
  Nor that there be more Gods than one; because it implies them all Finite:
  for there cannot be more than one Infinite: Nor to ascribe to him (unlesse
  Metaphorically, meaning not the Passion, but the Effect) Passions that
  partake of Griefe; as Repentance, Anger, Mercy: or of Want; as Appetite,
  Hope, Desire; or of any Passive faculty: For Passion, is Power limited by
  somewhat else.
<br />
  And therefore when we ascribe to God a Will, it is not to be understood,
  as that of Man, for a Rationall Appetite; but as the Power, by which he
  effecteth every thing.
<br />
  Likewise when we attribute to him Sight, and other acts of Sense; as also
  Knowledge, and Understanding; which in us is nothing else, but a tumult of
  the mind, raised by externall things that presse the organicall parts of
  mans body: For there is no such thing in God; and being things that depend
  on naturall causes, cannot be attributed to him.
<br />
  Hee that will attribute to God, nothing but what is warranted by naturall
  Reason, must either use such Negative Attributes, as Infinite, Eternall,
  Incomprehensible; or Superlatives, as Most High, Most Great, and the like;
  or Indefinite, as Good, Just, Holy, Creator; and in such sense, as if he
  meant not to declare what he is, (for that were to circumscribe him within
  the limits of our Fancy,) but how much wee admire him, and how ready we
  would be to obey him; which is a signe of Humility, and of a Will to
  honour him as much as we can: For there is but one Name to signifie our
  Conception of his Nature, and that is, I AM: and but one Name of his
  Relation to us, and that is God; in which is contained Father, King, and
  Lord.

  Actions That Are Signes Of Divine Honour


  Concerning the actions of Divine Worship, it is a most generall Precept of
  Reason, that they be signes of the Intention to Honour God; such as are,
  First, Prayers: For not the Carvers, when they made Images, were thought
  to make them Gods; but the People that Prayed to them.
<br />
  Secondly, Thanksgiving; which differeth from Prayer in Divine Worship, no
  otherwise, than that Prayers precede, and Thanks succeed the benefit; the
  end both of the one, and the other, being to acknowledge God, for Author
  of all benefits, as well past, as future.
<br />
  Thirdly, Gifts; that is to say, Sacrifices, and Oblations, (if they be of
  the best,) are signes of Honour: for they are Thanksgivings.
<br />
  Fourthly, Not to swear by any but God, is naturally a signe of Honour: for
  it is a confession that God onely knoweth the heart; and that no mans wit,
  or strength can protect a man against Gods vengence on the perjured.
<br />
  Fifthly, it is a part of Rationall Worship, to speak Considerately of God;
  for it argues a Fear of him, and Fear, is a confession of his Power. Hence
  followeth, That the name of God is not to be used rashly, and to no
  purpose; for that is as much, as in Vain: And it is to no purpose; unlesse
  it be by way of Oath, and by order of the Common-wealth, to make
  Judgements certain; or between Common-wealths, to avoyd Warre. And that
  disputing of Gods nature is contrary to his Honour: For it is supposed,
  that in this naturall Kingdome of God, there is no other way to know any
  thing, but by naturall Reason; that is, from the Principles of naturall
  Science; which are so farre from teaching us any thing of Gods nature, as
  they cannot teach us our own nature, nor the nature of the smallest
  creature living. And therefore, when men out of the Principles of naturall
  Reason, dispute of the Attributes of God, they but dishonour him: For in
  the Attributes which we give to God, we are not to consider the
  signification of Philosophicall Truth; but the signification of Pious
  Intention, to do him the greatest Honour we are able. From the want of
  which consideration, have proceeded the volumes of disputation about the
  Nature of God, that tend not to his Honour, but to the honour of our own
  wits, and learning; and are nothing else but inconsiderate, and vain
  abuses of his Sacred Name.
<br />
  Sixthly, in Prayers, Thanksgivings, Offerings and Sacrifices, it is a
  Dictate of naturall Reason, that they be every one in his kind the best,
  and most significant of Honour. As for example, that Prayers, and
  Thanksgiving, be made in Words and Phrases, not sudden, nor light, nor
  Plebeian; but beautifull and well composed; For else we do not God as much
  honour as we can. And therefore the Heathens did absurdly, to worship
  Images for Gods: But their doing it in Verse, and with Musick, both of
  Voyce, and Instruments, was reasonable. Also that the Beasts they offered
  in sacrifice, and the Gifts they offered, and their actions in
  Worshipping, were full of submission, and commemorative of benefits
  received, was according to reason, as proceeding from an intention to
  honour him.
<br />
  Seventhly, Reason directeth not onely to worship God in Secret; but also,
  and especially, in Publique, and in the sight of men: For without that,
  (that which in honour is most acceptable) the procuring others to honour
  him, is lost.
<br />
  Lastly, Obedience to his Lawes (that is, in this case to the Lawes of
  Nature,) is the greatest worship of all. For as Obedience is more
  acceptable to God than sacrifice; so also to set light by his
  Commandements, is the greatest of all contumelies. And these are the Lawes
  of that Divine Worship, which naturall Reason dictateth to private men.

  Publique Worship Consisteth In Uniformity


  But seeing a Common-wealth is but one Person, it ought also to exhibite to
  God but one Worship; which then it doth, when it commandeth it to be
  exhibited by Private men, Publiquely. And this is Publique Worship; the
  property whereof, is to be Uniforme: For those actions that are done
  differently, by different men, cannot be said to be a Publique Worship.
  And therefore, where many sorts of Worship be allowed, proceeding from the
  different Religions of Private men, it cannot be said there is any
  Publique Worship, nor that the Common-wealth is of any Religion at all.

  All Attributes Depend On The Lawes Civill


  And because words (and consequently the Attributes of God) have their
  signification by agreement, and constitution of men; those Attributes are
  to be held significative of Honour, that men intend shall so be; and
  whatsoever may be done by the wills of particular men, where there is no
  Law but Reason, may be done by the will of the Common-wealth, by Lawes
  Civill. And because a Common-wealth hath no Will, nor makes no Lawes, but
  those that are made by the Will of him, or them that have the Soveraign
  Power; it followeth, that those Attributes which the Soveraign ordaineth,
  in the Worship of God, for signes of Honour, ought to be taken and used
  for such, by private men in their publique Worship.

  Not All Actions


  But because not all Actions are signes by Constitution; but some are
  Naturally signes of Honour, others of Contumely, these later (which are
  those that men are ashamed to do in the sight of them they reverence)
  cannot be made by humane power a part of Divine worship; nor the former
  (such as are decent, modest, humble Behaviour) ever be separated from it.
  But whereas there be an infinite number of Actions, and Gestures, of an
  indifferent nature; such of them as the Common-wealth shall ordain to be
  Publiquely and Universally in use, as signes of Honour, and part of Gods
  Worship, are to be taken and used for such by the Subjects. And that which
  is said in the Scripture, &ldquo;It is better to obey God than men,&rdquo; hath place
  in the kingdome of God by Pact, and not by Nature.

  Naturall Punishments


  Having thus briefly spoken of the Naturall Kingdome of God, and his
  Naturall Lawes, I will adde onely to this Chapter a short declaration of
  his Naturall Punishments. There is no action of man in this life, that is
  not the beginning of so long a chayn of Consequences, as no humane
  Providence, is high enough, to give a man a prospect to the end. And in
  this Chayn, there are linked together both pleasing and unpleasing events;
  in such manner, as he that will do any thing for his pleasure, must engage
  himselfe to suffer all the pains annexed to it; and these pains, are the
  Naturall Punishments of those actions, which are the beginning of more
  Harme that Good. And hereby it comes to passe, that Intemperance, is
  naturally punished with Diseases; Rashnesse, with Mischances; Injustice,
  with the Violence of Enemies; Pride, with Ruine; Cowardise, with
  Oppression; Negligent government of Princes, with Rebellion; and
  Rebellion, with Slaughter. For seeing Punishments are consequent to the
  breach of Lawes; Naturall Punishments must be naturally consequent to the
  breach of the Lawes of Nature; and therfore follow them as their naturall,
  not arbitrary effects.

  The Conclusion Of The Second Part


  And thus farre concerning the Constitution, Nature, and Right of
  Soveraigns; and concerning the Duty of Subjects, derived from the
  Principles of Naturall Reason. And now, considering how different this
  Doctrine is, from the Practise of the greatest part of the world,
  especially of these Western parts, that have received their Morall
  learning from Rome, and Athens; and how much depth of Morall Philosophy is
  required, in them that have the Administration of the Soveraign Power; I
  am at the point of believing this my labour, as uselesse, and the
  Common-wealth of Plato; For he also is of opinion that it is impossible
  for the disorders of State, and change of Governments by Civill Warre,
  ever to be taken away, till Soveraigns be Philosophers. But when I
  consider again, that the Science of Naturall Justice, is the onely Science
  necessary for Soveraigns, and their principall Ministers; and that they
  need not be charged with the Sciences Mathematicall, (as by Plato they
  are,) further, than by good Lawes to encourage men to the study of them;
  and that neither Plato, nor any other Philosopher hitherto, hath put into
  order, and sufficiently, or probably proved all the Theoremes of Morall
  doctrine, that men may learn thereby, both how to govern, and how to obey;
  I recover some hope, that one time or other, this writing of mine, may
  fall into the hands of a Soveraign, who will consider it himselfe, (for it
  is short, and I think clear,) without the help of any interested, or
  envious Interpreter; and by the exercise of entire Soveraignty, in
  protecting the Publique teaching of it, convert this Truth of Speculation,
  into the Utility of Practice.

  PART III.<br />
  OF A CHRISTIAN COMMON-WEALTH

  CHAPTER XXXII.<br />OF THE PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIAN POLITIQUES


  The Word Of God Delivered By Prophets Is The Main Principle
<br />
  Of Christian Politiques
<br />
  I have derived the Rights of Soveraigne Power, and the duty of Subjects
  hitherto, from the Principles of Nature onely; such as Experience has
  found true, or Consent (concerning the use of words) has made so; that is
  to say, from the nature of Men, known to us by Experience, and from
  Definitions (of such words as are Essentiall to all Politicall reasoning)
  universally agreed on. But in that I am next to handle, which is the
  Nature and Rights of a CHRISTIAN COMMON-WEALTH, whereof there dependeth
  much upon Supernaturall Revelations of the Will of God; the ground of my
  Discourse must be, not only the Naturall Word of God, but also the
  Propheticall.
<br />
  Neverthelesse, we are not to renounce our Senses, and Experience; nor
  (that which is the undoubted Word of God) our naturall Reason. For they
  are the talents which he hath put into our hands to negotiate, till the
  coming again of our blessed Saviour; and therefore not to be folded up in
  the Napkin of an Implicate Faith, but employed in the purchase of Justice,
  Peace, and true Religion, For though there be many things in Gods Word
  above Reason; that is to say, which cannot by naturall reason be either
  demonstrated, or confuted; yet there is nothing contrary to it; but when
  it seemeth so, the fault is either in our unskilfull Interpretation, or
  erroneous Ratiocination.
<br />
  Therefore, when any thing therein written is too hard for our examination,
  wee are bidden to captivate our understanding to the Words; and not to
  labour in sifting out a Philosophicall truth by Logick, of such mysteries
  as are not comprehensible, nor fall under any rule of naturall science.
  For it is with the mysteries of our Religion, as with wholsome pills for
  the sick, which swallowed whole, have the vertue to cure; but chewed, are
  for the most part cast up again without effect.

  What It Is To Captivate The Understanding


  But by the Captivity of our Understanding, is not meant a Submission of
  the Intellectual faculty, to the Opinion of any other man; but of the Will
  to Obedience, where obedience is due. For Sense, Memory, Understanding,
  Reason, and Opinion are not in our power to change; but alwaies, and
  necessarily such, as the things we see, hear, and consider suggest unto
  us; and therefore are not effects of our Will, but our Will of them. We
  then Captivate our Understanding and Reason, when we forbear
  contradiction; when we so speak, as (by lawfull Authority) we are
  commanded; and when we live accordingly; which in sum, is Trust, and Faith
  reposed in him that speaketh, though the mind be incapable of any Notion
  at all from the words spoken.

  How God Speaketh To Men


  When God speaketh to man, it must be either immediately; or by mediation
  of another man, to whom he had formerly spoken by himself immediately. How
  God speaketh to a man immediately, may be understood by those well enough,
  to whom he hath so spoken; but how the same should be understood by
  another, is hard, if not impossible to know. For if a man pretend to me,
  that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make
  doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce, to
  oblige me to beleeve it. It is true, that if he be my Soveraign, he may
  oblige me to obedience, so, as not by act or word to declare I beleeve him
  not; but not to think any otherwise then my reason perswades me. But if
  one that hath not such authority over me, shall pretend the same, there is
  nothing that exacteth either beleefe, or obedience.
<br />
  For to say that God hath spoken to him in the Holy Scripture, is not to
  say God hath spoken to him immediately, but by mediation of the Prophets,
  or of the Apostles, or of the Church, in such manner as he speaks to all
  other Christian men. To say he hath spoken to him in a Dream, is no more
  than to say he dreamed that God spake to him; which is not of force to win
  beleef from any man, that knows dreams are for the most part naturall, and
  may proceed from former thoughts; and such dreams as that, from selfe
  conceit, and foolish arrogance, and false opinion of a mans own
  godlinesse, or other vertue, by which he thinks he hath merited the favour
  of extraordinary Revelation. To say he hath seen a Vision, or heard a
  Voice, is to say, that he hath dreamed between sleeping and waking: for in
  such manner a man doth many times naturally take his dream for a vision,
  as not having well observed his own slumbering. To say he speaks by
  supernaturall Inspiration, is to say he finds an ardent desire to speak,
  or some strong opinion of himself, for which he can alledge no naturall
  and sufficient reason. So that though God Almighty can speak to a man, by
  Dreams, Visions, Voice, and Inspiration; yet he obliges no man to beleeve
  he hath so done to him that pretends it; who (being a man), may erre, and
  (which is more) may lie.

  By What Marks Prophets Are Known


  How then can he, to whom God hath never revealed his Wil immediately
  (saving by the way of natural reason) know when he is to obey, or not to
  obey his Word, delivered by him, that sayes he is a Prophet? (1 Kings 22)
  Of 400 Prophets, of whom the K. of Israel asked counsel, concerning the
  warre he made against Ramoth Gilead, only Micaiah was a true one.(1 Kings
  13) The Prophet that was sent to prophecy against the Altar set up by
  Jeroboam, though a true Prophet, and that by two miracles done in his
  presence appears to be a Prophet sent from God, was yet deceived by
  another old Prophet, that perswaded him as from the mouth of God, to eat
  and drink with him. If one Prophet deceive another, what certainty is
  there of knowing the will of God, by other way than that of Reason? To
  which I answer out of the Holy Scripture, that there be two marks, by
  which together, not asunder, a true Prophet is to be known. One is the
  doing of miracles; the other is the not teaching any other Religion than
  that which is already established. Asunder (I say) neither of these is
  sufficient. (Deut. 13 v. 1,2,3,4,5 ) &ldquo;If a Prophet rise amongst you, or a
  Dreamer of dreams, and shall pretend the doing of a miracle, and the
  miracle come to passe; if he say, Let us follow strange Gods, which thou
  hast not known, thou shalt not hearken to him, &c. But that Prophet
  and Dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he hath spoken to you
  to Revolt from the Lord your God.&rdquo; In which words two things are to be
  observed, First, that God wil not have miracles alone serve for arguments,
  to approve the Prophets calling; but (as it is in the third verse) for an
  experiment of the constancy of our adherence to himself. For the works of
  the Egyptian Sorcerers, though not so great as those of Moses, yet were
  great miracles. Secondly, that how great soever the miracle be, yet if it
  tend to stir up revolt against the King, or him that governeth by the
  Kings authority, he that doth such miracle, is not to be considered
  otherwise than as sent to make triall of their allegiance. For these
  words, &ldquo;revolt from the Lord your God,&rdquo; are in this place equivalent to
  &ldquo;revolt from your King.&rdquo; For they had made God their King by pact at the
  foot of Mount Sinai; who ruled them by Moses only; for he only spake with
  God, and from time to time declared Gods Commandements to the people. In
  like manner, after our Saviour Christ had made his Disciples acknowledge
  him for the Messiah, (that is to say, for Gods anointed, whom the nation
  of the Jews daily expected for their King, but refused when he came,) he
  omitted not to advertise them of the danger of miracles. &ldquo;There shall
  arise,&rdquo; (saith he) &ldquo;false Christs, and false Prophets, and shall doe great
  wonders and miracles, even to the seducing (if it were possible) of the
  very Elect.&rdquo; (Mat. 24. 24) By which it appears, that false Prophets may
  have the power of miracles; yet are wee not to take their doctrin for Gods
  Word. St. Paul says further to the Galatians, that &ldquo;if himself, or an
  Angell from heaven preach another Gospel to them, than he had preached,
  let him be accursed.&rdquo; (Gal. 1. 8) That Gospel was, that Christ was King;
  so that all preaching against the power of the King received, in
  consequence to these words, is by St. Paul accursed. For his speech is
  addressed to those, who by his preaching had already received Jesus for
  the Christ, that is to say, for King of the Jews.

  The Marks Of A Prophet In The Old Law, Miracles, And Doctrine Conformable
  To The Law


  And as Miracles, without preaching that Doctrine which God hath
  established; so preaching the true Doctrine, without the doing of
  Miracles, is an unsufficient argument of immediate Revelation. For if a
  man that teacheth not false Doctrine, should pretend to bee a Prophet
  without shewing any Miracle, he is never the more to bee regarded for his
  pretence, as is evident by Deut. 18. v. 21, 22. &ldquo;If thou say in thy heart,
  How shall we know that the Word (of the Prophet) is not that which the
  Lord hath spoken. When the Prophet shall have spoken in the name of the
  Lord, that which shall not come to passe, that&rsquo;s the word which the Lord
  hath not spoken, but the Prophet has spoken it out of the pride of his own
  heart, fear him not.&rdquo; But a man may here again ask, When the Prophet hath
  foretold a thing, how shal we know whether it will come to passe or not?
  For he may foretel it as a thing to arrive after a certain long time,
  longer then the time of mans life; or indefinitely, that it will come to
  passe one time or other: in which case this mark of a Prophet is
  unusefull; and therefore the miracles that oblige us to beleeve a Prophet,
  ought to be confirmed by an immediate, or a not long deferr&rsquo;d event. So
  that it is manifest, that the teaching of the Religion which God hath
  established, and the showing of a present Miracle, joined together, were
  the only marks whereby the Scripture would have a true Prophet, that is to
  say immediate Revelation to be acknowledged; neither of them being singly
  sufficient to oblige any other man to regard what he saith.

  Miracles Ceasing, Prophets Cease, The Scripture Supplies Their Place


  Seeing therefore Miracles now cease, we have no sign left, whereby to
  acknowledge the pretended Revelations, or Inspirations of any private man;
  nor obligation to give ear to any Doctrine, farther than it is conformable
  to the Holy Scriptures, which since the time of our Saviour, supply the
  want of all other Prophecy; and from which, by wise and careful
  ratiocination, all rules and precepts necessary to the knowledge of our
  duty both to God and man, without Enthusiasme, or supernaturall
  Inspiration, may easily be deduced. And this Scripture is it, out of which
  I am to take the Principles of my Discourse, concerning the Rights of
  those that are the Supream Govenors on earth, of Christian Common-wealths;
  and of the duty of Christian Subjects towards their Soveraigns. And to
  that end, I shall speak in the next Chapter, or the Books, Writers, Scope
  and Authority of the Bible.

  CHAPTER XXXIII.<br />OF THE NUMBER, ANTIQUITY, SCOPE, AUTHORITY, AND
  INTERPRETERS OF THE BOOKS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

  Of The Books Of Holy Scripture


  By the Books of Holy SCRIPTURE, are understood those, which ought to be
  the Canon, that is to say, the Rules of Christian life. And because all
  Rules of life, which men are in conscience bound to observe, are Laws; the
  question of the Scripture, is the question of what is Law throughout all
  Christendome, both Naturall, and Civill. For though it be not determined
  in Scripture, what Laws every Christian King shall constitute in his own
  Dominions; yet it is determined what laws he shall not constitute. Seeing
  therefore I have already proved, that Soveraigns in their own Dominions
  are the sole Legislators; those Books only are Canonicall, that is, Law,
  in every nation, which are established for such by the Soveraign
  Authority. It is true, that God is the Soveraign of all Soveraigns; and
  therefore, when he speaks to any Subject, he ought to be obeyed,
  whatsoever any earthly Potentate command to the contrary. But the question
  is not of obedience to God, but of When, and What God hath said; which to
  Subjects that have no supernaturall revelation, cannot be known, but by
  that naturall reason, which guided them, for the obtaining of Peace and
  Justice, to obey the authority of their severall Common-wealths; that is
  to say, of their lawfull Soveraigns. According to this obligation, I can
  acknowledge no other Books of the Old Testament, to be Holy Scripture, but
  those which have been commanded to be acknowledged for such, by the
  Authority of the Church of England. What Books these are, is sufficiently
  known, without a Catalogue of them here; and they are the same that are
  acknowledged by St. Jerome, who holdeth the rest, namely, the Wisdome of
  Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobias, the first and second of
  Maccabees, (though he had seen the first in Hebrew) and the third and
  fourth of Esdras, for Apocrypha. Of the Canonicall, Josephus a learned
  Jew, that wrote in the time of the Emperor Domitian, reckoneth Twenty Two,
  making the number agree with the Hebrew Alphabet. St. Jerome does the
  same, though they reckon them in different manner. For Josephus numbers
  Five Books of Moses, Thirteen of Prophets, that writ the History of their
  own times (which how it agrees with the Prophets writings contained in the
  Bible wee shall see hereafter), and Four of Hymnes and Morall Precepts.
  But St. Jerome reckons Five Books of Moses, Eight of Prophets, and Nine of
  other Holy writ, which he calls of Hagiographa. The Septuagint, who were
  70. learned men of the Jews, sent for by Ptolemy King of Egypt, to
  translate the Jewish Law, out of the Hebrew into the Greek, have left us
  no other for holy Scripture in the Greek tongue, but the same that are
  received in the Church of England.
<br />
  As for the Books of the New Testament, they are equally acknowledged for
  Canon by all Christian Churches, and by all sects of Christians, that
  admit any Books at all for Canonicall.

  Their Antiquity


  Who were the originall writers of the severall Books of Holy Scripture,
  has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other History,
  (which is the only proof of matter of fact); nor can be by any arguments
  of naturall Reason; for Reason serves only to convince the truth (not of
  fact, but) of consequence. The light therefore that must guide us in this
  question, must be that which is held out unto us from the Bookes
  themselves: And this light, though it show us not the writer of every
  book, yet it is not unusefull to give us knowledge of the time, wherein
  they were written.

  The Pentateuch Not Written By Moses


  And first, for the Pentateuch, it is not argument enough that they were
  written by Moses, because they are called the five Books of Moses; no more
  than these titles, The Book of Joshua, the Book of Judges, The Book of
  Ruth, and the Books of the Kings, are arguments sufficient to prove, that
  they were written by Joshua, by the Judges, by Ruth, and by the Kings. For
  in titles of Books, the subject is marked, as often as the writer. The
  History Of Livy, denotes the Writer; but the History Of Scanderbeg, is
  denominated from the subject. We read in the last Chapter of Deuteronomie,
  Ver. 6. concerning the sepulcher of Moses, &ldquo;that no man knoweth of his
  sepulcher to this day,&rdquo; that is, to the day wherein those words were
  written. It is therefore manifest, that those words were written after his
  interrement. For it were a strange interpretation, to say Moses spake of
  his own sepulcher (though by Prophecy), that it was not found to that day,
  wherein he was yet living. But it may perhaps be alledged, that the last
  Chapter only, not the whole Pentateuch, was written by some other man, but
  the rest not: Let us therefore consider that which we find in the Book of
  Genesis, Chap. 12. Ver. 6 &ldquo;And Abraham passed through the land to the
  place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh, and the Canaanite was then in
  the land;&rdquo; which must needs bee the words of one that wrote when the
  Canaanite was not in the land; and consequently, not of Moses, who dyed
  before he came into it. Likewise Numbers 21. Ver. 14. the Writer citeth
  another more ancient Book, Entituled, The Book of the Warres of the Lord,
  wherein were registred the Acts of Moses, at the Red-sea, and at the brook
  of Arnon. It is therefore sufficiently evident, that the five Books of
  Moses were written after his time, though how long after it be not so
  manifest.
<br />
  But though Moses did not compile those Books entirely, and in the form we
  have them; yet he wrote all that which hee is there said to have written:
  as for example, the Volume of the Law, which is contained, as it seemeth
  in the 11 of Deuteronomie, and the following Chapters to the 27. which was
  also commanded to be written on stones, in their entry into the land of
  Canaan. (Deut. 31. 9) And this did Moses himself write, and deliver to the
  Priests and Elders of Israel, to be read every seventh year to all Israel,
  at their assembling in the feast of Tabernacles. And this is that Law
  which God commanded, that their Kings (when they should have established
  that form of Government) should take a copy of from the Priests and
  Levites to lay in the side of the Arke; (Deut. 31. 26) and the same which
  having been lost, was long time after found again by Hilkiah, and sent to
  King Josias, who causing it to be read to the People, renewed the Covenant
  between God and them. (2 King. 22. 8 & 23. 1,2,3)

  The Book of Joshua Written After His Time


  That the Book of Joshua was also written long after the time of Joshua,
  may be gathered out of many places of the Book it self. Joshua had set up
  twelve stones in the middest of Jordan, for a monument of their passage;
  (Josh 4. 9) of which the Writer saith thus, &ldquo;They are there unto this
  day;&rdquo; (Josh 5. 9) for &ldquo;unto this day&rdquo;, is a phrase that signifieth a time
  past, beyond the memory of man. In like manner, upon the saying of the
  Lord, that he had rolled off from the people the Reproach of Egypt, the
  Writer saith, &ldquo;The place is called Gilgal unto this day;&rdquo; which to have
  said in the time of Joshua had been improper. So also the name of the
  Valley of Achor, from the trouble that Achan raised in the Camp, (Josh. 7.
  26) the Writer saith, &ldquo;remaineth unto this day;&rdquo; which must needs bee
  therefore long after the time of Joshua. Arguments of this kind there be
  many other; as Josh. 8. 29. 13. 13. 14. 14. 15. 63.

  The Booke Of Judges And Ruth Written Long After The Captivity


  The same is manifest by like arguments of the Book of Judges, chap. 1.
  21,26 6.24 10.4 15.19 17.6 and Ruth 1. 1. but especially Judg. 18. 30.
  where it is said, that Jonathan &ldquo;and his sonnes were Priests to the Tribe
  of Dan, untill the day of the captivity of the land.&rdquo;

  The Like Of The Bookes Of Samuel


  That the Books of Samuel were also written after his own time, there are
  the like arguments, 1 Sam. 5.5. 7.13,15. 27.6. & 30.25. where, after
  David had adjudged equall part of the spoiles, to them that guarded the
  Ammunition, with them that fought, the Writer saith, &ldquo;He made it a Statute
  and an Ordinance to Israel to this day.&rdquo; (2. Sam. 6.4.) Again, when David
  (displeased, that the Lord had slain Uzzah, for putting out his hand to
  sustain the Ark,) called the place Perez-Uzzah, the Writer saith, it is
  called so &ldquo;to this day&rdquo;: the time therefore of the writing of that Book,
  must be long after the time of the fact; that is, long after the time of
  David.

  The Books Of The Kings, And The Chronicles


  As for the two Books of the Kings, and the two books of the Chronicles,
  besides the places which mention such monuments, as the Writer saith,
  remained till his own days; such as are 1 Kings 9.13. 9.21. 10. 12. 12.19.
  2 Kings 2.22. 8.22. 10.27. 14.7. 16.6. 17.23. 17.34. 17.41. 1 Chron. 4.41.
  5.26. It is argument sufficient they were written after the captivity in
  Babylon, that the History of them is continued till that time. For the
  Facts Registred are alwaies more ancient than such Books as make mention
  of, and quote the Register; as these Books doe in divers places, referring
  the Reader to the Chronicles of the Kings of Juda, to the Chronicles of
  the Kings of Israel, to the Books of the Prophet Samuel, or the Prophet
  Nathan, of the Prophet Ahijah; to the Vision of Jehdo, to the Books of the
  Prophet Serveiah, and of the Prophet Addo.

  Ezra And Nehemiah


  The Books of Esdras and Nehemiah were written certainly after their return
  from captivity; because their return, the re-edification of the walls and
  houses of Jerusalem, the renovation of the Covenant, and ordination of
  their policy are therein contained.

  Esther


  The History of Queen Esther is of the time of the Captivity; and therefore
  the Writer must have been of the same time, or after it.

  Job


  The Book of Job hath no mark in it of the time wherein it was written: and
  though it appear sufficiently (Exekiel 14.14, and James 5.11.) that he was
  no fained person; yet the Book it self seemeth not to be a History, but a
  Treatise concerning a question in ancient time much disputed, &ldquo;why wicked
  men have often prospered in this world, and good men have been afflicted;&rdquo;
  and it is the most probably, because from the beginning, to the third
  verse of the third chapter, where the complaint of Job beginneth, the
  Hebrew is (as St. Jerome testifies) in prose; and from thence to the sixt
  verse of the last chapter in Hexameter Verses; and the rest of that
  chapter again in prose. So that the dispute is all in verse; and the prose
  is added, but as a Preface in the beginning, and an Epilogue in the end.
  But Verse is no usuall stile of such, as either are themselves in great
  pain, as Job; or of such as come to comfort them, as his friends; but in
  Philosophy, especially morall Philosophy, in ancient time frequent.

  The Psalter


  The Psalmes were written the most part by David, for the use of the Quire.
  To these are added some songs of Moses, and other holy men; and some of
  them after the return from the Captivity; as the 137. and the 126. whereby
  it is manifest that the Psalter was compiled, and put into the form it now
  hath, after the return of the Jews from Babylon.

  The Proverbs


  The Proverbs, being a Collection of wise and godly Sayings, partly of
  Solomon, partly of Agur the son of Jakeh; and partly of the Mother of King
  Lemuel, cannot probably be thought to have been collected by Solomon,
  rather then by Agur, or the Mother of Lemues; and that, though the
  sentences be theirs, yet the collection or compiling them into this one
  Book, was the work of some other godly man, that lived after them all.

  Ecclesiastes And The Canticles


  The Books of Ecclesiastes and the Canticles have nothing that was not
  Solomons, except it be the Titles, or Inscriptions. For &ldquo;The Words of the
  Preacher, the Son of David, King in Jerusalem;&rdquo; and, &ldquo;the Song of Songs,
  which is Solomon&rsquo;s,&rdquo; seem to have been made for distinctions sake, then,
  when the Books of Scripture were gathered into one body of the Law; to the
  end, that not the Doctrine only, but the Authors also might be extant.

  The Prophets


  Of the Prophets, the most ancient, are Sophoniah, Jonas, Amos, Hosea,
  Isaiah and Michaiah, who lived in the time of Amaziah, and Azariah,
  otherwise Ozias, Kings of Judah. But the Book of Jonas is not properly a
  Register of his Prophecy, (for that is contained in these few words,
  &ldquo;Fourty dayes and Ninivy shall be destroyed,&rdquo;) but a History or Narration
  of his frowardenesse and disputing Gods commandements; so that there is
  small probability he should be the Author, seeing he is the subject of it.
  But the Book of Amos is his Prophecy.
<br />
  Jeremiah, Abdias, Nahum, and Habakkuk prophecyed in the time of Josiah.
<br />
  Ezekiel, Daniel, Aggeus, and Zacharias, in the Captivity.
<br />
  When Joel and Malachi prophecyed, is not evident by their Writings. But
  considering the Inscriptions, or Titles of their Books, it is manifest
  enough, that the whole Scripture of the Old Testament, was set forth in
  the form we have it, after the return of the Jews from their Captivity in
  Babylon, and before the time of Ptolemaeus Philadelphus, that caused it to
  bee translated into Greek by seventy men, which were sent him out of Judea
  for that purpose. And if the Books of Apocrypha (which are recommended to
  us by the Church, though not for Canonicall, yet for profitable Books for
  our instruction) may in this point be credited, the Scripture was set
  forth in the form wee have it in, by Esdras; as may appear by that which
  he himself saith, in the second book, chapt. 14. verse 21, 22, &c.
  where speaking to God, he saith thus, &ldquo;Thy law is burnt; therefore no man
  knoweth the things which thou has done, or the works that are to begin.
  But if I have found Grace before thee, send down the holy Spirit into me,
  and I shall write all that hath been done in the world, since the
  beginning, which were written in thy Law, that men may find thy path, and
  that they which will live in the later days, may live.&rdquo; And verse 45. &ldquo;And
  it came to passe when the forty dayes were fulfilled, that the Highest
  spake, saying, &lsquo;The first that thou hast written, publish openly, that the
  worthy and unworthy may read it; but keep the seventy last, that thou
  mayst deliver them onely to such as be wise among the people.&rsquo;&rdquo; And thus
  much concerning the time of the writing of the Bookes of the Old
  Testament.

  The New Testament


  The Writers of the New Testament lived all in lesse then an age after
  Christs Ascension, and had all of them seen our Saviour, or been his
  Disciples, except St. Paul, and St. Luke; and consequently whatsoever was
  written by them, is as ancient as the time of the Apostles. But the time
  wherein the Books of the New Testament were received, and acknowledged by
  the Church to be of their writing, is not altogether so ancient. For, as
  the Bookes of the Old Testament are derived to us, from no higher time
  then that of Esdras, who by the direction of Gods Spirit retrived them,
  when they were lost: Those of the New Testament, of which the copies were
  not many, nor could easily be all in any one private mans hand, cannot bee
  derived from a higher time, that that wherein the Governours of the Church
  collected, approved, and recommended them to us, as the writings of those
  Apostles and Disciples; under whose names they go. The first enumeration
  of all the Bookes, both of the Old, and New Testament, is in the Canons of
  the Apostles, supposed to be collected by Clement the first (after St.
  Peter) Bishop of Rome. But because that is but supposed, and by many
  questioned, the Councell of Laodicea is the first we know, that
  recommended the Bible to the then Christian Churches, for the Writings of
  the Prophets and Apostles: and this Councell was held in the 364. yeer
  after Christ. At which time, though ambition had so far prevailed on the
  great Doctors of the Church, as no more to esteem Emperours, though
  Christian, for the Shepherds of the people, but for Sheep; and Emperours
  not Christian, for Wolves; and endeavoured to passe their Doctrine, not
  for Counsell, and Information, as Preachers; but for Laws, as absolute
  Governours; and thought such frauds as tended to make the people the more
  obedient to Christian Doctrine, to be pious; yet I am perswaded they did
  not therefore falsifie the Scriptures, though the copies of the Books of
  the New Testament, were in the hands only of the Ecclesiasticks; because
  if they had had an intention so to doe, they would surely have made them
  more favorable to their power over Christian Princes, and Civill
  Soveraignty, than they are. I see not therefore any reason to doubt, but
  that the Old, and New Testament, as we have them now, are the true
  Registers of those things, which were done and said by the Prophets, and
  Apostles. And so perhaps are some of those Books which are called
  Apocrypha, if left out of the Canon, not for inconformity of Doctrine with
  the rest, but only because they are not found in the Hebrew. For after the
  conquest of Asia by Alexander the Great, there were few learned Jews, that
  were not perfect in the Greek tongue. For the seventy Interpreters that
  converted the Bible into Greek, were all of them Hebrews; and we have
  extant the works of Philo and Josephus both Jews, written by them
  eloquently in Greek. But it is not the Writer, but the authority of the
  Church, that maketh a Book Canonicall.

  Their Scope


  And although these Books were written by divers men, yet it is manifest
  the Writers were all indued with one and the same Spirit, in that they
  conspire to one and the same end, which is the setting forth of the Rights
  of the Kingdome of God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For the Book of
  Genesis, deriveth the Genealogy of Gods people, from the creation of the
  World, to the going into Egypt: the other four Books of Moses, contain the
  Election of God for their King, and the Laws which hee prescribed for
  their Government: The Books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and Samuel, to the
  time of Saul, describe the acts of Gods people, till the time they cast
  off Gods yoke, and called for a King, after the manner of their neighbour
  nations; The rest of the History of the Old Testament, derives the
  succession of the line of David, to the Captivity, out of which line was
  to spring the restorer of the Kingdome of God, even our blessed Saviour
  God the Son, whose coming was foretold in the Bookes of the Prophets,
  after whom the Evangelists writt his life, and actions, and his claim to
  the Kingdome, whilst he lived one earth: and lastly, the Acts, and
  Epistles of the Apostles, declare the coming of God, the Holy Ghost, and
  the Authority he left with them, and their successors, for the direction
  of the Jews, and for the invitation of the Gentiles. In summe, the
  Histories and the Prophecies of the old Testament, and the Gospels, and
  Epistles of the New Testament, have had one and the same scope, to convert
  men to the obedience of God; 1. in Moses, and the Priests; 2. in the man
  Christ; and 3. in the Apostles and the successors to Apostolicall power.
  For these three at several times did represent the person of God: Moses,
  and his successors the High Priests, and Kings of Judah, in the Old
  Testament: Christ himself, in the time he lived on earth: and the
  Apostles, and their successors, from the day of Pentecost (when the Holy
  Ghost descended on them) to this day.

  The Question Of The Authority Of The Scriptures Stated.


  It is a question much disputed between the divers sects of Christian
  Religion, From Whence The Scriptures Derive Their Authority; which
  question is also propounded sometimes in other terms, as, How Wee Know
  Them To Be The Word Of God, or, Why We Beleeve Them To Be So: and the
  difficulty of resolving it, ariseth chiefly from the impropernesse of the
  words wherein the question it self is couched. For it is beleeved on all
  hands, that the first and originall Author of them is God; and
  consequently the question disputed, is not that. Again, it is manifest,
  that none can know they are Gods Word, (though all true Christians beleeve
  it,) but those to whom God himself hath revealed it supernaturally; and
  therefore the question is not rightly moved, of our Knowledge of it.
  Lastly, when the question is propounded of our Beleefe; because some are
  moved to beleeve for one, and others for other reasons, there can be
  rendred no one generall answer for them all. The question truly stated is,
  By What Authority They Are Made Law.

  Their Authority And Interpretation


  As far as they differ not from the Laws of Nature, there is no doubt, but
  they are the Law of God, and carry their Authority with them, legible to
  all men that have the use of naturall reason: but this is no other
  Authority, then that of all other Morall Doctrine consonant to Reason; the
  Dictates whereof are Laws, not Made, but Eternall.
<br />
  If they be made Law by God himselfe, they are of the nature of written
  Law, which are Laws to them only to whom God hath so sufficiently
  published them, as no man can excuse himself, by saying, he know not they
  were his.
<br />
  He therefore, to whom God hath not supernaturally revealed, that they are
  his, nor that those that published them, were sent by him, is not obliged
  to obey them, by any Authority, but his, whose Commands have already the
  force of Laws; that is to say, by any other Authority, then that of the
  Common-wealth, residing in the Soveraign, who only has the Legislative
  power. Again, if it be not the Legislative Authority of the Common-wealth,
  that giveth them the force of Laws, it must bee some other Authority
  derived from God, either private, or publique: if private, it obliges
  onely him, to whom in particular God hath been pleased to reveale it. For
  if every man should be obliged, to take for Gods Law, what particular men,
  on pretence of private Inspiration, or Revelation, should obtrude upon
  him, (in such a number of men, that out of pride, and ignorance, take
  their own Dreams, and extravagant Fancies, and Madnesse, for testimonies
  of Gods Spirit; or out of ambition, pretend to such Divine testimonies,
  falsely, and contrary to their own consciences,) it were impossible that
  any Divine Law should be acknowledged. If publique, it is the Authority of
  the Common-wealth, or of the Church. But the Church, if it be one person,
  is the same thing with a Common-wealth of Christians; called a
  Common-wealth, because it consisteth of men united in one person, their
  Soveraign; and a Church, because it consisteth in Christian men, united in
  one Christian Soveraign. But if the Church be not one person, then it hath
  no authority at all; it can neither command, nor doe any action at all;
  nor is capable of having any power, or right to any thing; nor has any
  Will, Reason, nor Voice; for all these qualities are personall. Now if the
  whole number of Christians be not contained in one Common-wealth, they are
  not one person; nor is there an Universall Church that hath any authority
  over them; and therefore the Scriptures are not made Laws, by the
  Universall Church: or if it bee one Common-wealth, then all Christian
  Monarchs, and States are private persons, and subject to bee judged,
  deposed, and punished by an Universall Soveraigne of all Christendome. So
  that the question of the Authority of the Scriptures is reduced to this,
  &ldquo;Whether Christian Kings, and the Soveraigne Assemblies in Christian
  Common-wealths, be absolute in their own Territories, immediately under
  God; or subject to one Vicar of Christ, constituted over the Universall
  Church; to bee judged, condemned, deposed, and put to death, as hee shall
  think expedient, or necessary for the common good.&rdquo;
<br />
  Which question cannot bee resolved, without a more particular
  consideration of the Kingdome of God; from whence also, wee are to judge
  of the Authority of Interpreting the Scripture. For, whosoever hath a
  lawfull power over any Writing, to make it Law, hath the power also to
  approve, or disapprove the interpretation of the same.

  CHAPTER XXXIV.<br />OF THE SIGNIFICATION OF SPIRIT, ANGEL, AND INSPIRATION IN
  THE BOOKS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

  Body And Spirit How Taken In The Scripture


  Seeing the foundation of all true Ratiocination, is the constant
  Signification of words; which in the Doctrine following, dependeth not (as
  in naturall science) on the Will of the Writer, nor (as in common
  conversation) on vulgar use, but on the sense they carry in the Scripture;
  It is necessary, before I proceed any further, to determine, out of the
  Bible, the meaning of such words, as by their ambiguity, may render what I
  am to inferre upon them, obscure, or disputable. I will begin with the
  words BODY, and SPIRIT, which in the language of the Schools are termed,
  Substances, Corporeall, and Incorporeall.
<br />
  The Word Body, in the most generall acceptation, signifieth that which
  filleth, or occupyeth some certain room, or imagined place; and dependeth
  not on the imagination, but is a reall part of that we call the Universe.
  For the Universe, being the Aggregate of all Bodies, there is no reall
  part thereof that is not also Body; nor any thing properly a Body, that is
  not also part of (that Aggregate of all Bodies) the Universe. The same
  also, because Bodies are subject to change, that is to say, to variety of
  apparence to the sense of living creatures, is called Substance, that is
  to say, Subject, to various accidents, as sometimes to be Moved, sometimes
  to stand Still; and to seem to our senses sometimes Hot, sometimes Cold,
  sometimes of one Colour, Smel, Tast, or Sound, somtimes of another. And
  this diversity of Seeming, (produced by the diversity of the operation of
  bodies, on the organs of our sense) we attribute to alterations of the
  Bodies that operate, & call them Accidents of those Bodies. And
  according to this acceptation of the word, Substance and Body, signifie
  the same thing; and therefore Substance Incorporeall are words, which when
  they are joined together, destroy one another, as if a man should say, an
  Incorporeall Body.
<br />
  But in the sense of common people, not all the Universe is called Body,
  but only such parts thereof as they can discern by the sense of Feeling,
  to resist their force, or by the sense of their Eyes, to hinder them from
  a farther prospect. Therefore in the common language of men, Aire, and
  Aeriall Substances, use not to be taken for Bodies, but (as often as men
  are sensible of their effects) are called Wind, or Breath, or (because the
  some are called in the Latine Spiritus) Spirits; as when they call that
  aeriall substance, which in the body of any living creature, gives it life
  and motion, Vitall and Animall Spirits. But for those Idols of the brain,
  which represent Bodies to us, where they are not, as in a Looking-glasse,
  in a Dream, or to a Distempered brain waking, they are (as the Apostle
  saith generally of all Idols) nothing; Nothing at all, I say, there where
  they seem to bee; and in the brain it self, nothing but tumult, proceeding
  either from the action of the objects, or from the disorderly agitation of
  the Organs of our Sense. And men, that are otherwise imployed, then to
  search into their causes, know not of themselves, what to call them; and
  may therefore easily be perswaded, by those whose knowledge they much
  reverence, some to call them Bodies, and think them made of aire compacted
  by a power supernaturall, because the sight judges them corporeall; and
  some to call them Spirits, because the sense of Touch discerneth nothing
  in the place where they appear, to resist their fingers: So that the
  proper signification of Spirit in common speech, is either a subtile,
  fluid, and invisible Body, or a Ghost, or other Idol or Phantasme of the
  Imagination. But for metaphoricall significations, there be many: for
  sometimes it is taken for Disposition or Inclination of the mind; as when
  for the disposition to controwl the sayings of other men, we say, A Spirit
  Contradiction; For A Disposition to Uncleannesse, An Unclean Spirit; for
  Perversenesse, A Froward Spirit; for Sullennesse, A Dumb Spirit, and for
  Inclination To Godlinesse, And Gods Service, the Spirit of God: sometimes
  for any eminent ability, or extraordinary passion, or disease of the mind,
  as when Great Wisdome is called the Spirit Of Wisdome; and Mad Men are
  said to be Possessed With A Spirit.
<br />
  Other signification of Spirit I find no where any; and where none of these
  can satisfie the sense of that word in Scripture, the place falleth not
  under humane Understanding; and our Faith therein consisteth not in our
  Opinion, but in our Submission; as in all places where God is said to be a
  Spirit; or where by the Spirit of God, is meant God himselfe. For the
  nature of God is incomprehensible; that is to say, we understand nothing
  of What He Is, but only That He Is; and therefore the Attributes we give
  him, are not to tell one another, What He Is, Nor to signifie our opinion
  of his Nature, but our desire to honor him with such names as we conceive
  most honorable amongst our selves.

  Spirit Of God Taken In The Scripture Sometimes For A Wind, Or Breath


  Gen. 1. 2. &ldquo;The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the Waters.&rdquo; Here if
  by the Spirit of God be meant God himself, then is Motion attributed to
  God, and consequently Place, which are intelligible only of Bodies, and
  not of substances incorporeall; and so the place is above our
  understanding, that can conceive nothing moved that changes not place, or
  that has not dimension; and whatsoever has dimension, is Body. But the
  meaning of those words is best understood by the like place, Gen. 8. 1.
  Where when the earth was covered with Waters, as in the beginning, God
  intending to abate them, and again to discover the dry land, useth like
  words, &ldquo;I will bring my Spirit upon the Earth, and the waters shall be
  diminished:&rdquo; in which place by Spirit is understood a Wind, (that is an
  Aire or Spirit Moved,) which might be called (as in the former place) the
  Spirit of God, because it was Gods Work.

  Secondly, For Extraordinary Gifts Of The Understanding


  Gen. 41. 38. Pharaoh calleth the Wisdome of Joseph, the Spirit of God. For
  Joseph having advised him to look out a wise and discreet man, and to set
  him over the land of Egypt, he saith thus, &ldquo;Can we find such a man as this
  is, in whom is the Spirit of God?&rdquo; and Exod. 28.3. &ldquo;Thou shalt speak
  (saith God) to all that are wise hearted, whom I have filled with the
  Spirit of Wisdome, to make Aaron Garments, to consecrate him.&rdquo; Where
  extraordinary Understanding, though but in making Garments, as being the
  Gift of God, is called the Spirit of God. The same is found again, Exod.
  31.3,4,5,6. and 35.31. And Isaiah 11.2,3. where the Prophet speaking of
  the Messiah, saith, &ldquo;The Spirit of the Lord shall abide upon him, the
  Spirit of wisdome and understanding, the Spirit of counsell, and
  fortitude; and the Spirit of the fear of the Lord.&rdquo; Where manifestly is
  meant, not so many Ghosts, but so many eminent Graces that God would give
  him.

  Thirdly, For Extraordinary Affections


  In the Book of Judges, an extraordinary Zeal, and Courage in the defence
  of Gods people, is called the Spirit of God; as when it excited Othoniel,
  Gideon, Jeptha, and Samson to deliver them from servitude, Judg. 3.10.
  6.34. 11.29. 13.25. 14.6,19. And of Saul, upon the newes of the insolence
  of the Ammonites towards the men of Jabeth Gilead, it is said (1
  Sam.11.6.) that &ldquo;The Spirit of God came upon Saul, and his Anger (or, as
  it is in the Latine, His Fury) was kindled greatly.&rdquo; Where it is not
  probable was meant a Ghost, but an extraordinary Zeal to punish the
  cruelty of the Ammonites. In like manner by the Spirit of God, that came
  upon Saul, when hee was amongst the Prophets that praised God in Songs,
  and Musick (1 Sam.19.20.) is to be understood, not a Ghost, but an
  unexpected and sudden Zeal to join with them in their devotions.

  Fourthly, For The Gift Of Prediction By Dreams And Visions


  The false Prophet Zedekiah, saith to Micaiah (1 Kings 22.24.) &ldquo;Which way
  went the Spirit of the Lord from me to speak to thee?&rdquo; Which cannot be
  understood of a Ghost; for Micaiah declared before the Kings of Israel and
  Judah, the event of the battle, as from a Vision, and not as from a
  Spirit, speaking in him.
<br />
  In the same manner it appeareth, in the Books of the Prophets, that though
  they spake by the Spirit of God, that is to say, by a speciall grace of
  Prediction; yet their knowledge of the future, was not by a Ghost within
  them, but by some supernaturall Dream or Vision.

  Fiftly, For Life


  Gen. 2.7. It is said, &ldquo;God made man of the dust of the Earth, and breathed
  into his nostrills (spiraculum vitae) the breath of life, and man was made
  a living soul.&rdquo; There the Breath of Life inspired by God, signifies no
  more, but that God gave him life; And (Job 27.3.) &ldquo;as long as the Spirit
  of God is in my nostrils;&rdquo; is no more then to say, &ldquo;as long as I live.&rdquo; So
  in Ezek. 1.20. &ldquo;the Spirit of life was in the wheels,&rdquo; is equivalent to,
  &ldquo;the wheels were alive.&rdquo; And (Ezek. 2.30.) &ldquo;the spirit entred into me, and
  set me on my feet,&rdquo; that is, &ldquo;I recovered my vitall strength;&rdquo; not that
  any Ghost, or incorporeal substance entred into, and possessed his body.

  Sixtly, For A Subordination To Authority


  In the 11 chap. of Numbers. verse 17. &ldquo;I will take (saith God) of the
  Spirit, which is upon thee, and will put it upon them, and they shall bear
  the burthen of the people with thee;&rdquo; that is, upon the seventy Elders:
  whereupon two of the seventy are said to prophecy in the campe; of whom
  some complained, and Joshua desired Moses to forbid them; which Moses
  would not doe. Whereby it appears; that Joshua knew not they had received
  authority so to do, and prophecyed according to the mind of Moses, that is
  to say, by a Spirit, or Authority subordinate to his own.
<br />
  In the like sense we read (Deut. 34.9.) that &ldquo;Joshua was full of the
  Spirit of wisdome,&rdquo; because Moses had laid his hands upon him: that is,
  because he was Ordained by Moses, to prosecute the work hee had himselfe
  begun, (namely, the bringing of Gods people into the promised land), but
  prevented by death, could not finish.
<br />
  In the like sense it is said, (Rom. 8.9.) &ldquo;If any man have not the Spirit
  of Christ, he is none of his:&rdquo; not meaning thereby the Ghost of Christ,
  but a Submission to his Doctrine. As also (1 John 4.2.) &ldquo;Hereby you shall
  know the Spirit of God; Every Spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is
  come in the flesh, is of God;&rdquo; by which is meant the Spirit of unfained
  Christianity, or Submission to that main Article of Christian faith, that
  Jesus is the Christ; which cannot be interpreted of a Ghost.
<br />
  Likewise these words (Luke 4.1.) &ldquo;And Jesus full of the Holy Ghost&rdquo; (that
  is, as it is exprest, Mat. 4.1. and Mar. 1.12. &ldquo;of the Holy Spirit&rdquo;,) may
  be understood, for Zeal to doe the work for which hee was sent by God the
  Father: but to interpret it of a Ghost, is to say, that God himselfe (for
  so our Saviour was,) was filled with God; which is very unproper, and
  unsignificant. How we came to translate Spirits, by the word Ghosts, which
  signifieth nothing, neither in heaven, nor earth, but the Imaginary
  inhabitants of mans brain, I examine not: but this I say, the word Spirit
  in the text signifieth no such thing; but either properly a reall
  Substance, or Metaphorically, some extraordinary Ability of Affection of
  the Mind, or of the Body.

  Seventhly, For Aeriall Bodies


  The Disciples of Christ, seeing him walking upon the sea, (Mat. 14.26. and
  Marke 6.49.) supposed him to be a Spirit, meaning thereby an Aeriall Body,
  and not a Phantasme: for it is said, they all saw him; which cannot be
  understood of the delusions of the brain, (which are not common to many at
  once, as visible Bodies are; but singular, because of the differences of
  Fancies), but of Bodies only. In like manner, where he was taken for a
  Spirit, by the same Apostles (Luke 24.3,7.): So also (Acts 12.15) when St.
  Peter was delivered out of Prison, it would not be beleeved; but when the
  Maid said he was at the dore, they said it was his Angel; by which must be
  meant a corporeall substance, or we must say, the Disciples themselves did
  follow the common opinion of both Jews and Gentiles, that some such
  apparitions were not Imaginary, but Reall; and such as needed not the
  fancy of man for their Existence: These the Jews called Spirits, and
  Angels, Good or Bad; as the Greeks called the same by the name of Daemons.
  And some such apparitions may be reall, and substantiall; that is to say,
  subtile Bodies, which God can form by the same power, by which he formed
  all things, and make use of, as of Ministers, and Messengers (that is to
  say, Angels) to declare his will, and execute the same when he pleaseth,
  in extraordinary and supernaturall manner. But when hee hath so formed
  them they are Substances, endued with dimensions, and take up roome, and
  can be moved from place to place, which is peculiar to Bodies; and
  therefore are not Ghosts Incorporeall, that is to say, Ghosts that are in
  No Place; that is to say, that are No Where; that is to say, that seeming
  to be Somewhat, are Nothing. But if corporeall be taken in the most vulgar
  manner, for such Substances as are perceptible by our externall Senses;
  then is Substance Incorporeall, a thing not Imaginary, but Reall; namely,
  a thin Substance Invisible, but that hath the same dimensions that are in
  grosser Bodies.

  Angel What


  By the name of ANGEL, is signified generally, a Messenger; and most often,
  a Messenger of God: And by a Messenger of God, is signified, any thing
  that makes known his extraordinary Presence; that is to say, the
  extraordinary manifestation of his power, especially by a Dream, or
  Vision.
<br />
  Concerning the creation of Angels, there is nothing delivered in the
  Scriptures. That they are Spirits, is often repeated: but by the name of
  Spirit, is signified both in Scripture, and vulgarly, both amongst Jews,
  and Gentiles, sometimes thin Bodies; as the Aire, the Wind, the Spirits
  Vitall, and Animall, of living creatures; and sometimes the Images that
  rise in the fancy in Dreams, and Visions; which are not reall Substances,
  but accidents of the brain; yet when God raiseth them supernaturally, to
  signifie his Will, they are not unproperly termed Gods Messengers, that is
  to say, his Angels.
<br />
  And as the Gentiles did vulgarly conceive the Imagery of the brain, for
  things really subsistent without them, and not dependent on the fancy; and
  out of them framed their opinions of Daemons, Good and Evill; which
  because they seemed to subsist really, they called Substances; and because
  they could not feel them with their hands, Incorporeall: so also the Jews
  upon the same ground, without any thing in the Old Testament that
  constrained them thereunto, had generally an opinion, (except the sect of
  the Sadduces,) that those apparitions (which it pleased God sometimes to
  produce in the fancie of men, for his own service, and therefore called
  them his Angels) were substances, not dependent on the fancy, but
  permanent creatures of God; whereof those which they thought were good to
  them, they esteemed the Angels of God, and those they thought would hurt
  them, they called Evill Angels, or Evill Spirits; such as was the Spirit
  of Python, and the Spirits of Mad-men, of Lunatiques, and Epileptiques:
  For they esteemed such as were troubled with such diseases, Daemoniaques.
<br />
  But if we consider the places of the Old Testament where Angels are
  mentioned, we shall find, that in most of them, there can nothing else be
  understood by the word Angel, but some image raised (supernaturally) in
  the fancy, to signifie the presence of God in the execution of some
  supernaturall work; and therefore in the rest, where their nature is not
  exprest, it may be understood in the same manner.
<br />
  For we read Gen. 16. that the same apparition is called, not onely an
  Angel, but God; where that which (verse 7.) is called the Angel of the
  Lord, in the tenth verse, saith to Agar, &ldquo;I will multiply thy seed
  exceedingly;&rdquo; that is, speaketh in the person of God. Neither was this
  apparition a Fancy figured, but a Voice. By which it is manifest, that
  Angel signifieth there, nothing but God himself, that caused Agar
  supernaturally to apprehend a voice supernaturall, testifying Gods
  speciall presence there. Why therefore may not the Angels that appeared to
  Lot, and are called Gen. 19.13. Men; and to whom, though they were but
  two, Lot speaketh (ver. 18.) as but one, and that one, as God, (for the
  words are, &ldquo;Lot said unto them, Oh not so my Lord&rdquo;) be understood of
  images of men, supernaturally formed in the Fancy; as well as before by
  Angel was understood a fancyed Voice? When the Angel called to Abraham out
  of heaven, to stay his hand (Gen. 22.11.) from slaying Isaac, there was no
  Apparition, but a Voice; which neverthelesse was called properly enough a
  Messenger, or Angel of God, because it declared Gods will supernaturally,
  and saves the labour of supposing any permanent Ghosts. The Angels which
  Jacob saw on the Ladder of Heaven (Gen. 28.12.) were a Vision of his
  sleep; therefore onely Fancy, and a Dream; yet being supernaturall, and
  signs of Gods Speciall presence, those apparitions are not improperly
  called Angels. The same is to be understood (Gen.31.11.) where Jacob saith
  thus, &ldquo;The Angel of the Lord appeared to mee in my sleep.&rdquo; For an
  apparition made to a man in his sleep, is that which all men call a
  Dreame, whether such Dreame be naturall, or supernaturall: and that which
  there Jacob calleth an Angel, was God himselfe; for the same Angel saith
  (verse 13.) &ldquo;I am the God of Bethel.&rdquo;
<br />
  Also (Exod.14.9.) the Angel that went before the Army of Israel to the Red
  Sea, and then came behind it, is (verse 19.) the Lord himself; and he
  appeared not in the form of a beautifull man, but in form (by day) of a
  Pillar Of Cloud and (by night) in form of a Pillar Of Fire; and yet this
  Pillar was all the apparition, and Angel promised to Moses (Exod. 14.9.)
  for the Armies guide: For this cloudy pillar, is said, to have descended,
  and stood at the dore of the Tabernacle, and to have talked with Moses.
<br />
  There you see Motion, and Speech, which are commonly attributed to Angels,
  attributed to a Cloud, because the Cloud served as a sign of Gods
  presence; and was no lesse an Angel, then if it had had the form of a Man,
  or Child of never so great beauty; or Wings, as usually they are painted,
  for the false instruction of common people. For it is not the shape; but
  their use, that makes them Angels. But their use is to be significations
  of Gods presence in supernaturall operations; As when Moses (Exod. 33.14.)
  had desired God to goe along with the Campe, (as he had done alwaies
  before the making of the Golden Calfe,) God did not answer, &ldquo;I will goe,&rdquo;
  nor &ldquo;I will send an Angel in my stead;&rdquo; but thus, &ldquo;my presence shall goe
  with thee.&rdquo;
<br />
  To mention all the places of the Old Testament where the name of Angel is
  found, would be too long. Therefore to comprehend them all at once, I say,
  there is no text in that part of the Old Testament, which the Church of
  England holdeth for Canonicall, from which we can conclude, there is, or
  hath been created, any permanent thing (understood by the name of Spirit
  or Angel,) that hath not quantity; and that may not be, by the
  understanding divided; that is to say, considered by parts; so as one part
  may bee in one place, and the next part in the next place to it; and, in
  summe, which is not (taking Body for that, which is some what, or some
  where) Corporeall; but in every place, the sense will bear the
  interpretation of Angel, for Messenger; as John Baptist is called an
  Angel, and Christ the Angel of the Covenant; and as (according to the same
  Analogy) the Dove, and the Fiery Tongues, in that they were signes of Gods
  speciall presence, might also be called Angels. Though we find in Daniel
  two names of Angels, Gabriel, and Michael; yet is cleer out of the text it
  selfe, (Dan. 12.1) that by Michael is meant Christ, not as an Angel, but
  as a Prince: and that Gabriel (as the like apparitions made to other holy
  men in their sleep) was nothing but a supernaturall phantasme, by which it
  seemed to Daniel, in his dream, that two Saints being in talke, one of
  them said to the other, &ldquo;Gabriel, let us make this man understand his
  Vision:&rdquo; For God needeth not, to distinguish his Celestiall servants by
  names, which are usefull onely to the short memories of Mortalls. Nor in
  the New Testament is there any place, out of which it can be proved, that
  Angels (except when they are put for such men, as God hath made the
  Messengers, and Ministers of his word, or works) are things permanent, and
  withall incorporeall. That they are permanent, may bee gathered from the
  words of our Saviour himselfe, (Mat. 25.41.) where he saith, it shall be
  said to the wicked in the last day, &ldquo;Go ye cursed into everlasting fire
  prepared for the Devil and his Angels:&rdquo; which place is manifest for the
  permanence of Evill Angels, (unlesse wee might think the name of Devill
  and his Angels may be understood of the Churches Adversaries and their
  Ministers;) but then it is repugnant to their Immateriality; because
  Everlasting fire is no punishment to impatible substances, such as are all
  things Incorporeall. Angels therefore are not thence proved to be
  Incorporeall. In like manner where St. Paul sayes (1 Cor. 6.3.) &ldquo;Knew ye
  not that wee shall judge the Angels?&rdquo; And (2 Pet. 2.4.) &ldquo;For if God spared
  not the Angels that sinned, but cast them down into Hell.&rdquo; And (Jude 1,6.)
  &ldquo;And the Angels that kept not their first estate, but left their owne
  habitation, hee hath reserved in everlasting chaines under darknesse unto
  the Judgement of the last day;&rdquo; though it prove the Permanence of
  Angelicall nature, it confirmeth also their Materiality. And (Mat. 22.30.)
  In the resurrection men doe neither marry, nor give in marriage, but are
  as the Angels of God in heaven:&rdquo; but in the resurrection men shall be
  Permanent, and not Incorporeall; so therefore also are the Angels.
<br />
  There be divers other places out of which may be drawn the like
  conclusion. To men that understand the signification of these words,
  Substance, and Incorporeall; as Incorporeall is taken not for subtile
  body, but for Not Body, they imply a contradiction: insomuch as to say, an
  Angel, or Spirit is (in that sense) an Incorporeall Substance, is to say
  in effect, there is no Angel nor Spirit at all. Considering therefore the
  signification of the word Angel in the Old Testament, and the nature of
  Dreams and Visions that happen to men by the ordinary way of Nature; I was
  enclined to this opinion, that Angels were nothing but supernaturall
  apparitions of the Fancy, raised by the speciall and extraordinary
  operation of God, thereby to make his presence and commandements known to
  mankind, and chiefly to his own people. But the many places of the New
  Testament, and our Saviours own words, and in such texts, wherein is no
  suspicion of corruption of the Scripture, have extorted from my feeble
  Reason, an acknowledgement, and beleef, that there be also Angels
  substantiall, and permanent. But to beleeve they be in no place, that is
  to say, no where, that is to say, nothing, as they (though indirectly)
  say, that will have them Incorporeall, cannot by Scripture bee evinced.

  Inspiration What


  On the signification of the word Spirit, dependeth that of the word
  INSPIRATION; which must either be taken properly; and then it is nothing
  but the blowing into a man some thin and subtile aire, or wind, in such
  manner as a man filleth a bladder with his breath; or if Spirits be not
  corporeal, but have their existence only in the fancy, it is nothing but
  the blowing in of a Phantasme; which is improper to say, and impossible;
  for Phantasmes are not, but only seem to be somewhat. That word therefore
  is used in the Scripture metaphorically onely: As (Gen. 2.7.) where it is
  said, that God Inspired into man the breath of life, no more is meant,
  then that God gave unto him vitall motion. For we are not to think that
  God made first a living breath, and then blew it into Adam after he was
  made, whether that breath were reall, or seeming; but only as it is (Acts
  17.25.) &ldquo;that he gave him life and breath;&rdquo; that is, made him a living
  creature. And where it is said (2 Tim. 3.16.) &ldquo;all Scripture is given by
  Inspiration from God,&rdquo; speaking there of the Scripture of the Old
  Testament, it is an easie metaphor, to signifie, that God enclined the
  spirit or mind of those Writers, to write that which should be usefull, in
  teaching, reproving, correcting, and instructing men in the way of
  righteous living. But where St. Peter (2 Pet. 1.21.) saith, that &ldquo;Prophecy
  came not in old time by the will of man, but the holy men of God spake as
  they were moved by the Holy Spirit,&rdquo; by the Holy Spirit, is meant the
  voice of God in a Dream, or Vision supernaturall, which is not
  Inspiration; Nor when our Saviour breathing on his Disciples, said,
  &ldquo;Receive the Holy Spirit,&rdquo; was that Breath the Spirit, but a sign of the
  spirituall graces he gave unto them. And though it be said of many, and of
  our Saviour himself, that he was full of the Holy Spirit; yet that
  Fulnesse is not to be understood for Infusion of the substance of God, but
  for accumulation of his gifts, such as are the gift of sanctity of life,
  of tongues, and the like, whether attained supernaturally, or by study and
  industry; for in all cases they are the gifts of God. So likewise where
  God sayes (Joel 2.28.) &ldquo;I will powre out my Spirit upon all flesh, and
  your Sons and your Daughters shall prophecy, your Old men shall dream
  Dreams, and your Young men shall see Visions,&rdquo; wee are not to understand
  it in the proper sense, as if his Spirit were like water, subject to
  effusion, or infusion; but as if God had promised to give them
  Propheticall Dreams, and Visions. For the proper use of the word Infused,
  in speaking of the graces of God, is an abuse of it; for those graces are
  Vertues, not Bodies to be carryed hither and thither, and to be powred
  into men, as into barrels.
<br />
  In the same manner, to take Inspiration in the proper sense, or to say
  that Good Spirits entred into men to make them prophecy, or Evill Spirits
  into those that became Phrenetique, Lunatique, or Epileptique, is not to
  take the word in the sense of the Scripture; for the Spirit there is taken
  for the power of God, working by causes to us unknown. As also (Acts 2.2.)
  the wind, that is there said to fill the house wherein the Apostles were
  assembled on the day of Pentecost, is not to be understood for the Holy
  Spirit, which is the Deity it self; but for an Externall sign of Gods
  speciall working on their hearts, to effect in them the internall graces,
  and holy vertues hee thought requisite for the performance of their
  Apostleship.

  CHAPTER XXXV.<br />OF THE SIGNIFICATION IN SCRIPTURE OF KINGDOME OF GOD, OF
  HOLY, SACRED, AND SACRAMENT

  Kingdom Of God Taken By Divines Metaphorically But In The Scriptures
  Properly


  The Kingdome of God in the Writings of Divines, and specially in Sermons,
  and Treatises of Devotion, is taken most commonly for Eternall Felicity,
  after this life, in the Highest Heaven, which they also call the Kingdome
  of Glory; and sometimes for (the earnest of that felicity) Sanctification,
  which they terme the Kingdome of Grace, but never for the Monarchy, that
  is to say, the Soveraign Power of God over any Subjects acquired by their
  own consent, which is the proper signification of Kingdome.
<br />
  To the contrary, I find the KINGDOME OF GOD, to signifie in most places of
  Scripture, a Kingdome Properly So Named, constituted by the Votes of the
  People of Israel in peculiar manner; wherein they chose God for their King
  by Covenant made with him, upon Gods promising them the possession of the
  land of Canaan; and but seldom metaphorically; and then it is taken for
  Dominion Over Sinne; (and only in the New Testament;) because such a
  Dominion as that, every Subject shall have in the Kingdome of God, and
  without prejudice to the Soveraign.
<br />
  From the very Creation, God not only reigned over all men Naturally by his
  might; but also had Peculiar Subjects, whom he commanded by a Voice, as
  one man speaketh to another. In which manner he Reigned over Adam, and
  gave him commandement to abstaine from the tree of cognizance of Good and
  Evill; which when he obeyed not, but tasting thereof, took upon him to be
  as God, judging between Good and Evill, not by his Creators commandement,
  but by his own sense, his punishment was a privation of the estate of
  Eternall life, wherein God had at first created him: And afterwards God
  punished his posterity, for their vices, all but eight persons, with an
  universall deluge; And in these eight did consist the then Kingdome Of
  God.

  The Originall Of The Kingdome Of God


  After this, it pleased God to speak to Abraham, and (Gen. 17.7,8.) to make
  a Covenant with him in these words, &ldquo;I will establish my Covenant between
  me, and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an
  everlasting Covenant, to be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee; And
  I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou
  art a stranger, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession.&rdquo; And
  for a memoriall, and a token of this Covenant, he ordaineth (verse 11.)
  the Sacrament of Circumcision. This is it which is called the Old
  Covenant, or Testament; and containeth a Contract between God and Abraham;
  by which Abraham obligeth himself, and his posterity, in a peculiar manner
  to be subject to Gods positive Law; for to the Law Morall he was obliged
  before, as by an Oath of Allegiance. And though the name of King be not
  yet given to God, nor of Kingdome to Abraham and his seed; yet the thing
  is the same; namely, an Institution by pact, of Gods peculiar Soveraignty
  over the seed of Abraham; which in the renewing of the same Covenant by
  Moses, at Mount Sinai, is expressely called a peculiar Kingdome of God
  over the Jews: and it is of Abraham (not of Moses) St. Paul saith (Rom.
  4.11.) that he is the &ldquo;Father of the Faithfull,&rdquo; that is, of those that
  are loyall, and doe not violate their Allegiance sworn to God, then by
  Circumcision, and afterwards in the New Covenant by Baptisme.

  That The Kingdome Of God Is Properly His Civill Soveraignty Over A
  Peculiar People By Pact


  This Covenant, at the Foot of Mount Sinai, was renewed by Moses (Exod.
  19.5.) where the Lord commandeth Moses to speak to the people in this
  manner, &ldquo;If you will obey my voice indeed, and keep my Covenant, then yee
  shall be a peculiar people to me, for all the Earth is mine; and yee shall
  be unto me a Sacerdotall Kingdome, and an holy Nation.&rdquo; For a &ldquo;Peculiar
  people&rdquo; the vulgar Latine hath, Peculium De Cunctis Populis: the English
  translation made in the beginning of the Reign of King James, hath, a
  &ldquo;Peculiar treasure unto me above all Nations;&rdquo; and the Geneva French, &ldquo;the
  most precious Jewel of all Nations.&rdquo; But the truest Translation is the
  first, because it is confirmed by St. Paul himself (Tit. 2.14.) where he
  saith, alluding to that place, that our blessed Saviour &ldquo;gave himself for
  us, that he might purifie us to himself, a peculiar (that is, an
  extraordinary) people:&rdquo; for the word is in the Greek periousios, which is
  opposed commonly to the word epiousios: and as this signifieth Ordinary,
  Quotidian, or (as in the Lords Prayer) Of Daily Use; so the other
  signifieth that which is Overplus, and Stored Up, and Enjoyed In A
  Speciall Manner; which the Latines call Peculium; and this meaning of the
  place is confirmed by the reason God rendereth of it, which followeth
  immediately, in that he addeth, &ldquo;For all the Earth is mine,&rdquo; as if he
  should say, &ldquo;All the Nations of the world are mine;&rdquo; but it is not so that
  you are mine, but in a Speciall Manner: For they are all mine, by reason
  of my Power; but you shall be mine, by your own Consent, and Covenant;
  which is an addition to his ordinary title, to all nations.
<br />
  The same is again confirmed in expresse words in the same Text, &ldquo;Yee shall
  be to me a Sacerdotall Kingdome, and an holy Nation.&rdquo; The Vulgar Latine
  hath it, Regnum Sacerdotale, to which agreeth the Translation of that
  place (1 Pet. 2.9.) Sacerdotium Regale, A Regal Priesthood; as also the
  Institution it self, by which no man might enter into the Sanctum
  Sanctorum, that is to say, no man might enquire Gods will immediately of
  God himselfe, but onely the High Priest. The English Translation before
  mentioned, following that of Geneva, has, &ldquo;a Kingdome of Priests;&rdquo; which
  is either meant of the succession of one High Priest after another, or
  else it accordeth not with St. Peter, nor with the exercise of the High
  Priesthood; For there was never any but the High Priest onely, that was to
  informe the People of Gods Will; nor any Convocation of Priests ever
  allowed to enter into the Sanctum Sanctorum.
<br />
  Again, the title of a Holy Nation confirmes the same: For Holy signifies,
  that which is Gods by speciall, not by generall Right. All the Earth (as
  is said in the text) is Gods; but all the Earth is not called Holy, but
  that onely which is set apart for his especiall service, as was the Nation
  of the Jews. It is therefore manifest enough by this one place, that by
  the Kingdome of God, is properly meant a Common-wealth, instituted (by the
  consent of those which were to be subject thereto) for their Civill
  Government, and the regulating of their behaviour, not onely towards God
  their King, but also towards one another in point of justice, and towards
  other Nations both in peace and warre; which properly was a Kingdome,
  wherein God was King, and the High priest was to be (after the death of
  Moses) his sole Viceroy, or Lieutenant.
<br />
  But there be many other places that clearly prove the same. As first (1
  Sam. 8.7.) when the Elders of Israel (grieved with the corruption of the
  Sons of Samuel) demanded a King, Samuel displeased therewith, prayed unto
  the Lord; and the Lord answering said unto him, &ldquo;Hearken unto the voice of
  the People, for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me,
  that I should not reign over them.&rdquo; Out of which it is evident, that God
  himself was then their King; and Samuel did not command the people, but
  only delivered to them that which God from time to time appointed him.
<br />
  Again, (1 Sam. 12.12.) where Samuel saith to the People, &ldquo;When yee saw
  that Nahash King of the Children of Ammon came against you, ye said unto
  me, Nay, but a King shall reign over us, when the Lord your God was your
  King:&rdquo; It is manifest that God was their King, and governed the Civill
  State of their Common-wealth.
<br />
  And after the Israelites had rejected God, the Prophets did foretell his
  restitution; as (Isaiah 24.23.) &ldquo;Then the Moon shall be confounded, and
  the Sun ashamed when the Lord of Hosts shall reign in Mount Zion, and in
  Jerusalem;&rdquo; where he speaketh expressely of his Reign in Zion, and
  Jerusalem; that is, on Earth. And (Micah 4.7.) &ldquo;And the Lord shall reign
  over them in Mount Zion:&rdquo; This Mount Zion is in Jerusalem upon the Earth.
  And (Ezek. 20.33.) &ldquo;As I live, saith the Lord God, surely with a mighty
  hand, and a stretched out arme, and with fury powred out, I wil rule over
  you; and (verse 37.) I will cause you to passe under the rod, and I will
  bring you into the bond of the Covenant;&rdquo; that is, I will reign over you,
  and make you to stand to that Covenant which you made with me by Moses,
  and brake in your rebellion against me in the days of Samuel, and in your
  election of another King.
<br />
  And in the New testament, the Angel Gabriel saith of our Saviour (Luke
  1.32,33) &ldquo;He shall be great, and be called the Son of the Most High, and
  the Lord shall give him the throne of his Father David; and he shall reign
  over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his Kingdome there shall be no
  end.&rdquo; This is also a Kingdome upon Earth; for the claim whereof, as an
  enemy to Caesar, he was put to death; the title of his crosse, was, Jesus
  of Nazareth, King of the Jews; hee was crowned in scorn with a crown of
  Thornes; and for the proclaiming of him, it is said of the Disciples (Acts
  17.7.) &ldquo;That they did all of them contrary to the decrees of Caesar,
  saying there was another King, one Jesus. The Kingdome therefore of God,
  is a reall, not a metaphoricall Kingdome; and so taken, not onely in the
  Old Testament, but the New; when we say, &ldquo;For thine is the Kingdome, the
  Power, and Glory,&rdquo; it is to be understood of Gods Kingdome, by force of
  our Covenant, not by the Right of Gods Power; for such a Kingdome God
  alwaies hath; so that it were superfluous to say in our prayer, &ldquo;Thy
  Kingdome come,&rdquo; unlesse it be meant of the Restauration of that Kingdome
  of God by Christ, which by revolt of the Israelites had been interrupted
  in the election of Saul. Nor had it been proper to say, &ldquo;The Kingdome of
  Heaven is at hand,&rdquo; or to pray, &ldquo;Thy Kingdome come,&rdquo; if it had still
  continued.
<br />
  There be so many other places that confirm this interpretation, that it
  were a wonder there is no greater notice taken of it, but that it gives
  too much light to Christian Kings to see their right of Ecclesiastical
  Government. This they have observed, that in stead of a Sacerdotall
  Kingdome, translate, a Kingdome of Priests: for they may as well translate
  a Royall Priesthood, (as it is in St. Peter) into a Priesthood of Kings.
  And whereas, for a Peculiar People, they put a Pretious Jewel, or
  Treasure, a man might as well call the speciall Regiment, or Company of a
  Generall, the Generalls pretious Jewel, or his Treasure.
<br />
  In short, the Kingdome of God is a Civill Kingdome; which consisted, first
  in the obligation of the people of Israel to those Laws, which Moses
  should bring unto them from Mount Sinai; and which afterwards the High
  Priest of the time being, should deliver to them from before the Cherubins
  in the Sanctum Sanctorum; and which kingdome having been cast off, in the
  election of Saul, the Prophets foretold, should be restored by Christ; and
  the Restauration whereof we daily pray for, when we say in the Lords
  Prayer, &ldquo;Thy Kingdome come;&rdquo; and the Right whereof we acknowledge, when we
  adde, &ldquo;For thine is the Kingdome, the Power, and Glory, for ever and ever,
  Amen;&rdquo; and the Proclaiming whereof, was the Preaching of the Apostles; and
  to which men are prepared, by the Teachers of the Gospel; to embrace which
  Gospel, (that is to say, to promise obedience to Gods government) is, to
  bee in the Kingdome of Grace, because God hath gratis given to such the
  power to bee the subjects (that is, Children) of God hereafter, when
  Christ shall come in Majesty to judge the world, and actually to govern
  his owne people, which is called the Kingdome of Glory. If the Kingdome of
  God (called also the Kingdome of Heaven, from the gloriousnesse, and
  admirable height of that throne) were not a Kingdome which God by his
  Lieutenant, or Vicars, who deliver his Commandements to the people, did
  exercise on Earth; there would not have been so much contention, and
  warre, about who it is, by whom God speaketh to us; neither would many
  Priests have troubled themselves with Spirituall Jurisdiction, nor any
  King have denied it them.
<br />
  Out of this literall interpretation of the Kingdome of God, ariseth also
  the true interpretation of the word HOLY. For it is a word, which in Gods
  Kingdome answereth to that, which men in their Kingdomes use to call
  Publique, or the Kings.
<br />
  The King of any Countrey is the Publique Person, or Representative of all
  his own Subjects. And God the King of Israel was the Holy One of Israel.
  The Nation which is subject to one earthly Soveraign, is the Nation of
  that Soveraign, that is, of the Publique Person. So the Jews, who were
  Gods Nation, were called (Exod. 19.6.) &ldquo;a Holy Nation.&rdquo; For by Holy, is
  alwaies understood, either God himselfe, or that which is Gods in
  propriety; as by Publique is alwaies meant, either the Person of the
  Common-wealth it self, or something that is so the Common-wealths, as no
  private person can claim any propriety therein.
<br />
  Therefore the Sabbath (Gods day) is a Holy Day; the Temple, (Gods house) a
  Holy House; Sacrifices, Tithes, and Offerings (Gods tribute) Holy Duties;
  Priests, Prophets, and anointed Kings, under Christ (Gods ministers) Holy
  Men; The Coelestiall ministring Spirits (Gods Messengers) Holy Angels; and
  the like: and wheresoever the word Holy is taken properly, there is still
  something signified of Propriety, gotten by consent. In saying &ldquo;Hallowed
  be thy name,&rdquo; we do but pray to God for grace to keep the first
  Commandement, of &ldquo;having no other Gods but Him.&rdquo; Mankind is Gods Nation in
  propriety: but the Jews only were a Holy Nation. Why, but because they
  became his Propriety by covenant.

  Sacred What


  And the word Profane, is usually taken in the Scripture for the same with
  Common; and consequently their contraries, Holy, and Proper, in the
  Kingdome of God must be the same also. But figuratively, those men also
  are called Holy, that led such godly lives, as if they had forsaken all
  worldly designes, and wholly devoted, and given themselves to God. In the
  proper sense, that which is made Holy by Gods appropriating or separating
  it to his own use, is said to be Sanctified by God, as the Seventh day in
  the fourth Commandement; and as the Elect in the New Testament were said
  to bee Sanctified, when they were endued with the Spirit of godlinesse.
  And that which is made Holy by the dedication of men, and given to God, so
  as to be used onely in his publique service, is called also SACRED, and
  said to be consecrated, as Temples, and other Houses of Publique Prayer,
  and their Utensils, Priests, and Ministers, Victimes, Offerings, and the
  externall matter of Sacraments.

  Degrees of Sanctity


  Of Holinesse there be degrees: for of those things that are set apart for
  the service of God, there may bee some set apart again, for a neerer and
  more especial service. The whole Nation of the Israelites were a people
  Holy to God; yet the tribe of Levi was amongst the Israelites a Holy
  tribe; and amongst the Levites, the Priests were yet more Holy; and
  amongst the Priests, the High Priest was the most Holy. So the Land of
  Judea was the Holy Land; but the Holy City wherein God was to be
  worshipped, was more Holy; and again, the Temples more Holy than the City;
  and the Sanctum Sanctorum more Holy than the rest of the Temple.

  Sacrament


  A SACRAMENT, is a separation of some visible thing from common use; and a
  consecration of it to Gods service, for a sign, either of our admission
  into the Kingdome of God, to be of the number of his peculiar people, or
  for a Commemoration of the same. In the Old Testament, the sign of
  Admission was Circumcision; in the New Testament, Baptisme. The
  Commemoration of it in the Old Testament, was the Eating (at a certain
  time, which was Anniversary) of the Paschall Lamb; by which they were put
  in mind of the night wherein they were delivered out of their bondage in
  Egypt; and in the New Testament, the celebrating of the Lords Supper; by
  which, we are put in mind, of our deliverance from the bondage of sin, by
  our Blessed Saviours death upon the crosse. The Sacraments of Admission,
  are but once to be used, because there needs but one Admission; but
  because we have need of being often put in mind of our deliverance, and of
  our Allegeance, The Sacraments of Commemoration have need to be
  reiterated. And these are the principall Sacraments, and as it were the
  solemne oathes we make of our Alleageance. There be also other
  Consecrations, that may be called Sacraments, as the word implyeth onely
  Consecration to Gods service; but as it implies an oath, or promise of
  Alleageance to God, there were no other in the Old Testament, but
  Circumcision, and the Passover; nor are there any other in the New
  Testament, but Baptisme, and the Lords Supper.

  CHAPTER XXXVI.<br />OF THE WORD OF GOD, AND OF PROPHETS

  Word What


  When there is mention of the Word of God, or of Man, it doth not signifie
  a part of Speech, such as Grammarians call a Nown, or a Verb, or any
  simple voice, without a contexture with other words to make it
  significative; but a perfect Speech or Discourse, whereby the speaker
  Affirmeth, Denieth, Commandeth, Promiseth, Threateneth, Wisheth, or
  Interrogateth. In which sense it is not Vocabulum, that signifies a Word;
  but Sermo, (in Greek Logos) that is some Speech, Discourse, or Saying.

  The Words Spoken By God And Concerning God, Both Are Called Gods Word In
  Scripture


  Again, if we say the Word of God, or of Man, it may bee understood
  sometimes of the Speaker, (as the words that God hath spoken, or that a
  Man hath spoken): In which sense, when we say, the Gospel of St. Matthew,
  we understand St. Matthew to be the Writer of it: and sometimes of the
  Subject: In which sense, when we read in the Bible, &ldquo;The words of the days
  of the Kings of Israel, or Judah,&rdquo; &rsquo;tis meant, that the acts that were
  done in those days, were the Subject of those Words; And in the Greek,
  which (in the Scripture) retaineth many Hebraismes, by the Word of God is
  oftentimes meant, not that which is spoken by God, but concerning God, and
  his government; that is to say, the Doctrine of Religion: Insomuch, as it
  is all one, to say Logos Theou, and Theologia; which is, that Doctrine
  which wee usually call Divinity, as is manifest by the places following
  (Acts 13.46.) &ldquo;Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was
  necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken to you, but
  seeing you put it from you, and judge your selves unworthy of everlasting
  life, loe, we turn to the Gentiles.&rdquo; That which is here called the Word of
  god, was the Doctrine of Christian Religion; as it appears evidently by
  that which goes before. And (Acts 5.20.) where it is said to the Apostles
  by an Angel, &ldquo;Go stand and speak in the Temple, all the Words of this
  life;&rdquo; by the Words of this life, is meant, the Doctrine of the Gospel; as
  is evident by what they did in the Temple, and is expressed in the last
  verse of the same Chap. &ldquo;Daily in the Temple, and in every house they
  ceased not to teach and preach Christ Jesus:&rdquo; In which place it is
  manifest, that Jesus Christ was the subject of this Word of Life; or
  (which is all one) the subject of the Words of this Life Eternall, that
  our saviour offered them. So (Acts 15.7.) the Word of God, is called the
  Word of the Gospel, because it containeth the Doctrine of the Kingdome of
  Christ; and the same Word (Rom. 10.8,9.) is called the Word of Faith; that
  is, as is there expressed, the Doctrine of Christ come, and raised from
  the dead. Also (Mat. 13. 19.) &ldquo;When any one heareth the Word of the
  Kingdome;&rdquo; that is, the Doctrine of the Kingdome taught by Christ. Again,
  the same Word, is said (Acts 12. 24.) &ldquo;to grow and to be multiplied;&rdquo;
  which to understand of the Evangelicall Doctrine is easie, but of the
  Voice, or Speech of God, hard and strange. In the same sense the Doctrine
  of Devils, signifieth not the Words of any Devill, but the Doctrine of
  Heathen men concerning Daemons, and those Phantasms which they worshipped
  as Gods. (1 Tim. 4.1.)
<br />
  Considering these two significations of the WORD OF GOD, as it is taken in
  Scripture, it is manifest in this later sense (where it is taken for the
  Doctrine of the Christian Religion,) that the whole scripture is the Word
  of God: but in the former sense not so. For example, though these words,
  &ldquo;I am the Lord thy God, &c.&rdquo; to the end of the Ten Commandements, were
  spoken by God to Moses; yet the Preface, &ldquo;God spake these words and said,&rdquo;
  is to be understood for the Words of him that wrote the holy History. The
  Word of God, as it is taken for that which he hath spoken, is understood
  sometimes Properly, sometimes Metaphorically. Properly, as the words, he
  hath spoken to his Prophets; Metaphorically, for his Wisdome, Power, and
  eternall Decree, in making the world; in which sense, those Fiats, &ldquo;Let
  there be light,&rdquo; &ldquo;Let there be a firmament,&rdquo; &ldquo;Let us make man,&rdquo; &c.
  (Gen. 1.) are the Word of God. And in the same sense it is said (John
  1.3.) &ldquo;All things were made by it, and without it was nothing made that
  was made; And (Heb. 1.3.) &ldquo;He upholdeth all things by the word of his
  Power;&rdquo; that is, by the Power of his Word; that is, by his Power; and
  (Heb. 11.3.) &ldquo;The worlds were framed by the Word of God;&rdquo; and many other
  places to the same sense: As also amongst the Latines, the name of Fate,
  which signifieth properly The Word Spoken, is taken in the same sense.

  Secondly, For The Effect Of His Word


  Secondly, for the effect of his Word; that is to say, for the thing it
  self, which by his Word is Affirmed, Commanded, Threatned, or Promised; as
  (Psalm 105.19.) where Joseph is said to have been kept in prison, &ldquo;till
  his Word was come;&rdquo; that is, till that was come to passe which he had
  (Gen. 40.13.) foretold to Pharaohs Butler, concerning his being restored
  to his office: for there by His Word Was Come, is meant, the thing it self
  was come to passe. So also (1 King. 18.36.) Elijah saith to God, &ldquo;I have
  done all these thy Words,&rdquo; in stead of &ldquo;I have done all these things at
  thy Word,&rdquo; or commandement: and (Jer. 17.15.) &ldquo;Where is the Word of the
  Lord,&rdquo; is put for, &ldquo;Where is the Evill he threatened:&rdquo; And (Ezek. 12.28.)
  &ldquo;There shall none of my Words be prolonged any more:&rdquo; by &ldquo;Words&rdquo; are
  understood those Things, which God promised to his people. And in the New
  Testament (Mat. 24.35.) &ldquo;heaven and earth shal pass away, but my Words
  shall not pass away;&rdquo; that is, there is nothing that I have promised or
  foretold, that shall not come to passe. And in this sense it is, that St.
  John the Evangelist, and, I think, St. John onely calleth our Saviour
  himself as in the flesh &ldquo;the Word of God (as Joh. 1.14.) the Word was made
  Flesh;&rdquo; that is to say, the Word, or Promise that Christ should come into
  the world, &ldquo;who in the beginning was with God;&rdquo; that is to say, it was in
  the purpose of God the Father, to send God the Son into the world, to
  enlighten men in the way of Eternall life, but it was not till then put in
  execution, and actually incarnate; So that our Saviour is there called
  &ldquo;the Word,&rdquo; not because he was the promise, but the thing promised. They
  that taking occasion from this place, doe commonly call him the Verbe of
  God, do but render the text more obscure. They might as well term him the
  Nown of God: for as by Nown, so also by Verbe, men understand nothing but
  a part of speech, a voice, a sound, that neither affirms, nor denies, nor
  commands, nor promiseth, nor is any substance corporeall, or spirituall;
  and therefore it cannot be said to bee either God, or Man; whereas our
  Saviour is both. And this Word which St. John in his Gospel saith was with
  God, is (in his 1 Epistle, verse 1.) called &ldquo;the Word of Life;&rdquo; and (verse
  2.) &ldquo;The eternall life, which was with the Father:&rdquo; so that he can be in
  no other sense called the Word, then in that, wherein he is called
  Eternall life; that is, &ldquo;he that hath procured us Eternall life,&rdquo; by his
  comming in the flesh. So also (Apocalypse 19.13.) the Apostle speaking of
  Christ, clothed in a garment dipt in bloud, saith; his name is &ldquo;the Word
  of God;&rdquo; which is to be understood, as if he had said his name had been,
  &ldquo;He that was come according to the purpose of God from the beginning, and
  according to his Word and promises delivered by the Prophets.&rdquo; So that
  there is nothing here of the Incarnation of a Word, but of the Incarnation
  of God the Son, therefore called the Word, because his Incarnation was the
  Performance of the Promise; In like manner as the Holy Ghost is called The
  Promise. (Acts 1.4. Luke 24.49.)

  Thirdly, For The Words Of Reason And Equity


  There are also places of the Scripture, where, by the Word of God, is
  signified such Words as are consonant to reason, and equity, though spoken
  sometimes neither by prophet, nor by a holy man. For Pharaoh Necho was an
  Idolator; yet his Words to the good King Josiah, in which he advised him
  by Messengers, not to oppose him in his march against Carchemish, are said
  to have proceeded from the mouth of God; and that Josiah not hearkning to
  them, was slain in the battle; as is to be read 2 Chron. 35. vers.
  21,22,23. It is true, that as the same History is related in the first
  book of Esdras, not Pharaoh, but Jeremiah spake these words to Josiah,
  from the mouth of the Lord. But wee are to give credit to the Canonicall
  Scripture, whatsoever be written in the Apocrypha.
<br />
  The Word of God, is then also to be taken for the Dictates of reason, and
  equity, when the same is said in the Scriptures to bee written in mans
  heart; as Psalm 36.31. Jerem. 31.33. Deut.30.11, 14. and many other like
  places.

  Divers Acceptions Of The Word Prophet


  The name of PROPHET, signifieth in Scripture sometimes Prolocutor; that
  is, he that speaketh from God to Man, or from man to God: And sometimes
  Praedictor, or a foreteller of things to come; And sometimes one that
  speaketh incoherently, as men that are distracted. It is most frequently
  used in the sense of speaking from God to the People. So Moses, Samuel,
  Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others were Prophets. And in this sense the
  High Priest was a Prophet, for he only went into the Sanctum Sanctorum, to
  enquire of God; and was to declare his answer to the people. And therefore
  when Caiphas said, it was expedient that one man should die for the
  people, St. John saith (chap. 11.51.) that &ldquo;He spake not this of himselfe,
  but being High Priest that year, he prophesied that one man should dye for
  the nation.&rdquo; Also they that in Christian Congregations taught the people,
  (1 Cor. 14.3.) are said to Prophecy. In the like sense it is, that God
  saith to Moses (Exod. 4.16.) concerning Aaron, &ldquo;He shall be thy Spokes-man
  to the People; and he shall be to thee a mouth, and thou shalt be to him
  in stead of God;&rdquo; that which here is Spokesman, is (chap.7.1.) interpreted
  Prophet; &ldquo;See (saith God) I have made thee a God to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy
  Brother shall be thy Prophet.&rdquo; In the sense of speaking from man to God,
  Abraham is called a Prophet (Genes. 20.7.) where God in a Dream speaketh
  to Abimelech in this manner, &ldquo;Now therefore restore the man his wife, for
  he is a Prophet, and shall pray for thee;&rdquo; whereby may be also gathered,
  that the name of Prophet may be given, not unproperly to them that in
  Christian Churches, have a Calling to say publique prayers for the
  Congregation. In the same sense, the Prophets that came down from the High
  place (or Hill of God) with a Psaltery, and a Tabret, and a Pipe, and a
  Harp (1 Sam. 10.5,6.) and (vers. 10.) Saul amongst them, are said to
  Prophecy, in that they praised God, in that manner publiquely. In the like
  sense, is Miriam (Exod. 15.20.) called a Prophetesse. So is it also to be
  taken (1 Cor. 11.4,5.) where St. Paul saith, &ldquo;Every man that prayeth or
  prophecyeth with his head covered, &c. and every woman that prayeth or
  prophecyeth with her head uncovered: For Prophecy in that place,
  signifieth no more, but praising God in Psalmes, and Holy Songs; which
  women might doe in the Church, though it were not lawfull for them to
  speak to the Congregation. And in this signification it is, that the Poets
  of the Heathen, that composed Hymnes and other sorts of Poems in the honor
  of their Gods, were called Vates (Prophets) as is well enough known by all
  that are versed in the Books of the Gentiles, and as is evident (Tit.
  1.12.) where St. Paul saith of the Cretians, that a Prophet of their owne
  said, they were Liars; not that St. Paul held their Poets for Prophets,
  but acknowledgeth that the word Prophet was commonly used to signifie them
  that celebrated the honour of God in Verse

  Praediction Of Future Contingents, Not Alwaies Prophecy


  When by Prophecy is meant Praediction, or foretelling of future
  Contingents; not only they were Prophets, who were Gods Spokesmen, and
  foretold those things to others, which God had foretold to them; but also
  all those Imposters, that pretend by the helpe of familiar spirits, or by
  superstitious divination of events past, from false causes, to foretell
  the like events in time to come: of which (as I have declared already in
  the 12. chapter of this Discourse) there be many kinds, who gain in the
  opinion of the common sort of men, a greater reputation of Prophecy, by
  one casuall event that may bee but wrested to their purpose, than can be
  lost again by never so many failings. Prophecy is not an art, nor (when it
  is taken for Praediction) a constant Vocation; but an extraordinary, and
  temporary Employment from God, most often of Good men, but sometimes also
  of the Wicked. The woman of Endor, who is said to have had a familiar
  spirit, and thereby to have raised a Phantasme of Samuel, and foretold
  Saul his death, was not therefore a Prophetesse; for neither had she any
  science, whereby she could raise such a Phantasme; nor does it appear that
  God commanded the raising of it; but onely guided that Imposture to be a
  means of Sauls terror and discouragement; and by consequent, of the
  discomfiture, by which he fell. And for Incoherent Speech, it was amongst
  the Gentiles taken for one sort of Prophecy, because the Prophets of their
  Oracles, intoxicated with a spirit, or vapour from the cave of the Pythian
  Oracle at Delphi, were for the time really mad, and spake like mad-men; of
  whose loose words a sense might be made to fit any event, in such sort, as
  all bodies are said to be made of Materia prima. In the Scripture I find
  it also so taken (1 Sam. 18. 10.) in these words, &ldquo;And the Evill spirit
  came upon Saul, and he Prophecyed in the midst of the house.&rdquo;

  The Manner How God Hath Spoken To The Prophets


  And although there be so many significations in Scripture of the word
  Prophet; yet is that the most frequent, in which it is taken for him, to
  whom God speaketh immediately, that which the Prophet is to say from him,
  to some other man, or to the people. And hereupon a question may be asked,
  in what manner God speaketh to such a Prophet. Can it (may some say) be
  properly said, that God hath voice and language, when it cannot be
  properly said, he hath a tongue, or other organs, as a man? The Prophet
  David argueth thus, &ldquo;Shall he that made the eye, not see? or he that made
  the ear, not hear?&rdquo; But this may be spoken, not (as usually) to signifie
  Gods nature, but to signifie our intention to honor him. For to See, and
  Hear, are Honorable Attributes, and may be given to God, to declare (as
  far as our capacity can conceive) his Almighty power. But if it were to be
  taken in the strict, and proper sense, one might argue from his making of
  all parts of mans body, that he had also the same use of them which we
  have; which would be many of them so uncomely, as it would be the greatest
  contumely in the world to ascribe them to him. Therefore we are to
  interpret Gods speaking to men immediately, for that way (whatsoever it
  be), by which God makes them understand his will: And the wayes whereby he
  doth this, are many; and to be sought onely in the Holy Scripture: where
  though many times it be said, that God spake to this, and that person,
  without declaring in what manner; yet there be again many places, that
  deliver also the signes by which they were to acknowledge his presence,
  and commandement; and by these may be understood, how he spake to many of
  the rest.

  To The Extraordinary Prophets Of The Old Testament He Spake By Dreams,
  Or Visions


  In what manner God spake to Adam, and Eve, and Cain, and Noah, is not
  expressed; nor how he spake to Abraham, till such time as he came out of
  his own countrey to Sichem in the land of Canaan; and then (Gen. 12.7.)
  God is said to have Appeared to him. So there is one way, whereby God made
  his presence manifest; that is, by an Apparition, or Vision. And again,
  (Gen. 15.1.) The Word of the Lord came to Abraham in a Vision; that is to
  say, somewhat, as a sign of Gods presence, appeared as Gods Messenger, to
  speak to him. Again, the Lord appeared to Abraham (Gen. 18. 1.) by an
  apparition of three Angels; and to Abimelech (Gen. 20. 3.) in a dream: To
  Lot (Gen. 19. 1.) by an apparition of Two Angels: And to Hagar (Gen. 21.
  17.) by the apparition of one Angel: And to Abraham again (Gen. 22. 11.)
  by the apparition of a voice from heaven: And (Gen. 26. 24.) to Isaac in
  the night; (that is, in his sleep, or by dream): And to Jacob (Gen. 18.
  12.) in a dream; that is to say (as are the words of the text) &ldquo;Jacob
  dreamed that he saw a ladder, &c.&rdquo; And (Gen. 32. 1.) in a Vision of
  Angels: And to Moses (Exod. 3.2.) in the apparition of a flame of fire out
  of the midst of a bush: And after the time of Moses, (where the manner how
  God spake immediately to man in the Old Testament, is expressed) hee spake
  alwaies by a Vision, or by a Dream; as to Gideon, Samuel, Eliah, Elisha,
  Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the rest of the Prophets; and often in the New
  Testament, as to Joseph, to St. Peter, to St. Paul, and to St. John the
  Evangelist in the Apocalypse.
<br />
  Onely to Moses hee spake in a more extraordinary manner in Mount Sinai,
  and in the Tabernacle; and to the High Priest in the Tabernacle, and in
  the Sanctum Sanctorum of the Temple. But Moses, and after him the High
  Priests were Prophets of a more eminent place, and degree in Gods favour;
  And God himself in express words declareth, that to other Prophets hee
  spake in Dreams and Visions, but to his servant Moses, in such manner as a
  man speaketh to his friend. The words are these (Numb. 12. 6,7,8.) &ldquo;If
  there be a Prophet among you, I the Lord will make my self known to him in
  a Vision, and will speak unto him in a Dream. My servant Moses is not so,
  who is faithfull in all my house; with him I will speak mouth to mouth,
  even apparently, not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord
  shall he behold.&rdquo; And (Exod. 33. 11.) &ldquo;The Lord spake to Moses face to
  face, as a man speaketh to his friend.&rdquo; And yet this speaking of God to
  Moses, was by mediation of an Angel, or Angels, as appears expressely,
  Acts 7. ver. 35. and 53. and Gal. 3. 19. and was therefore a Vision,
  though a more cleer Vision than was given to other Prophets. And
  conformable hereunto, where God saith (Deut. 13. 1.) &ldquo;If there arise
  amongst you a Prophet, or Dreamer of Dreams,&rdquo; the later word is but the
  interpretation of the former. And (Joel 2. 28.) &ldquo;Your sons and your
  daughters shall Prophecy; your old men shall dream Dreams, and your young
  men shall see Visions:&rdquo; where again, the word Prophecy is expounded by
  Dream, and Vision. And in the same manner it was, that God spake to
  Solomon, promising him Wisdome, Riches, and Honor; for the text saith, (1
  Kings 3. 15.) &ldquo;And Solomon awoak, and behold it was a Dream:&rdquo; So that
  generally the Prophets extraordinary in the old Testament took notice of
  the Word of God no otherwise, than from their Dreams, or Visions, that is
  to say, from the imaginations which they had in their sleep, or in an
  Extasie; which imaginations in every true Prophet were supernaturall; but
  in false Prophets were either naturall, or feigned.
<br />
  The same Prophets were neverthelesse said to speak by the Spirit; as
  (Zach. 7. 12.) where the Prophet speaking of the Jewes, saith, &ldquo;They made
  their hearths hard as Adamant, lest they should hear the law, and the
  words which the Lord of Hosts hath sent in his Spirit by the former
  Prophets.&rdquo; By which it is manifest, that speaking by the Spirit, or
  Inspiration, was not a particular manner of Gods speaking, different from
  Vision, when they that were said to speak by the Spirit, were
  extraordinary Prophets, such as for every new message, were to have a
  particular Commission, or (which is all one) a new Dream, or Vision.
<br />
  To Prophets Of Perpetuall Calling, And Supreme, God Spake In The Old
  Testament From The Mercy Seat, In A Manner Not Expressed In The Scripture.
  Of Prophets, that were so by a perpetuall Calling in the Old Testament,
  some were Supreme, and some Subordinate: Supreme were first Moses; and
  after him the High Priest, every one for his time, as long as the
  Priesthood was Royall; and after the people of the Jews, had rejected God,
  that he should no more reign over them, those Kings which submitted
  themselves to Gods government, were also his chief Prophets; and the High
  Priests office became Ministeriall. And when God was to be consulted, they
  put on the holy vestments, and enquired of the Lord, as the King commanded
  them, and were deprived of their office, when the King thought fit. For
  King Saul (1 Sam. 13. 9.) commanded the burnt offering to be brought, and
  (1 Sam. 14. 18.) he commands the Priest to bring the Ark neer him; and
  (ver. 19.) again to let it alone, because he saw an advantage upon his
  enemies. And in the same chapter Saul asketh counsell of God. In like
  manner King David, after his being anointed, though before he had
  possession of the Kingdome, is said to &ldquo;enquire of the Lord&rdquo; (1 Sam. 23.
  2.) whether he should fight against the Philistines at Keilah; and (verse
  10.) David commandeth the Priest to bring him the Ephod, to enquire
  whether he should stay in Keilah, or not. And King Solomon (1 Kings 2.
  27.) took the Priesthood from Abiathar, and gave it (verse 35.) to Zadoc.
  Therefore Moses, and the High Priests, and the pious Kings, who enquired
  of God on all extraordinary occasions, how they were to carry themselves,
  or what event they were to have, were all Soveraign Prophets. But in what
  manner God spake unto them, is not manifest. To say that when Moses went
  up to God in Mount Sinai, it was a Dream, or Vision, such as other
  Prophets had, is contrary to that distinction which God made between
  Moses, and other Prophets, Numb. 12. 6,7,8. To say God spake or appeared
  as he is in his own nature, is to deny his Infinitenesse, Invisibility,
  Incomprehensibility. To say he spake by Inspiration, or Infusion of the
  Holy Spirit, as the Holy Spirit signifieth the Deity, is to make Moses
  equall with Christ, in whom onely the Godhead (as St. Paul speaketh Col.
  2.9.) dwelleth bodily. And lastly, to say he spake by the Holy Spirit, as
  it signifieth the graces, or gifts of the Holy Spirit, is to attribute
  nothing to him supernaturall. For God disposeth men to Piety, Justice,
  Mercy, Truth, Faith, and all manner of Vertue, both Morall, and
  Intellectuall, by doctrine, example, and by severall occasions, naturall,
  and ordinary.
<br />
  And as these ways cannot be applyed to God, in his speaking to Moses, at
  Mount Sinai; so also, they cannot be applyed to him, in his speaking to
  the High Priests, from the Mercy-Seat. Therefore in what manner God spake
  to those Soveraign Prophets of the Old Testament, whose office it was to
  enquire of him, is not intelligible. In the time of the New Testament,
  there was no Soveraign Prophet, but our Saviour; who was both God that
  spake, and the Prophet to whom he spake.
<br />
  To Prophets Of Perpetuall Calling, But Subordinate, God Spake By The
  Spirit. To subordinate Prophets of perpetuall Calling, I find not any
  place that proveth God spake to them supernaturally; but onely in such
  manner, as naturally he inclineth men to Piety, to Beleef, to
  Righteousnesse, and to other vertues all other Christian Men. Which way,
  though it consist in Constitution, Instruction, Education, and the
  occasions and invitements men have to Christian vertues; yet it is truly
  attributed to the operation of the Spirit of God, or Holy Spirit (which we
  in our language call the Holy Ghost): For there is no good inclination,
  that is not of the operation of God. But these operations are not alwaies
  supernaturall. When therefore a Prophet is said to speak in the Spirit, or
  by the Spirit of God, we are to understand no more, but that he speaks
  according to Gods will, declared by the supreme Prophet. For the most
  common acceptation of the word Spirit, is in the signification of a mans
  intention, mind, or disposition.
<br />
  In the time of Moses, there were seventy men besides himself, that
  Prophecyed in the Campe of the Israelites. In what manner God spake to
  them, is declared in the 11 of Numbers, verse 25. &ldquo;The Lord came down in a
  cloud, and spake unto Moses, and took of the Spirit that was upon him, and
  gave it to the seventy Elders. And it came to passe, when the Spirit
  rested upon them, they Prophecyed, and did not cease,&rdquo; By which it is
  manifest, first, that their Prophecying to the people, was subservient,
  and subordinate to the Prophecying of Moses; for that God took of the
  Spirit of Moses, to put upon them; so that they Prophecyed as Moses would
  have them: otherwise they had not been suffered to Prophecy at all. For
  there was (verse 27.) a complaint made against them to Moses; and Joshua
  would have Moses to have forbidden them; which he did not, but said to
  Joshua, Bee not jealous in my behalf. Secondly, that the Spirit of God in
  that place, signifieth nothing but the Mind and Disposition to obey, and
  assist Moses in the administration of the Government. For if it were meant
  they had the substantial Spirit of God; that is, the Divine nature,
  inspired into them, then they had it in no lesse manner than Christ
  himself, in whom onely the Spirit of God dwelt bodily. It is meant
  therefore of the Gift and Grace of God, that guided them to co-operate
  with Moses; from whom their Spirit was derived. And it appeareth (verse
  16.) that, they were such as Moses himself should appoint for Elders and
  Officers of the People: For the words are, &ldquo;Gather unto me seventy men,
  whom thou knowest to be Elders and Officers of the people:&rdquo; where, &ldquo;thou
  knowest,&rdquo; is the same with &ldquo;thou appointest,&rdquo; or &ldquo;hast appointed to be
  such.&rdquo; For we are told before (Exod. 18.) that Moses following the
  counsell of Jethro his Father-in-law, did appoint Judges, and Officers
  over the people, such as feared God; and of these, were those Seventy,
  whom God by putting upon them Moses spirit, inclined to aid Moses in the
  Administration of the Kingdome: and in this sense the Spirit of God is
  said (1 Sam. 16. 13, 14.) presently upon the anointing of David, to have
  come upon David, and left Saul; God giving his graces to him he chose to
  govern his people, and taking them away from him, he rejected. So that by
  the Spirit is meant Inclination to Gods service; and not any supernaturall
  Revelation.

  God Sometimes Also Spake By Lots


  God spake also many times by the event of Lots; which were ordered by such
  as he had put in Authority over his people. So wee read that God
  manifested by the Lots which Saul caused to be drawn (1 Sam. 14. 43.) the
  fault that Jonathan had committed, in eating a honey-comb, contrary to the
  oath taken by the people. And (Josh. 18. 10.) God divided the land of
  Canaan amongst the Israelite, by the &ldquo;lots that Joshua did cast before the
  Lord in Shiloh.&rdquo; In the same manner it seemeth to be, that God discovered
  (Joshua 7.16., &c.) the crime of Achan. And these are the wayes
  whereby God declared his Will in the Old Testament.
<br />
  All which ways he used also in the New Testament. To the Virgin Mary, by a
  Vision of an Angel: To Joseph in a Dream: again to Paul in the way to
  Damascus in a Vision of our Saviour: and to Peter in the Vision of a sheet
  let down from heaven, with divers sorts of flesh, of clean and unclean,
  beasts; and in prison, by Vision of an Angel: And to all the Apostles, and
  Writers of the New Testament, by the graces of his Spirit; and to the
  Apostles again (at the choosing of Matthias in the place of Judas
  Iscariot) by lot.

  Every Man Ought To Examine The Probability Of A Pretended Prophets
  Calling


  Seeing then all Prophecy supposeth Vision, or Dream, (which two, when they
  be naturall, are the same,) or some especiall gift of God, so rarely
  observed in mankind, as to be admired where observed; and seeing as well
  such gifts, as the most extraordinary Dreams, and Visions, may proceed
  from God, not onely by his supernaturall, and immediate, but also by his
  naturall operation, and by mediation of second causes; there is need of
  Reason and Judgement to discern between naturall, and supernaturall Gifts,
  and between naturall, and supernaturall Visions, or Dreams. And
  consequently men had need to be very circumspect, and wary, in obeying the
  voice of man, that pretending himself to be a Prophet, requires us to obey
  God in that way, which he in Gods name telleth us to be the way to
  happinesse. For he that pretends to teach men the way of so great
  felicity, pretends to govern them; that is to say, to rule, and reign over
  them; which is a thing, that all men naturally desire, and is therefore
  worthy to be suspected of Ambition and Imposture; and consequently, ought
  to be examined, and tryed by every man, before hee yeeld them obedience;
  unlesse he have yeelded it them already, in the institution of a
  Common-wealth; as when the Prophet is the Civill Soveraign, or by the
  Civil Soveraign Authorized. And if this examination of Prophets, and
  Spirits, were not allowed to every one of the people, it had been to no
  purpose, to set out the marks, by which every man might be able, to
  distinguish between those, whom they ought, and those whom they ought not
  to follow. Seeing therefore such marks are set out (Deut. 13. 1,&c.)
  to know a Prophet by; and (1 John 4.1.&C) to know a Spirit by: and
  seeing there is so much Prophecying in the Old Testament; and so much
  Preaching in the New Testament against Prophets; and so much greater a
  number ordinarily of false Prophets, then of true; every one is to beware
  of obeying their directions, at their own perill. And first, that there
  were many more false than true Prophets, appears by this, that when Ahab
  (1 Kings 12.) consulted four hundred Prophets, they were all false
  Imposters, but onely one Michaiah. And a little before the time of the
  Captivity, the Prophets were generally lyars. &ldquo;The Prophets&rdquo; (saith the
  Lord by Jerem. cha. 14. verse 14.) &ldquo;prophecy Lies in my name. I sent them
  not, neither have I commanded them, nor spake unto them, they prophecy to
  you a false Vision, a thing of naught; and the deceit of their heart.&rdquo; In
  so much as God commanded the People by the mouth of the Prophet Jeremiah
  (chap. 23. 16.) not to obey them. &ldquo;Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, hearken
  not unto the words of the Prophets, that prophecy to you. They make you
  vain, they speak a Vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of
  the Lord.&rdquo;

  All Prophecy But Of The Soveraign Prophet Is To Be Examined By Every
  Subject


  Seeing then there was in the time of the Old Testament, such quarrells
  amongst the Visionary Prophets, one contesting with another, and asking
  When departed the Spirit from me, to go to thee? as between Michaiah, and
  the rest of the four hundred; and such giving of the Lye to one another,
  (as in Jerem. 14.14.) and such controversies in the New Testament at this
  day, amongst the Spirituall Prophets: Every man then was, and now is bound
  to make use of his Naturall Reason, to apply to all Prophecy those Rules
  which God hath given us, to discern the true from the false. Of which
  rules, in the Old Testament, one was, conformable doctrine to that which
  Moses the Soveraign Prophet had taught them; and the other the miraculous
  power of foretelling what God would bring to passe, as I have already
  shown out of Deut. 13. 1. &c. and in the New Testament there was but
  one onely mark; and that was the preaching of this Doctrine, That Jesus Is
  The Christ, that is, the King of the Jews, promised in the Old Testament.
  Whosoever denyed that Article, he was a false Prophet, whatsoever miracles
  he might seem to work; and he that taught it was a true Prophet. For St.
  John (1 Epist, 4. 2, &c) speaking expressely of the means to examine
  Spirits, whether they be of God, or not; after he hath told them that
  there would arise false Prophets, saith thus, &ldquo;Hereby know ye the Spirit
  of God. Every Spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the
  flesh, is of God;&rdquo; that is, is approved and allowed as a Prophet of God:
  not that he is a godly man, or one of the Elect, for this, that he
  confesseth, professeth, or preacheth Jesus to be the Christ; but for that
  he is a Prophet avowed. For God sometimes speaketh by Prophets, whose
  persons he hath not accepted; as he did by Baalam; and as he foretold Saul
  of his death, by the Witch of Endor. Again in the next verse, &ldquo;Every
  Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh, is not
  of Christ. And this is the Spirit of Antichrist.&rdquo; So that the rule is
  perfect on both sides; that he is a true Prophet, which preacheth the
  Messiah already come, in the person of Jesus; and he a false one that
  denyeth him come, and looketh for him in some future Imposter, that shall
  take upon him that honour falsely, whom the Apostle there properly calleth
  Antichrist. Every man therefore ought to consider who is the Soveraign
  Prophet; that is to say, who it is, that is Gods Viceregent on earth; and
  hath next under God, the Authority of Governing Christian men; and to
  observe for a Rule, that Doctrine, which in the name of God, hee commanded
  to bee taught; and thereby to examine and try out the truth of those
  Doctrines, which pretended Prophets with miracles, or without, shall at
  any time advance: and if they find it contrary to that Rule, to doe as
  they did, that came to Moses, and complained that there were some that
  Prophecyed in the Campe, whose Authority so to doe they doubted of; and
  leave to the Soveraign, as they did to Moses to uphold, or to forbid them,
  as hee should see cause; and if hee disavow them, then no more to obey
  their voice; or if he approve them, then to obey them, as men to whom God
  hath given a part of the Spirit of their Soveraigne. For when Christian
  men, take not their Christian Soveraign, for Gods Prophet; they must
  either take their owne Dreams, for the prophecy they mean to bee governed
  by, and the tumour of their own hearts for the Spirit of God; or they must
  suffer themselves to bee lead by some strange Prince; or by some of their
  fellow subjects, that can bewitch them, by slander of the government, into
  rebellion, without other miracle to confirm their calling, then sometimes
  an extraordinary successe, and Impunity; and by this means destroying all
  laws, both divine, and humane, reduce all Order, Government, and Society,
  to the first Chaos of Violence, and Civill warre.

  CHAPTER XXXVII.<br />OF MIRACLES, AND THEIR USE

  A Miracle Is A Work That Causeth Admiration


  By Miracles are signified the Admirable works of God: & therefore they
  are also called Wonders. And because they are for the most part, done, for
  a signification of his commandement, in such occasions, as without them,
  men are apt to doubt, (following their private naturall reasoning,) what
  he hath commanded, and what not, they are commonly in Holy Scripture,
  called Signes, in the same sense, as they are called by the Latines,
  Ostenta, and Portenta, from shewing, and fore-signifying that, which the
  Almighty is about to bring to passe.

  And Must Therefore Be Rare, Whereof There Is No Naturall Cause Known


  To understand therefore what is a Miracle, we must first understand what
  works they are, which men wonder at, and call Admirable. And there be but
  two things which make men wonder at any event: The one is, if it be
  strange, that is to say, such, as the like of it hath never, or very
  rarely been produced: The other is, if when it is produced, we cannot
  imagine it to have been done by naturall means, but onely by the immediate
  hand of God. But when wee see some possible, naturall cause of it, how
  rarely soever the like has been done; or if the like have been often done,
  how impossible soever it be to imagine a naturall means thereof, we no
  more wonder, nor esteem it for a Miracle.
<br />
  Therefore, if a Horse, or Cow should speak, it were a Miracle; because
  both the thing is strange, & the Naturall cause difficult to imagin:
  So also were it, to see a strange deviation of nature, in the production
  of some new shape of a living creature. But when a man, or other Animal,
  engenders his like, though we know no more how this is done, than the
  other; yet because &rsquo;tis usuall, it is no Miracle. In like manner, if a man
  be metamorphosed into a stone, or into a pillar, it is a Miracle; because
  strange: but if a peece of wood be so changed; because we see it often, it
  is no Miracle: and yet we know no more, by what operation of God, the one
  is brought to passe, than the other.
<br />
  The first Rainbow that was seen in the world, was a Miracle, because the
  first; and consequently strange; and served for a sign from God, placed in
  heaven, to assure his people, there should be no more an universall
  destruction of the world by Water. But at this day, because they are
  frequent, they are not Miracles, neither to them that know their naturall
  causes, nor to them who know them not. Again, there be many rare works
  produced by the Art of man: yet when we know they are done; because
  thereby wee know also the means how they are done, we count them not for
  Miracles, because not wrought by the immediate hand of God, but by
  mediation of humane Industry.

  That Which Seemeth A Miracle To One Man, May Seem Otherwise To Another


  Furthermore, seeing Admiration and Wonder, is consequent to the knowledge
  and experience, wherewith men are endued, some more, some lesse; it
  followeth, that the same thing, may be a Miracle to one, and not to
  another. And thence it is, that ignorant, and superstitious men make great
  Wonders of those works, which other men, knowing to proceed from Nature,
  (which is not the immediate, but the ordinary work of God,) admire not at
  all: As when Ecclipses of the Sun and Moon have been taken for
  supernaturall works, by the common people; when neverthelesse, there were
  others, could from their naturall causes, have foretold the very hour they
  should arrive: Or, as when a man, by confederacy, and secret intelligence,
  getting knowledge of the private actions of an ignorant, unwary man,
  thereby tells him, what he has done in former time; it seems to him a
  Miraculous thing; but amongst wise, and cautelous men, such Miracles as
  those, cannot easily be done.

  The End Of Miracles


  Again, it belongeth to the nature of a Miracle, that it be wrought for the
  procuring of credit to Gods Messengers, Ministers, and Prophets, that
  thereby men may know, they are called, sent, and employed by God, and
  thereby be the better inclined to obey them. And therefore, though the
  creation of the world, and after that the destruction of all living
  creatures in the universall deluge, were admirable works; yet because they
  were not done to procure credit to any Prophet, or other Minister of God,
  they use not to be called Miracles. For how admirable soever any work be,
  the Admiration consisteth not in that it could be done, because men
  naturally beleeve the Almighty can doe all things, but because he does it
  at the Prayer, or Word of a man. But the works of God in Egypt, by the
  hand of Moses, were properly Miracles; because they were done with
  intention to make the people of Israel beleeve, that Moses came unto them,
  not out of any design of his owne interest, but as sent from God.
  Therefore after God had commanded him to deliver the Israelites from the
  Egyptian bondage, when he said (Exod 4.1. &c.) &ldquo;They will not beleeve
  me, but will say, the Lord hath not appeared unto me,&rdquo; God gave him power,
  to turn the Rod he had in his hand into a Serpent, and again to return it
  into a Rod; and by putting his hand into his bosome, to make it leprous;
  and again by pulling it out to make it whole, to make the Children of
  Israel beleeve (as it is verse 5.) that the God of their Fathers had
  appeared unto him; And if that were not enough, he gave him power to turn
  their waters into bloud. And when hee had done these Miracles before the
  people, it is said (verse 41.) that &ldquo;they beleeved him.&rdquo; Neverthelesse,
  for fear of Pharaoh, they durst not yet obey him. Therefore the other
  works which were done to plague Pharaoh and the Egyptians, tended all to
  make the Israelites beleeve in Moses, and were properly Miracles. In like
  manner if we consider all the Miracles done by the hand of Moses, and all
  the rest of the Prophets, till the Captivity; and those of our Saviour,
  and his Apostles afterward; we shall find, their end was alwaies to beget,
  or confirm beleefe, that they came not of their own motion, but were sent
  by God. Wee may further observe in Scripture, that the end of Miracles,
  was to beget beleef, not universally in all men, elect, and reprobate; but
  in the elect only; that is to say, is such as God had determined should
  become his Subjects. For those miraculous plagues of Egypt, had not for
  end, the conversion of Pharaoh; For God had told Moses before, that he
  would harden the heart of Pharaoh, that he should not let the people goe:
  And when he let them goe at last, not the Miracles perswaded him, but the
  plagues forced him to it. So also of our Saviour, it is written, (Mat. 13.
  58.) that he wrought not many Miracles in his own countrey, because of
  their unbeleef; and (in Marke 6.5.) in stead of, &ldquo;he wrought not many,&rdquo; it
  is, &ldquo;he could work none.&rdquo; It was not because he wanted power; which to
  say, were blasphemy against God; nor that the end of Miracles was not to
  convert incredulous men to Christ; for the end of all the Miracles of
  Moses, of Prophets, of our Saviour, and of his Apostles was to adde men to
  the Church; but it was, because the end of their Miracles, was to adde to
  the Church (not all men, but) such as should be saved; that is to say,
  such as God had elected. Seeing therefore our Saviour sent from his
  Father, hee could not use his power in the conversion of those, whom his
  Father had rejected. They that expounding this place of St. Marke, say,
  that his word, &ldquo;Hee could not,&rdquo; is put for, &ldquo;He would not,&rdquo; do it without
  example in the Greek tongue, (where Would Not, is put sometimes for Could
  Not, in things inanimate, that have no will; but Could Not, for Would Not,
  never,) and thereby lay a stumbling block before weak Christians; as if
  Christ could doe no Miracles, but amongst the credulous.

  The Definition Of A Miracle


  From that which I have here set down, of the nature, and use of a Miracle,
  we may define it thus, &ldquo;A MIRACLE, is a work of God, (besides his
  operation by the way of Nature, ordained in the Creation,) done for the
  making manifest to his elect, the mission of an extraordinary Minister for
  their salvation.&rdquo;
<br />
  And from this definition, we may inferre; First, that in all Miracles, the
  work done, is not the effect of any vertue in the Prophet; because it is
  the effect of the immediate hand of God; that is to say God hath done it,
  without using the Prophet therein, as a subordinate cause.
<br />
  Secondly, that no Devil, Angel, or other created Spirit, can do a Miracle.
  For it must either be by vertue of some naturall science, or by
  Incantation, that is, vertue of words. For if the Inchanters do it by
  their own power independent, there is some power that proceedeth not from
  God; which all men deny: and if they doe it by power given them, then is
  the work not from the immediate hand of God, but naturall, and
  consequently no Miracle.
<br />
  There be some texts of Scripture, that seem to attribute the power of
  working wonders (equall to some of those immediate Miracles, wrought by
  God himself,) to certain Arts of Magick, and Incantation. As for example,
  when we read that after the Rod of Moses being cast on the ground became a
  Serpent, (Exod. 7. 11.) &ldquo;the Magicians of Egypt did the like by their
  Enchantments;&rdquo; and that after Moses had turned the waters of the Egyptian
  Streams, Rivers, Ponds, and Pooles of water into blood, (Exod. 7. 22.)
  &ldquo;the Magicians of Egypt did so likewise, with their Enchantments;&rdquo; and
  that after Moses had by the power of God brought frogs upon the land,
  (Exod. 8. 7.) &ldquo;the Magicians also did so with their Enchantments, and
  brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt;&rdquo; will not a man be apt to
  attribute Miracles to Enchantments; that is to say, to the efficacy of the
  sound of Words; and think the same very well proved out of this, and other
  such places? and yet there is no place of Scripture, that telleth us what
  on Enchantment is. If therefore Enchantment be not, as many think it, a
  working of strange effects by spells, and words; but Imposture, and
  delusion, wrought by ordinary means; and so far from supernaturall, as the
  Impostors need not the study so much as of naturall causes, but the
  ordinary ignorance, stupidity, and superstition of mankind, to doe them;
  those texts that seem to countenance the power of Magick, Witchcraft, and
  Enchantment, must needs have another sense, than at first sight they seem
  to bear.

  That Men Are Apt To Be Deceived By False Miracles


  For it is evident enough, that Words have no effect, but on those that
  understand them; and then they have no other, but to signifie the
  intentions, or passions of them that speak; and thereby produce, hope,
  fear, or other passions, or conceptions in the hearer. Therefore when a
  Rod seemeth a Serpent, or the Water Bloud, or any other Miracle seemeth
  done by Enchantment; if it be not to the edification of Gods people, not
  the Rod, nor the Water, nor any other thing is enchanted; that is to say,
  wrought upon by the Words, but the Spectator. So that all the Miracle
  consisteth in this, that the Enchanter has deceived a man; which is no
  Miracle, but a very easie matter to doe.
<br />
  For such is the ignorance, and aptitude to error generally of all men, but
  especially of them that have not much knowledge of naturall causes, and of
  the nature, and interests of men; as by innumerable and easie tricks to be
  abused. What opinion of miraculous power, before it was known there was a
  Science of the course of the Stars, might a man have gained, that should
  have told the people, This hour, or day the Sun should be darkned? A
  juggler by the handling of his goblets, and other trinkets, if it were not
  now ordinarily practised, would be thought to do his wonders by the power
  at least of the Devil. A man that hath practised to speak by drawing in of
  his breath, (which kind of men in antient time were called Ventriloqui,)
  and so make the weaknesse of his voice seem to proceed, not from the weak
  impulsion of the organs of Speech, but from distance of place, is able to
  make very many men beleeve it is a voice from Heaven, whatsoever he please
  to tell them. And for a crafty man, that hath enquired into the secrets,
  and familiar confessions that one man ordinarily maketh to another of his
  actions and adventures past, to tell them him again is no hard matter; and
  yet there be many, that by such means as that, obtain the reputation of
  being Conjurers. But it is too long a businesse, to reckon up the severall
  sorts of those men, which the Greeks called Thaumaturgi, that is to say,
  workers of things wonderfull; and yet these do all they do, by their own
  single dexterity. But if we looke upon the Impostures wrought by
  Confederacy, there is nothing how impossible soever to be done, that is
  impossible to bee beleeved. For two men conspiring, one to seem lame, the
  other to cure him with a charme, will deceive many: but many conspiring,
  one to seem lame, another so to cure him, and all the rest to bear
  witnesse; will deceive many more.

  Cautions Against The Imposture Of Miracles


  In this aptitude of mankind, to give too hasty beleefe to pretended
  Miracles, there can be no better, nor I think any other caution, than that
  which God hath prescribed, first by Moses, (as I have said before in the
  precedent chapter,) in the beginning of the 13. and end of the 18. of
  Deuteronomy; That wee take not any for Prophets, that teach any other
  Religion, then that which Gods Lieutenant, (which at that time was Moses,)
  hath established; nor any, (though he teach the same Religion,) whose
  Praediction we doe not see come to passe. Moses therefore in his time, and
  Aaron, and his successors in their times, and the Soveraign Governour of
  Gods people, next under God himself, that is to say, the Head of the
  Church in all times, are to be consulted, what doctrine he hath
  established, before wee give credit to a pretended Miracle, or Prophet.
  And when that is done, the thing they pretend to be a Miracle, we must
  both see it done, and use all means possible to consider, whether it be
  really done; and not onely so, but whether it be such, as no man can do
  the like by his naturall power, but that it requires the immediate hand of
  God. And in this also we must have recourse to Gods Lieutenant; to whom in
  all doubtfull cases, wee have submitted our private judgments. For
  Example; if a man pretend, that after certain words spoken over a peece of
  bread, that presently God hath made it not bread, but a God, or a man, or
  both, and neverthelesse it looketh still as like bread as ever it did;
  there is no reason for any man to think it really done; nor consequently
  to fear him, till he enquire of God, by his Vicar, or Lieutenant, whether
  it be done, or not. If he say not, then followeth that which Moses saith,
  (Deut. 18. 22.) &ldquo;he hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not fear
  him.&rdquo; If he say &rsquo;tis done, then he is not to contradict it. So also if wee
  see not, but onely hear tell of a Miracle, we are to consult the Lawful
  Church; that is to say, the lawful Head thereof, how far we are to give
  credit to the relators of it. And this is chiefly the case of men, that in
  these days live under Christian Soveraigns. For in these times, I do not
  know one man, that ever saw any such wondrous work, done by the charm, or
  at the word, or prayer of a man, that a man endued but with a mediocrity
  of reason, would think supernaturall: and the question is no more, whether
  what wee see done, be a Miracle; whether the Miracle we hear, or read of,
  were a reall work, and not the Act of a tongue, or pen; but in plain
  terms, whether the report be true, or a lye. In which question we are not
  every one, to make our own private Reason, or Conscience, but the Publique
  Reason, that is, the reason of Gods Supreme Lieutenant, Judge; and indeed
  we have made him Judge already, if wee have given him a Soveraign power,
  to doe all that is necessary for our peace and defence. A private man has
  alwaies the liberty, (because thought is free,) to beleeve, or not beleeve
  in his heart, those acts that have been given out for Miracles, according
  as he shall see, what benefit can accrew by mens belief, to those that
  pretend, or countenance them, and thereby conjecture, whether they be
  Miracles, or Lies. But when it comes to confession of that faith, the
  Private Reason must submit to the Publique; that is to say, to Gods
  Lieutenant. But who is this Lieutenant of God, and Head of the Church,
  shall be considered in its proper place thereafter.

  CHAPTER XXXVIII.<br />OF THE SIGNIFICATION IN SCRIPTURE OF ETERNALL LIFE,
  HELL, SALVATION, THE WORLD TO COME, AND REDEMPTION


  The maintenance of Civill Society, depending on Justice; and Justice on
  the power of Life and Death, and other lesse Rewards and Punishments,
  residing in them that have the Soveraignty of the Common-wealth; It is
  impossible a Common-wealth should stand, where any other than the
  Soveraign, hath a power of giving greater rewards than Life; and of
  inflicting greater punishments than Death. Now seeing Eternall Life is a
  greater reward, than the Life Present; and Eternall Torment a greater
  punishment than the Death of Nature; It is a thing worthy to be well
  considered, of all men that desire (by obeying Authority) to avoid the
  calamities of Confusion, and Civill war, what is meant in Holy Scripture,
  by Life Eternall, and Torment Eternall; and for what offences, against
  whom committed, men are to be Eternally Tormented; and for what actions,
  they are to obtain Eternall Life.

  Place Of Adams Eternity If He Had Not Sinned, The Terrestrial Paradise


  And first we find, that Adam was created in such a condition of life, as
  had he not broken the commandement of God, he had enjoyed it in the
  Paradise of Eden Everlastingly. For there was the Tree of Life; whereof he
  was so long allowed to eat, as he should forbear to eat of the tree of
  Knowledge of Good an Evill; which was not allowed him. And therefore as
  soon as he had eaten of it, God thrust him out of Paradise, &ldquo;lest he
  should put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and live for
  ever.&rdquo; (Gen. 3. 22.) By which it seemeth to me, (with submission
  neverthelesse both in this, and in all questions, whereof the
  determination dependeth on the Scriptures, to the interpretation of the
  Bible authorized by the Common-wealth, whose Subject I am,) that Adam if
  he had not sinned, had had an Eternall Life on Earth: and that Mortality
  entred upon himself, and his posterity, by his first Sin. Not that actuall
  Death then entred; for Adam then could never have had children; whereas he
  lived long after, and saw a numerous posterity ere he dyed. But where it
  is said, &ldquo;In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die,&rdquo; it
  must needs bee meant of his Mortality, and certitude of death. Seeing then
  Eternall life was lost by Adams forfeiture, in committing sin, he that
  should cancell that forfeiture was to recover thereby, that Life again.
  Now Jesus Christ hath satisfied for the sins of all that beleeve in him;
  and therefore recovered to all beleevers, that ETERNALL LIFE, which was
  lost by the sin of Adam. And in this sense it is, that the comparison of
  St. Paul holdeth (Rom. 5.18, 19.) &ldquo;As by the offence of one, Judgment came
  upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousnesse of one, the
  free gift came upon all men to Justification of Life.&rdquo; Which is again (1
  Cor. 15.21,22) more perspicuously delivered in these words, &ldquo;For since by
  man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in
  Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.&rdquo;

  Texts Concerning The Place Of Life Eternall For Beleevers


  Concerning the place wherein men shall enjoy that Eternall Life, which
  Christ hath obtained for them, the texts next before alledged seem to make
  it on Earth. For if as in Adam, all die, that is, have forfeited Paradise,
  and Eternall Life on Earth; even so in Christ all shall be made alive;
  then all men shall be made to live on Earth; for else the comparison were
  not proper. Hereunto seemeth to agree that of the Psalmist, (Psal. 133.3.)
  &ldquo;Upon Zion God commanded the blessing, even Life for evermore;&rdquo; for Zion,
  is in Jerusalem, upon Earth: as also that of S. Joh. (Rev. 2.7.) &ldquo;To him
  that overcommeth I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the
  midst of the Paradise of God.&rdquo; This was the tree of Adams Eternall life;
  but his life was to have been on Earth. The same seemeth to be confirmed
  again by St. Joh. (Rev. 21.2.) where he saith, &ldquo;I John saw the Holy City,
  New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a Bride
  adorned for her husband:&rdquo; and again v. 10. to the same effect: As if he
  should say, the new Jerusalem, the Paradise of God, at the coming again of
  Christ, should come down to Gods people from Heaven, and not they goe up
  to it from Earth. And this differs nothing from that, which the two men in
  white clothing (that is, the two Angels) said to the Apostles, that were
  looking upon Christ ascending (Acts 1.11.) &ldquo;This same Jesus, who is taken
  up from you into Heaven, shall so come, as you have seen him go up into
  Heaven.&rdquo; Which soundeth as if they had said, he should come down to govern
  them under his Father, Eternally here; and not take them up to govern them
  in Heaven; and is conformable to the Restauration of the Kingdom of God,
  instituted under Moses; which was a Political government of the Jews on
  Earth. Again, that saying of our Saviour (Mat. 22.30.) &ldquo;that in the
  Resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the
  Angels of God in heaven,&rdquo; is a description of an Eternall Life, resembling
  that which we lost in Adam in the point of Marriage. For seeing Adam, and
  Eve, if they had not sinned, had lived on Earth Eternally, in their
  individuall persons; it is manifest, they should not continually have
  procreated their kind. For if Immortals should have generated, as Mankind
  doth now; the Earth in a small time, would not have been able to afford
  them a place to stand on. The Jews that asked our Saviour the question,
  whose wife the woman that had married many brothers, should be, in the
  resurrection, knew not what were the consequences of Immortality; that
  there shal be no Generation, and consequently no marriage, no more than
  there is Marriage, or generation among the Angels. The comparison between
  that Eternall life which Adam lost, and our Saviour by his Victory over
  death hath recovered; holdeth also in this, that as Adam lost Eternall
  Life by his sin, and yet lived after it for a time; so the faithful
  Christian hath recovered Eternal Life by Christs passion, though he die a
  natural death, and remaine dead for a time; namely, till the Resurrection.
  For as Death is reckoned from the Condemnation of Adam, not from the
  Execution; so life is reckoned from the Absolution, not from the
  Resurrection of them that are elected in Christ.

  Ascension Into Heaven


  That the place wherein men are to live Eternally, after the Resurrection,
  is the Heavens, meaning by Heaven, those parts of the world, which are the
  most remote from Earth, as where the stars are, or above the stars, in
  another Higher Heaven, called Caelum Empyreum, (whereof there is no
  mention in Scripture, nor ground in Reason) is not easily to be drawn from
  any text that I can find. By the Kingdome of Heaven, is meant the Kingdome
  of the King that dwelleth in Heaven; and his Kingdome was the people of
  Israel, whom he ruled by the Prophets his Lieutenants, first Moses, and
  after him Eleazar, and the Soveraign Priests, till in the days of Samuel
  they rebelled, and would have a mortall man for their King, after the
  manner of other Nations. And when our Saviour Christ, by the preaching of
  his Ministers, shall have perswaded the Jews to return, and called the
  Gentiles to his obedience, then shall there be a new Kingdome of Heaven,
  because our King shall then be God, whose Throne is Heaven; without any
  necessity evident in the Scripture, that man shall ascend to his
  happinesse any higher than Gods Footstool the Earth. On the contrary, we
  find written (Joh. 3.13.) that &ldquo;no man hath ascended into Heaven, but he
  that came down from Heaven, even the Son of man, that is in Heaven.&rdquo; Where
  I observe by the way, that these words are not, as those which go
  immediately before, the words of our Saviour, but of St. John himself; for
  Christ was then not in Heaven, but upon the Earth. The like is said of
  David (Acts 2.34.) where St. Peter, to prove the Ascension of Christ,
  using the words of the Psalmist, (Psal. 16.10.) &ldquo;Thou wilt not leave my
  soule in Hell, nor suffer thine Holy one to see corruption,&rdquo; saith, they
  were spoken (not of David, but) of Christ; and to prove it, addeth this
  Reason, &ldquo;For David is not ascended into Heaven.&rdquo; But to this a man may
  easily answer, and say, that though their bodies were not to ascend till
  the generall day of Judgment, yet their souls were in Heaven as soon as
  they were departed from their bodies; which also seemeth to be confirmed
  by the words of our Saviour (Luke 20.37,38.) who proving the Resurrection
  out of the word of Moses, saith thus, &ldquo;That the dead are raised, even
  Moses shewed, at the bush, when he calleth the Lord, the God of Abraham,
  and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the
  Dead, but of the Living; for they all live to him.&rdquo; But if these words be
  to be understood only of the Immortality of the Soul, they prove not at
  all that which our Saviour intended to prove, which was the Resurrection
  of the Body, that is to say, the Immortality of the Man. Therefore our
  Saviour meaneth, that those Patriarchs were Immortall; not by a property
  consequent to the essence, and nature of mankind, but by the will of God,
  that was pleased of his mere grace, to bestow Eternall Life upon the
  faithfull. And though at that time the Patriarchs and many other faithfull
  men were Dead, yet as it is in the text, they Lived To God; that is, they
  were written in the Book of Life with them that were absolved of their
  sinnes, and ordained to Life eternall at the Resurrection. That the Soul
  of man is in its own nature Eternall, and a living Creature independent on
  the Body; or that any meer man is Immortall, otherwise than by the
  Resurrection in the last day, (except Enos and Elias,) is a doctrine not
  apparent in Scripture. The whole 14. Chapter of Job, which is the speech
  not of his friends, but of himselfe, is a complaint of this Mortality of
  Nature; and yet no contradiction of the Immortality at the Resurrection.
  &ldquo;There is hope of a tree,&rdquo; (saith hee verse 7.) &ldquo;if it be cast down,
  Though the root thereof wax old, and the stock thereof die in the ground,
  yet when it scenteth the water it will bud, and bring forth boughes like a
  Plant. But man dyeth, and wasteth away, yea, man giveth up the Ghost, and
  where is he?&rdquo; and (verse 12.) &ldquo;man lyeth down, and riseth not, till the
  heavens be no more.&rdquo; But when is it, that the heavens shall be no more?
  St. Peter tells us, that it is at the generall Resurrection. For in his 2.
  Epistle, 3. Chapter, and 7. verse, he saith, that &ldquo;the Heavens and the
  Earth that are now, are reserved unto fire against the day of Judgment,
  and perdition of ungodly men,&rdquo; and (verse 12.) &ldquo;looking for, and hasting
  to the comming of God, wherein the Heavens shall be on fire, and shall be
  dissolved, and the Elements shall melt with fervent heat. Neverthelesse,
  we according to the promise look for new Heavens, and a new Earth, wherein
  dwelleth righteousnesse.&rdquo; Therefore where Job saith, man riseth not till
  the Heavens be no more; it is all one, as if he had said, the Immortall
  Life (and Soule and Life in the Scripture, do usually signifie the same
  thing) beginneth not in man, till the Resurrection, and day of Judgment;
  and hath for cause, not his specificall nature, and generation; but the
  Promise. For St. Peter saies not, &ldquo;Wee look for new heavens, and a new
  earth, (from Nature) but from Promise.&rdquo;
<br />
  Lastly, seeing it hath been already proved out of divers evident places of
  Scripture, in the 35. chapter of this book, that the Kingdom of God is a
  Civil Common-wealth, where God himself is Soveraign, by vertue first of
  the Old, and since of the New Covenant, wherein he reigneth by his Vicar,
  or Lieutenant; the same places do therefore also prove, that after the
  comming again of our Saviour in his Majesty, and glory, to reign actually,
  and Eternally; the Kingdom of God is to be on Earth. But because this
  doctrine (though proved out of places of Scripture not few, nor obscure)
  will appear to most men a novelty; I doe but propound it; maintaining
  nothing in this, or any other paradox of Religion; but attending the end
  of that dispute of the sword, concerning the Authority, (not yet amongst
  my Countrey-men decided,) by which all sorts of doctrine are to bee
  approved, or rejected; and whose commands, both in speech, and writing,
  (whatsoever be the opinions of private men) must by all men, that mean to
  be protected by their Laws, be obeyed. For the points of doctrine
  concerning the Kingdome (of) God, have so great influence on the Kingdome
  of Man, as not to be determined, but by them, that under God have the
  Soveraign Power.

  The Place After Judgment, Of Those Who Were Never In The Kingdome Of God,
  Or Having Been In, Are Cast Out


  As the Kingdome of God, and Eternall Life, so also Gods Enemies, and their
  Torments after Judgment, appear by the Scripture, to have their place on
  Earth. The name of the place, where all men remain till the Resurrection,
  that were either buryed, or swallowed up of the Earth, is usually called
  in Scripture, by words that signifie Under Ground; which the Latines read
  generally Infernus, and Inferni, and the Greeks Hades; that is to say, a
  place where men cannot see; and containeth as well the Grave, as any other
  deeper place. But for the place of the damned after the Resurrection, it
  is not determined, neither in the Old, nor New Testament, by any note of
  situation; but onely by the company: as that it shall bee, where such
  wicked men were, as God in former times in extraordinary, and miraculous
  manner, had destroyed from off the face of the Earth: As for Example, that
  they are in Inferno, in Tartarus, or in the bottomelesse pit; because
  Corah, Dathan, and Abirom, were swallowed up alive into the earth. Not
  that the Writers of the Scripture would have us beleeve, there could be in
  the globe of the Earth, which is not only finite, but also (compared to
  the height of the Stars) of no considerable magnitude, a pit without a
  bottome; that is, a hole of infinite depth, such as the Greeks in their
  Daemonologie (that is to say, in their doctrine concerning Daemons,) and
  after them, the Romans called Tartarus; of which Virgill sayes,
<br />
Bis patet in præceps, tantem tendítque sub umbras,<br />
Quantus ad æthereum cœli suspectus Olympum:

for that is a thing the proportion of Earth to Heaven cannot bear: but that wee should beleeve them there, indefinitely, where those men are, on whom God inflicted that Exemplary punnishment.

  The Congregation Of Giants


  Again, because those mighty men of the Earth, that lived in the time of
  Noah, before the floud, (which the Greeks called Heroes, and the Scripture
  Giants, and both say, were begotten, by copulation of the children of God,
  with the children of men,) were for their wicked life destroyed by the
  generall deluge; the place of the Damned, is therefore also sometimes
  marked out, by the company of those deceased Giants; as Proverbs 21.16.
  &ldquo;The man that wandreth out of the way of understanding, shall remain in
  the congregation of the Giants,&rdquo; and Job 26.5. &ldquo;Behold the Giants groan
  under water, and they that dwell with them.&rdquo; Here the place of the Damned,
  is under the water. And Isaiah 14.9. &ldquo;Hell is troubled how to meet thee,&rdquo;
  (that is, the King of Babylon) &ldquo;and will displace the Giants for thee:&rdquo;
  and here again the place of the Damned, (if the sense be literall,) is to
  be under water.

  Lake Of Fire


  Thirdly, because the Cities of Sodom, and Gomorrah, by the extraordinary
  wrath of God, were consumed for their wickednesse with Fire and Brimstone,
  and together with them the countrey about made a stinking bituminous Lake;
  the place of the Damned is sometimes expressed by Fire, and a Fiery Lake:
  as in the Apocalypse ch.21.8. &ldquo;But the timorous, incredulous, and
  abominable, and Murderers, and Whoremongers, and Sorcerers, and Idolators,
  and all Lyars, shall have their part in the Lake that burneth with Fire,
  and Brimstone; which is the second Death.&rdquo; So that it is manifest, that
  Hell Fire, which is here expressed by Metaphor, from the reall Fire of
  Sodome, signifieth not any certain kind, or place of Torment; but is to be
  taken indefinitely, for Destruction, as it is in the 20. Chapter, at the
  14. verse; where it is said, that &ldquo;Death and Hell were cast into the Lake
  of Fire;&rdquo; that is to say, were abolished, and destroyed; as if after the
  day of Judgment, there shall be no more Dying, nor no more going into
  Hell; that is, no more going to Hades (from which word perhaps our word
  Hell is derived,) which is the same with no more Dying.

  Utter Darknesse


  Fourthly, from the Plague of Darknesse inflicted on the Egyptians, of
  which it is written (Exod. 10.23.) &ldquo;They saw not one another, neither rose
  any man from his place for three days; but all the Children of Israel had
  light in their dwellings;&rdquo; the place of the wicked after Judgment, is
  called Utter Darknesse, or (as it is in the originall) Darknesse Without.
  And so it is expressed (Mat. 22.13.) where the King commandeth his
  Servants, &ldquo;to bind hand and foot the man that had not on his Wedding
  garment, and to cast him out,&rdquo; Eis To Skotos To Exoteron, Externall
  Darknesse, or Darknesse Without: which though translated Utter Darknesse,
  does not signifie How Great, but Where that darknesse is to be; namely,
  Without The Habitation of Gods Elect.

  Gehenna, And Tophet


  Lastly, whereas there was a place neer Jerusalem, called the Valley of the
  Children of Hinnon; in a part whereof, called Tophet, the Jews had
  committed most grievous Idolatry, sacrificing their children to the Idol
  Moloch; and wherein also God had afflicted his enemies with most grievous
  punishments; and wherein Josias had burnt the Priests of Moloch upon their
  own Altars, as appeareth at large in the 2 of Kings chap. 23. the place
  served afterwards, to receive the filth, and garbage which was carried
  thither, out of the City; and there used to be fires made, from time to
  time, to purifie the aire, and take away the stench of Carrion. From this
  abominable place, the Jews used ever after to call the place of the
  Damned, by the name of Gehenna, or Valley of Hinnon. And this Gehenna, is
  that word, which is usually now translated HELL; and from the fires from
  time to time there burning, we have the notion of Everlasting, and
  Unquenchable Fire.

  Of The Literall Sense Of The Scripture Concerning Hell


  Seeing now there is none, that so interprets the Scripture, as that after
  the day of Judgment, the wicked are all Eternally to be punished in the
  Valley of Hinnon; or that they shall so rise again, as to be ever after
  under ground, or under water; or that after the Resurrection, they shall
  no more see one another; nor stir from one place to another; it followeth,
  me thinks, very necessarily, that that which is thus said concerning Hell
  Fire, is spoken metaphorically; and that therefore there is a proper sense
  to bee enquired after, (for of all Metaphors there is some reall ground,
  that may be expressed in proper words) both of the Place of Hell, and the
  nature of Hellish Torment, and Tormenters.

  Satan, Devill, Not Proper Names, But Appellatives


  And first for the Tormenters, wee have their nature, and properties,
  exactly and properly delivered by the names of, The Enemy, or Satan; The
  Accuser, or Diabolus; The Destroyer, or Abbadon. Which significant names,
  Satan, Devill, Abbadon, set not forth to us any Individuall person, as
  proper names use to doe; but onely an office, or quality; and are
  therefore Appellatives; which ought not to have been left untranslated, as
  they are, in the Latine, and Modern Bibles; because thereby they seem to
  be the proper names of Daemons; and men are the more easily seduced to
  beleeve the doctrine of Devills; which at that time was the Religion of
  the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses, and of Christ.
<br />
  And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer, is meant, the Enemy
  of them that shall be in the Kingdome of God; therefore if the Kingdome of
  God after the Resurrection, bee upon the Earth, (as in the former Chapter
  I have shewn by Scripture it seems to be,) The Enemy, and his Kingdome
  must be on Earth also. For so also was it, in the time before the Jews had
  deposed God. For Gods Kingdome was in Palestine; and the Nations round
  about, were the Kingdomes of the Enemy; and consequently by Satan, is
  meant any Earthly Enemy of the Church.

  Torments Of Hell


  The Torments of Hell, are expressed sometimes, by &ldquo;weeping, and gnashing
  of teeth,&rdquo; as Mat. 8.12. Sometimes, by &ldquo;the worm of Conscience;&rdquo; as
  Isa.66.24. and Mark 9.44, 46, 48; sometimes, by Fire, as in the place now
  quoted, &ldquo;where the worm dyeth not, and the fire is not quenched,&rdquo; and many
  places beside: sometimes by &ldquo;Shame, and contempt,&rdquo; as Dan. 12.2. &ldquo;And many
  of them that sleep in the dust of the Earth, shall awake; some to
  Everlasting life; and some to shame, and everlasting contempt.&rdquo; All which
  places design metaphorically a grief, and discontent of mind, from the
  sight of that Eternall felicity in others, which they themselves through
  their own incredulity, and disobedience have lost. And because such
  felicity in others, is not sensible but by comparison with their own
  actuall miseries; it followeth that they are to suffer such bodily paines,
  and calamities, as are incident to those, who not onely live under evill
  and cruell Governours, but have also for Enemy, the Eternall King of the
  Saints, God Almighty. And amongst these bodily paines, is to be reckoned
  also to every one of the wicked a second Death. For though the Scripture
  bee clear for an universall Resurrection; yet wee do not read, that to any
  of the Reprobate is promised an Eternall life. For whereas St. Paul (1
  Cor. 15.42, 43.) to the question concerning what bodies men shall rise
  with again, saith, that &ldquo;the body is sown in corruption, and is raised in
  incorruption; It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown
  in weaknesse, it is raised in power;&rdquo; Glory and Power cannot be applyed to
  the bodies of the wicked: Nor can the name of Second Death, bee applyed to
  those that can never die but once: And although in Metaphoricall speech, a
  Calamitous life Everlasting, may bee called an Everlasting Death yet it
  cannot well be understood of a Second Death. The fire prepared for the
  wicked, is an Everlasting Fire: that is to say, the estate wherein no man
  can be without torture, both of body and mind, after the Resurrection,
  shall endure for ever; and in that sense the Fire shall be unquenchable,
  and the torments Everlasting: but it cannot thence be inferred, that hee
  who shall be cast into that fire, or be tormented with those torments,
  shall endure, and resist them so, as to be eternally burnt, and tortured,
  and yet never be destroyed, nor die. And though there be many places that
  affirm Everlasting Fire, and Torments (into which men may be cast
  successively one after another for ever;) yet I find none that affirm
  there shall bee an Eternall Life therein of any individuall person; but on
  the contrary, an Everlasting Death, which is the Second Death: (Apoc. 20.
  13,14.) &ldquo;For after Death, and the Grave shall have delivered up the dead
  which were in them, and every man be judged according to his works; Death
  and the Grave shall also be cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the Second
  Death.&rdquo; Whereby it is evident, that there is to bee a Second Death of
  every one that shall bee condemned at the day of Judgement, after which
  hee shall die no more.

  The Joyes Of Life Eternall, And Salvation The Same Thing, Salvation From
  Sin, And From Misery, All One


  The joyes of Life Eternall, are in Scripture comprehended all under the
  name of SALVATION, or Being Saved. To be saved, is to be secured, either
  respectively, against speciall Evills, or absolutely against all Evill,
  comprehending Want, Sicknesse, and Death it self. And because man was
  created in a condition Immortall, not subject to corruption, and
  consequently to nothing that tendeth to the dissolution of his nature; and
  fell from that happinesse by the sin of Adam; it followeth, that to be
  Saved From Sin, is to be saved from all the Evill, and Calamities that
  Sinne hath brought upon us. And therefore in the Holy Scripture, Remission
  of Sinne, and Salvation from Death and Misery, is the same thing, as it
  appears by the words of our Saviour, who having cured a man sick of the
  Palsey, by saying, (Mat. 9.2.) &ldquo;Son be of good cheer, thy Sins be forgiven
  thee;&rdquo; and knowing that the Scribes took for blasphemy, that a man should
  pretend to forgive Sins, asked them (v.5.) &ldquo;whether it were easier to say,
  Thy Sinnes be forgiven thee, or, Arise and walk;&rdquo; signifying thereby, that
  it was all one, as to the saving of the sick, to say, &ldquo;Thy Sins are
  forgiven,&rdquo; and &ldquo;Arise and walk;&rdquo; and that he used that form of speech,
  onely to shew he had power to forgive Sins. And it is besides evident in
  reason, that since Death and Misery, were the punishments of Sin, the
  discharge of Sinne, must also be a discharge of Death and Misery; that is
  to say, Salvation absolute, such as the faithfull are to enjoy after the
  day of Judgment, by the power, and favour of Jesus Christ, who for that
  cause is called our SAVIOUR.
<br />
  Concerning Particular Salvations, such as are understood, 1 Sam. 14.39.
  &ldquo;as the Lord liveth that saveth Israel,&rdquo; that is, from their temporary
  enemies, and 2 Sam. 22.4. &ldquo;Thou art my Saviour, thou savest me from
  violence;&rdquo; and 2 Kings 13.5. &ldquo;God gave the Israelites a Saviour, and so
  they were delivered from the hand of the Assyrians,&rdquo; and the like, I need
  say nothing; there being neither difficulty, nor interest, to corrupt the
  interpretation of texts of that kind.

  The Place Of Eternall Salvation


  But concerning the Generall Salvation, because it must be in the Kingdome
  of Heaven, there is great difficulty concerning the Place. On one side, by
  Kingdome (which is an estate ordained by men for their perpetuall security
  against enemies, and want) it seemeth that this Salvation should be on
  Earth. For by Salvation is set forth unto us, a glorious Reign of our
  King, by Conquest; not a safety by Escape: and therefore there where we
  look for Salvation, we must look also for Triumph; and before Triumph, for
  Victory; and before Victory, for Battell; which cannot well be supposed,
  shall be in Heaven. But how good soever this reason may be, I will not
  trust to it, without very evident places of Scripture. The state of
  Salvation is described at large, Isaiah, 33. ver. 20,21,22,23,24.
<br />
  &ldquo;Look upon Zion, the City of our solemnities, thine eyes shall see
  Jerusalem a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down;
  not one of the stakes thereof shall ever be removed, neither shall any of
  the cords thereof be broken.
<br />
  But there the glorious Lord will be unto us a place of broad rivers, and
  streams; wherein shall goe no Gally with oares; neither shall gallant ship
  passe thereby.
<br />
  For the Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King,
  he will save us.
<br />
  Thy tacklings are loosed; they could not well strengthen their mast; they
  could not spread the sail: then is the prey of a great spoil divided; the
  lame take the prey.
<br />
  And the Inhabitant shall not say, I am sicke; the people that shall dwell
  therein shall be forgiven their Iniquity.&rdquo;
<br />
  In which words wee have the place from whence Salvation is to proceed,
  &ldquo;Jerusalem, a quiet habitation;&rdquo; the Eternity of it, &ldquo;a tabernacle that
  shall not be taken down,&rdquo; &c. The Saviour of it, &ldquo;the Lord, their
  Judge, their Lawgiver, their King, he will save us;&rdquo; the Salvation, &ldquo;the
  Lord shall be to them as a broad mote of swift waters,&rdquo; &c. the
  condition of their Enemies, &ldquo;their tacklings are loose, their masts weake,
  the lame shal take the spoil of them.&rdquo; The condition of the Saved, &ldquo;The
  Inhabitants shall not say, I am sick:&rdquo; And lastly, all this is
  comprehended in Forgivenesse of sin, &ldquo;The people that dwell therein shall
  be forgiven their iniquity.&rdquo; By which it is evident, that Salvation shall
  be on Earth, then, when God shall reign, (at the coming again of Christ)
  in Jerusalem; and from Jerusalem shall proceed the Salvation of the
  Gentiles that shall be received into Gods Kingdome; as is also more
  expressely declared by the same Prophet, Chap. 66.20, 21. &ldquo;And they,&rdquo;
  (that is, the Gentiles who had any Jew in bondage) &ldquo;shall bring all your
  brethren, for an offering to the Lord, out of all nations, upon horses,
  and in charets, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to
  my holy mountain, Jerusalem, saith the Lord, as the Children of Israel
  bring an offering in a clean vessell into the House of the Lord. And I
  will also take of them for Priests and for Levites, saith the Lord:&rdquo;
  Whereby it is manifest, that the chief seat of Gods Kingdome (which is the
  Place, from whence the Salvation of us that were Gentiles, shall proceed)
  shall be Jerusalem; And the same is also confirmed by our Saviour, in his
  discourse with the woman of Samaria, concerning the place of Gods worship;
  to whom he saith, John 4.22. that the Samaritans worshipped they know not
  what, but the Jews worship what they knew, &ldquo;For Salvation is of the Jews
  (Ex Judais, that is, begins at the Jews): as if he should say, you worship
  God, but know not by whom he wil save you, as we doe, that know it shall
  be one of the tribe of Judah, a Jew, not a Samaritan. And therefore also
  the woman not impertinently answered him again, &ldquo;We know the Messias shall
  come.&rdquo; So that which our saviour saith, &ldquo;Salvation is from the Jews,&rdquo; is
  the same that Paul sayes (Rom. 1.16,17.) &ldquo;The Gospel is the power of God
  to Salvation to every one that beleeveth; To the Jew first, and also to
  the Greek. For therein is the righteousnesse of God revealed from faith to
  faith;&rdquo; from the faith of the Jew, to the faith of the Gentile. In the
  like sense the Prophet Joel describing the day of Judgment, (chap.
  2.30,31.) that God would &ldquo;shew wonders in heaven, and in earth, bloud, and
  fire, and pillars of smoak. The Sun should be turned to darknesse, and the
  Moon into bloud, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come,&rdquo; he
  addeth verse 32. &ldquo;and it shall come to passe, that whosoever shall call
  upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. For in Mount Zion, and in
  Jerusalem shall be Salvation.&rdquo; And Obadiah verse 17 saith the same, &ldquo;Upon
  Mount Zion shall be Deliverance; and there shall be holinesse, and the
  house of Jacob shall possesse their possessions,&rdquo; that is, the possessions
  of the Heathen, which possessions he expresseth more particularly in the
  following verses, by the Mount of Esau, the Land of the Philistines, the
  Fields of Ephraim, of Samaria, Gilead, and the Cities of the South, and
  concludes with these words, &ldquo;the Kingdom shall be the Lords.&rdquo; All these
  places are for Salvation, and the Kingdome of God (after the day of
  Judgement) upon Earth. On the other side, I have not found any text that
  can probably be drawn, to prove any Ascension of the Saints into Heaven;
  that is to say, into any Coelum Empyreum, or other aetheriall Region;
  saving that it is called the Kingdome of Heaven; which name it may have,
  because God, that was King of the Jews, governed them by his commands,
  sent to Moses by Angels from Heaven, to reduce them to their obedience;
  and shall send him thence again, to rule both them, and all other
  faithfull men, from the day of Judgment, Everlastingly: or from that, that
  the Throne of this our Great King is in Heaven; whereas the Earth is but
  his Footstoole. But that the Subjects of God should have any place as high
  as his throne, or higher than his Footstoole, it seemeth not sutable to
  the dignity of a King, nor can I find any evident text for it in holy
  Scripture.
<br />
  From this that hath been said of the Kingdom of God, and of Salvation, it
  is not hard to interpret, what is meant by the WORLD TO COME. There are
  three worlds mentioned in Scripture, the Old World, the Present World, and
  the World to Come. Of the first, St. Peter speaks, (2 Pet. 2.5.) &ldquo;If God
  spared not the Old World, but saved Noah the eighth person, a Preacher of
  righteousnesse, bringing the flood upon the world of the ungodly,&rdquo; &c.
  So the First World, was from Adam to the generall Flood. Of the present
  World, our Saviour speaks (John 18.36.) &ldquo;My Kingdome is not of this
  World.&rdquo; For he came onely to teach men the way of Salvation, and to renew
  the Kingdome of his Father, by his doctrine. Of the World to come, St.
  Peter speaks, (2 Pet. 3. 13.) &ldquo;Neverthelesse we according to his promise
  look for new Heavens, and a new Earth.&rdquo; This is that WORLD, wherein Christ
  coming down from Heaven, in the clouds, with great power, and glory, shall
  send his Angels, and shall gather together his elect, from the four winds,
  and from the uttermost parts of the Earth, and thence forth reign over
  them, (under his Father) Everlastingly.

  Redemption


  Salvation of a sinner, supposeth a precedent REDEMPTION; for he that is
  once guilty of Sin, is obnoxious to the Penalty of the same; and must pay
  (or some other for him) such Ransome, as he that is offended, and has him
  in his power, shall require. And seeing the person offended, is Almighty
  God, in whose power are all things; such Ransome is to be paid before
  Salvation can be acquired, as God hath been pleased to require. By this
  Ransome, is not intended a satisfaction for Sin, equivalent to the
  Offence, which no sinner for himselfe, nor righteous man can ever be able
  to make for another; The dammage a man does to another, he may make amends
  for by restitution, or recompence, but sin cannot be taken away by
  recompence; for that were to make the liberty to sin, a thing vendible.
  But sins may bee pardoned to the repentant, either Gratis, or upon such
  penalty, as God is pleased to accept. That which God usually accepted in
  the Old Testament, was some Sacrifice, or Oblation. To forgive sin is not
  an act of Injustice, though the punishment have been threatned. Even
  amongst men, though the promise of Good, bind the promiser; yet threats,
  that is to say, promises, of Evill, bind them not; much lesse shall they
  bind God, who is infinitely more mercifull then men. Our Saviour Christ
  therefore to Redeem us, did not in that sense satisfie for the Sins of
  men, as that his Death, of its own vertue, could make it unjust in God to
  punish sinners with Eternall death; but did make that Sacrifice, and
  Oblation of himself, at his first coming, which God was pleased to
  require, for the Salvation at his second coming, of such as in the mean
  time should repent, and beleeve in him. And though this act of our
  Redemption, be not alwaies in Scripture called a Sacrifice, and Oblation,
  but sometimes a Price, yet by Price we are not to understand any thing, by
  the value whereof, he could claim right to a pardon for us, from his
  offended Father, but that Price which God the Father was pleased in mercy
  to demand.

  CHAPTER XXXIX.<br />OF THE SIGNIFICATION IN SCRIPTURE OF THE WORD CHURCH

  Church The Lords House


  The word Church, (Ecclesia) signifieth in the Books of Holy Scripture
  divers things. Sometimes (though not often) it is taken for Gods House,
  that is to say, for a Temple, wherein Christians assemble to perform holy
  duties publiquely; as, 1 Cor. 14. ver. 34. &ldquo;Let your women keep silence in
  the Churches:&rdquo; but this is Metaphorically put, for the Congregation there
  assembled; and hath been since used for the Edifice it self, to
  distinguish between the Temples of Christians, and Idolaters. The Temple
  of Jerusalem was Gods House, and the House of Prayer; and so is any
  Edifice dedicated by Christians to the worship of Christ, Christs House:
  and therefore the Greek Fathers call it Kuriake, The Lords House; and
  thence, in our language it came to be called Kyrke, and Church.

  Ecclesia Properly What


  Church (when not taken for a House) signifieth the same that Ecclesia
  signified in the Grecian Common-wealths; that is to say, a Congregation,
  or an Assembly of Citizens, called forth, to hear the Magistrate speak
  unto them; and which in the Common-wealth of Rome was called Concio, as he
  that spake was called Ecclesiastes, and Concionator. And when they were
  called forth by lawfull Authority, (Acts 19.39.) it was Ecclesia Legitima,
  a Lawfull Church, Ennomos Ecclesia. But when they were excited by
  tumultuous, and seditious clamor, then it was a confused Church, Ecclesia
  Sugkechumene.
<br />
  It is taken also sometimes for the men that have right to be of the
  Congregation, though not actually assembled; that is to say, for the whole
  multitude of Christian men, how far soever they be dispersed: as (Act.
  8.3.) where it is said, that &ldquo;Saul made havock of the Church:&rdquo; And in this
  sense is Christ said to be Head of the Church. And sometimes for a certain
  part of Christians, as (Col. 4.15.) &ldquo;Salute the Church that is in his
  house.&rdquo; Sometimes also for the Elect onely; as (Ephes. 5.27.) &ldquo;A Glorious
  Church, without spot, or wrinkle, holy, and without blemish;&rdquo; which is
  meant of the Church Triumphant, or, Church To Come. Sometimes, for a
  Congregation assembled, of professors of Christianity, whether their
  profession be true, or counterfeit, as it is understood, Mat. 18.17. where
  it is said, &ldquo;Tell it to the Church, and if hee neglect to hear the Church,
  let him be to thee as a Gentile, or Publican.&rdquo;

  In What Sense The Church Is One Person Church Defined


  And in this last sense only it is that the Church can be taken for one
  Person; that is to say, that it can be said to have power to will, to
  pronounce, to command, to be obeyed, to make laws, or to doe any other
  action whatsoever; For without authority from a lawfull Congregation,
  whatsoever act be done in a concourse of people, it is the particular act
  of every one of those that were present, and gave their aid to the
  performance of it; and not the act of them all in grosse, as of one body;
  much lesse that act of them that were absent, or that being present, were
  not willing it should be done. According to this sense, I define a CHURCH
  to be, &ldquo;A company of men professing Christian Religion, united in the
  person of one Soveraign; at whose command they ought to assemble, and
  without whose authority they ought not to assemble.&rdquo; And because in all
  Common-wealths, that Assembly, which is without warrant from the Civil
  Soveraign, is unlawful; that Church also, which is assembled in any
  Common-wealth, that hath forbidden them to assemble, is an unlawfull
  Assembly.

  A Christian Common-wealth, And A Church All One


  It followeth also, that there is on Earth, no such universall Church as
  all Christians are bound to obey; because there is no power on Earth, to
  which all other Common-wealths are subject: There are Christians, in the
  Dominions of severall Princes and States; but every one of them is subject
  to that Common-wealth, whereof he is himself a member; and consequently,
  cannot be subject to the commands of any other Person. And therefore a
  Church, such as one as is capable to Command, to Judge, Absolve, Condemn,
  or do any other act, is the same thing with a Civil Common-wealth,
  consisting of Christian men; and is called a Civill State, for that the
  subjects of it are Men; and a Church, for that the subjects thereof are
  Christians. Temporall and Spirituall Government, are but two words brought
  into the world, to make men see double, and mistake their Lawfull
  Soveraign. It is true, that the bodies of the faithfull, after the
  Resurrection shall be not onely Spirituall, but Eternall; but in this life
  they are grosse, and corruptible. There is therefore no other Government
  in this life, neither of State, nor Religion, but Temporall; nor teaching
  of any doctrine, lawfull to any Subject, which the Governour both of the
  State, and of the Religion, forbiddeth to be taught: And that Governor
  must be one; or else there must needs follow Faction, and Civil war in the
  Common-wealth, between the Church and State; between Spiritualists, and
  Temporalists; between the Sword Of Justice, and the Shield Of Faith; and
  (which is more) in every Christian mans own brest, between the Christian,
  and the Man. The Doctors of the Church, are called Pastors; so also are
  Civill Soveraignes: But if Pastors be not subordinate one to another, so
  as that there may bee one chief Pastor, men will be taught contrary
  Doctrines, whereof both may be, and one must be false. Who that one chief
  Pastor is, according to the law of Nature, hath been already shewn;
  namely, that it is the Civill Soveraign; And to whom the Scripture hath
  assigned that Office, we shall see in the Chapters following.

  CHAPTER XL.<br />OF THE RIGHTS OF THE KINGDOME OF GOD, IN ABRAHAM, MOSES, HIGH
  PRIESTS, AND THE KINGS OF JUDAH

  The Soveraign Rights Of Abraham


  The Father of the Faithfull, and first in the Kingdome of God by Covenant,
  was Abraham. For with him was the Covenant first made; wherein he obliged
  himself, and his seed after him, to acknowledge and obey the commands of
  God; not onely such, as he could take notice of, (as Morall Laws,) by the
  light of Nature; but also such, as God should in speciall manner deliver
  to him by Dreams and Visions. For as to the Morall law, they were already
  obliged, and needed not have been contracted withall, by promise of the
  Land of Canaan. Nor was there any Contract, that could adde to, or
  strengthen the Obligation, by which both they, and all men else were bound
  naturally to obey God Almighty: And therefore the Covenant which Abraham
  made with God, was to take for the Commandement of God, that which in the
  name of God was commanded him, in a Dream, or Vision, and to deliver it to
  his family, and cause them to observe the same.

  Abraham Had The Sole Power Of Ordering The Religion Of His Own People


  In this Contract of God with Abraham, wee may observe three points of
  important consequence in the government of Gods people. First, that at the
  making of this Covenant, God spake onely to Abraham; and therefore
  contracted not with any of his family, or seed, otherwise then as their
  wills (which make the essence of all Covenants) were before the Contract
  involved in the will of Abraham; who was therefore supposed to have had a
  lawfull power, to make them perform all that he covenanted for them.
  According whereunto (Gen 18.18, 19.) God saith, &ldquo;All the Nations of the
  Earth shall be blessed in him, For I know him that he will command his
  children and his houshold after him, and they shall keep the way of the
  Lord.&rdquo; From whence may be concluded this first point, that they to whom
  God hath not spoken immediately, are to receive the positive commandements
  of God, from their Soveraign; as the family and seed of Abraham did from
  Abraham their Father, and Lord, and Civill Soveraign. And Consequently in
  every Common-wealth, they who have no supernaturall Revelation to the
  contrary, ought to obey the laws of their own Soveraign, in the externall
  acts and profession of Religion. As for the inward Thought, and beleef of
  men, which humane Governours can take no notice of, (for God onely knoweth
  the heart) they are not voluntary, nor the effect of the laws, but of the
  unrevealed will, and of the power of God; and consequently fall not under
  obligation.

  No Pretence Of Private Spirit Against The Religion Of Abraham


  From whence proceedeth another point, that it was not unlawfull for
  Abraham, when any of his Subjects should pretend Private Vision, or
  Spirit, or other Revelation from God, for the countenancing of any
  doctrine which Abraham should forbid, or when they followed, or adhered to
  any such pretender, to punish them; and consequently that it is lawfull
  now for the Soveraign to punish any man that shall oppose his Private
  Spirit against the Laws: For hee hath the same place in the Common-wealth,
  that Abraham had in his own Family.

  Abraham Sole Judge, And Interpreter Of What God Spake


  There ariseth also from the same, a third point; that as none but Abraham
  in his family, so none but the Soveraign in a Christian Common-wealth, can
  take notice what is, or what is not the Word of God. For God spake onely
  to Abraham; and it was he onely, that was able to know what God said, and
  to interpret the same to his family: And therefore also, they that have
  the place of Abraham in a Common-wealth, are the onely Interpreters of
  what God hath spoken.

  The Authority Of Moses Whereon Grounded


  The same Covenant was renewed with Isaac; and afterwards with Jacob; but
  afterwards no more, till the Israelites were freed from the Egyptians, and
  arrived at the Foot of Mount Sinai: and then it was renewed by Moses (as I
  have said before, chap. 35.) in such manner, as they became from that time
  forward the Peculiar Kingdome of God; whose Lieutenant was Moses, for his
  owne time; and the succession to that office was setled upon Aaron, and
  his heirs after him, to bee to God a Sacerdotall Kingdome for ever.
<br />
  By this constitution, a Kingdome is acquired to God. But seeing Moses had
  no authority to govern the Israelites, as a successor to the right of
  Abraham, because he could not claim it by inheritance; it appeareth not as
  yet, that the people were obliged to take him for Gods Lieutenant, longer
  than they beleeved that God spake unto him. And therefore his authority
  (notwithstanding the Covenant they made with God) depended yet merely upon
  the opinion they had of his Sanctity, and of the reality of his
  Conferences with God, and the verity of his Miracles; which opinion coming
  to change, they were no more obliged to take any thing for the law of God,
  which he propounded to them in Gods name. We are therefore to consider,
  what other ground there was, of their obligation to obey him. For it could
  not be the commandement of God that could oblige them; because God spake
  not to them immediately, but by the mediation of Moses Himself; And our
  Saviour saith of himself, (John 5. 31.) &ldquo;If I bear witnesse of my self, my
  witnesse is not true,&rdquo; much lesse if Moses bear witnesse of himselfe,
  (especially in a claim of Kingly power over Gods people) ought his
  testimony to be received. His authority therefore, as the authority of all
  other Princes, must be grounded on the Consent of the People, and their
  Promise to obey him. And so it was: for &ldquo;the people&rdquo; (Exod. 20.18.) &ldquo;when
  they saw the Thunderings, and the Lightnings, and the noyse of the
  Trumpet, and the mountaine smoaking, removed, and stood a far off. And
  they said unto Moses, speak thou with us, and we will hear, but let not
  God speak with us lest we die.&rdquo; Here was their promise of obedience; and
  by this it was they obliged themselves to obey whatsoever he should
  deliver unto them for the Commandement of God.

  Moses Was (Under God) Soveraign Of The Jews, All His Own Time, Though
  Aaron Had The Priesthood


  And notwithstanding the Covenant constituted a Sacerdotall Kingdome, that
  is to say, a Kingdome hereditary to Aaron; yet that is to be understood of
  the succession, after Moses should bee dead. For whosoever ordereth, and
  establisheth the Policy, as first founder of a Common-wealth (be it
  Monarchy, Aristocracy, or Democracy) must needs have Soveraign Power over
  the people all the while he is doing of it. And that Moses had that power
  all his own time, is evidently affirmed in the Scripture. First, in the
  text last before cited, because the people promised obedience, not to
  Aaron but to him. Secondly, (Exod. 24.1, 2.) &ldquo;And God said unto Moses,
  Come up unto the Lord, thou, and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of
  the Elders of Israel. And Moses alone shall come neer the Lord, but they
  shall not come nigh, neither shall the people goe up with him.&rdquo; By which
  it is plain, that Moses who was alone called up to God, (and not Aaron,
  nor the other Priests, nor the Seventy Elders, nor the People who were
  forbidden to come up) was alone he, that represented to the Israelites the
  Person of God; that is to say, was their sole Soveraign under God. And
  though afterwards it be said (verse 9.) &ldquo;Then went up Moses, and Aaron,
  Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the Elders of Israel, and they saw the
  God of Israel, and there was under his feet, as it were a paved work of a
  saphire stone,&rdquo; &c. yet this was not till after Moses had been with
  God before, and had brought to the people the words which God had said to
  him. He onely went for the businesse of the people; the others, as the
  Nobles of his retinue, were admitted for honour to that speciall grace,
  which was not allowed to the people; which was, (as in the verse after
  appeareth) to see God and live. &ldquo;God laid not his hand upon them, they saw
  God and did eat and drink&rdquo; (that is, did live), but did not carry any
  commandement from him to the people. Again, it is every where said, &ldquo;The
  Lord spake unto Moses,&rdquo; as in all other occasions of Government; so also
  in the ordering of the Ceremonies of Religion, contained in the 25, 26,
  27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 Chapters of Exodus, and throughout Leviticus: to
  Aaron seldome. The Calfe that Aaron made, Moses threw into the fire.
  Lastly, the question of the Authority of Aaron, by occasion of his and
  Miriams mutiny against Moses, was (Numbers 12.) judged by God himself for
  Moses. So also in the question between Moses, and the People, when Corah,
  Dathan, and Abiram, and two hundred and fifty Princes of the Assembly
  &ldquo;gathered themselves together&rdquo; (Numbers 16. 3) &ldquo;against Moses, and against
  Aaron, and said unto them, &lsquo;Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the
  congregation are Holy, every one of them, and the Lord is amongst them,
  why lift you up your selves above the congregation of the Lord?&rsquo;&rdquo; God
  caused the Earth to swallow Corah, Dathan, and Abiram with their wives and
  children alive, and consumed those two hundred and fifty Princes with
  fire. Therefore neither Aaron, nor the People, nor any Aristocracy of the
  chief Princes of the People, but Moses alone had next under God the
  Soveraignty over the Israelites: And that not onely in causes of Civill
  Policy, but also of Religion; For Moses onely spake with God, and
  therefore onely could tell the People, what it was that God required at
  their hands. No man upon pain of death might be so presumptuous as to
  approach the Mountain where God talked with Moses. &ldquo;Thou shalt set bounds&rdquo;
  (saith the Lord, Exod 19. 12.) &ldquo;to the people round about, and say, Take
  heed to your selves that you goe not up into the Mount, or touch the
  border of it; whosoever toucheth the Mount shall surely be put to death.&rdquo;
  and again (verse 21.) &ldquo;Get down, charge the people, lest they break
  through unto the Lord to gaze.&rdquo; Out of which we may conclude, that
  whosoever in a Christian Common-wealth holdeth the place of Moses, is the
  sole Messenger of God, and Interpreter of his Commandements. And according
  hereunto, no man ought in the interpretation of the Scripture to proceed
  further then the bounds which are set by their severall Soveraigns. For
  the Scriptures since God now speaketh in them, are the Mount Sinai; the
  bounds whereof are the Laws of them that represent Gods Person on Earth.
  To look upon them and therein to behold the wondrous works of God, and
  learn to fear him is allowed; but to interpret them; that is, to pry into
  what God saith to him whom he appointeth to govern under him, and make
  themselves Judges whether he govern as God commandeth him, or not, is to
  transgresse the bounds God hath set us, and to gaze upon God irreverently.

  All Spirits Were Subordinate To The Spirit Of Moses


  There was no Prophet in the time of Moses, nor pretender to the Spirit of
  God, but such as Moses had approved, and Authorized. For there were in his
  time but Seventy men, that are said to Prophecy by the Spirit of God, and
  these were of all Moses his election; concerning whom God saith to Moses
  (Numb. 11.16.) &ldquo;Gather to mee Seventy of the Elders of Israel, whom thou
  knowest to be the Elders of the People.&rdquo; To these God imparted his Spirit;
  but it was not a different Spirit from that of Moses; for it is said
  (verse 25.) &ldquo;God came down in a cloud, and took of the Spirit that was
  upon Moses, and gave it to the Seventy Elders.&rdquo; But as I have shewn before
  (chap. 36.) by Spirit, is understood the Mind; so that the sense of the
  place is no other than this, that God endued them with a mind conformable,
  and subordinate to that of Moses, that they might Prophecy, that is to
  say, speak to the people in Gods name, in such manner, as to set forward
  (as Ministers of Moses, and by his authority) such doctrine as was
  agreeable to Moses his doctrine. For they were but Ministers; and when two
  of them Prophecyed in the Camp, it was thought a new and unlawfull thing;
  and as it is in the 27. and 28. verses of the same Chapter, they were
  accused of it, and Joshua advised Moses to forbid them, as not knowing
  that it was by Moses his Spirit that they Prophecyed. By which it is
  manifest, that no Subject ought to pretend to Prophecy, or to the Spirit,
  in opposition to the doctrine established by him, whom God hath set in the
  place of Moses.

  After Moses The Soveraignty Was In The High Priest


  Aaron being dead, and after him also Moses, the Kingdome, as being a
  Sacerdotall Kingdome, descended by vertue of the Covenant, to Aarons Son,
  Eleazar the High Priest: And God declared him (next under himself) for
  Soveraign, at the same time that he appointed Joshua for the Generall of
  their Army. For thus God saith expressely (Numb. 27.21.) concerning
  Joshua; &ldquo;He shall stand before Eleazar the Priest, who shall ask counsell
  for him, before the Lord, at his word shall they goe out, and at his word
  they shall come in, both he, and all the Children of Israel with him:&rdquo;
  Therefore the Supreme Power of making War and Peace, was in the Priest.
  The Supreme Power of Judicature belonged also to the High Priest: For the
  Book of the Law was in their keeping; and the Priests and Levites onely
  were the subordinate Judges in causes Civill, as appears in Deut. 17.8, 9,
  10. And for the manner of Gods worship, there was never doubt made, but
  that the High Priest till the time of Saul, had the Supreme Authority.
  Therefore the Civill and Ecclesiasticall Power were both joined together
  in one and the same person, the High Priest; and ought to bee so, in
  whosoever governeth by Divine Right; that is, by Authority immediate from
  God.

  Of The Soveraign Power Between The Time Of Joshua And Of Saul


  After the death of Joshua, till the time of Saul, the time between is
  noted frequently in the Book of Judges, &ldquo;that there was in those dayes no
  King in Israel;&rdquo; and sometimes with this addition, that &ldquo;every man did
  that which was right in his own eyes.&rdquo; By which is to bee understood, that
  where it is said, &ldquo;there was no King,&rdquo; is meant, &ldquo;there was no Soveraign
  Power&rdquo; in Israel. And so it was, if we consider the Act, and Exercise of
  such power. For after the death of Joshua, & Eleazar, &ldquo;there arose
  another generation&rdquo; (Judges 2.10.) &ldquo;that knew not the Lord, nor the works
  which he had done for Israel, but did evill in the sight of the Lord, and
  served Baalim.&rdquo; And the Jews had that quality which St. Paul noteth, &ldquo;to
  look for a sign,&rdquo; not onely before they would submit themselves to the
  government of Moses, but also after they had obliged themselves by their
  submission. Whereas Signs, and Miracles had for End to procure Faith, not
  to keep men from violating it, when they have once given it; for to that
  men are obliged by the law of Nature. But if we consider not the Exercise,
  but the Right of governing, the Soveraign power was still in the High
  Priest. Therefore whatsoever obedience was yeelded to any of the Judges,
  (who were men chosen by God extraordinarily, to save his rebellious
  subjects out of the hands of the enemy,) it cannot bee drawn into argument
  against the Right the High Priest had to the Soveraign Power, in all
  matters, both of Policy and Religion. And neither the Judges, nor Samuel
  himselfe had an ordinary, but extraordinary calling to the Government; and
  were obeyed by the Israelites, not out of duty, but out of reverence to
  their favour with God, appearing in their wisdome, courage, or felicity.
  Hitherto therefore the Right of Regulating both the Policy, and the
  Religion, were inseparable.

  Of The Rights Of The Kings Of Israel


  To the Judges, succeeded Kings; And whereas before, all authority, both in
  Religion, and Policy, was in the High Priest; so now it was all in the
  King. For the Soveraignty over the people, which was before, not onely by
  vertue of the Divine Power, but also by a particular pact of the
  Israelites in God, and next under him, in the High Priest, as his
  Viceregent on earth, was cast off by the People, with the consent of God
  himselfe. For when they said to Samuel (1 Sam. 8.5.) &ldquo;make us a King to
  judge us, like all the Nations,&rdquo; they signified that they would no more
  bee governed by the commands that should bee laid upon them by the Priest,
  in the name of God; but by one that should command them in the same manner
  that all other nations were commanded; and consequently in deposing the
  High Priest of Royall authority, they deposed that peculiar Government of
  God. And yet God consented to it, saying to Samuel (verse 7.) &ldquo;Hearken
  unto the voice of the People, in all that they shall say unto thee; for
  they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected mee, that I should not
  reign over them.&rdquo; Having therefore rejected God, in whose Right the
  Priests governed, there was no authority left to the Priests, but such as
  the King was pleased to allow them; which was more, or lesse, according as
  the Kings were good, or evill. And for the Government of Civill affaires,
  it is manifest, it was all in the hands of the King. For in the same
  Chapter, verse 20. They say they will be like all the Nations; that their
  King shall be their Judge, and goe before them, and fight their battells;
  that is, he shall have the whole authority, both in Peace and War. In
  which is contained also the ordering of Religion; for there was no other
  Word of God in that time, by which to regulate Religion, but the Law of
  Moses, which was their Civill Law. Besides, we read (1 Kings 2.27.) that
  Solomon &ldquo;thrust out Abiathar from being Priest before the Lord:&rdquo; He had
  therefore authority over the High Priest, as over any other Subject; which
  is a great mark of Supremacy in Religion. And we read also (1 Kings 8.)
  that hee dedicated the Temple; that he blessed the People; and that he
  himselfe in person made that excellent prayer, used in the Consecrations
  of all Churches, and houses of Prayer; which is another great mark of
  Supremacy in Religion. Again, we read (2 Kings 22.) that when there was
  question concerning the Book of the Law found in the Temple, the same was
  not decided by the High Priest, but Josiah sent both him, and others to
  enquire concerning it, of Hulda, the Prophetesse; which is another mark of
  the Supremacy in Religion. Lastly, wee read (1 Chro. 26.30.) that David
  made Hashabiah and his brethren, Hebronites, Officers of Israel among them
  Westward, &ldquo;in all businesse of the Lord, and in the service of the King.&rdquo;
  Likewise (verse 32.) that hee made other Hebronites, &ldquo;rulers over the
  Reubenites, the Gadites, and the halfe tribe of Manasseh&rdquo; (these were the
  rest of Israel that dwelt beyond Jordan) &ldquo;for every matter pertaining to
  God, and affairs of the King.&rdquo; Is not this full Power, both Temporall and
  Spirituall, as they call it, that would divide it? To conclude; from the
  first institution of Gods Kingdome, to the Captivity, the Supremacy of
  Religion, was in the same hand with that of the Civill Soveraignty; and
  the Priests office after the election of Saul, was not Magisteriall, but
  Ministeriall.

  The Practice Of Supremacy In Religion, Was Not In The Time Of The Kings,
  According To The Right Thereof


  Notwithstanding the government both in Policy and Religion, were joined,
  first in the High Priests, and afterwards in the Kings, so far forth as
  concerned the Right; yet it appeareth by the same Holy History, that the
  people understood it not; but there being amongst them a great part, and
  probably the greatest part, that no longer than they saw great miracles,
  or (which is equivalent to a miracle) great abilities, or great felicity
  in the enterprises of their Governours, gave sufficient credit, either to
  the fame of Moses, or to the Colloquies between God and the Priests; they
  took occasion as oft as their Governours displeased them, by blaming
  sometimes the Policy, sometimes the Religion, to change the Government, or
  revolt from their Obedience at their pleasure: And from thence proceeded
  from time to time the civill troubles, divisions, and calamities of the
  Nation. As for example, after the death of Eleazar and Joshua, the next
  generation which had not seen the wonders of God, but were left to their
  own weak reason, not knowing themselves obliged by the Covenant of a
  Sacerdotall Kingdome, regarded no more the Commandement of the Priest, nor
  any law of Moses, but did every man that which was right in his own eyes;
  and obeyed in Civill affairs, such men, as from time to time they thought
  able to deliver them from the neighbour Nations that oppressed them; and
  consulted not with God (as they ought to doe,) but with such men, or
  women, as they guessed to bee Prophets by their Praedictions of things to
  come; and thought they had an Idol in their Chappel, yet if they had a
  Levite for their Chaplain, they made account they worshipped the God of
  Israel.
<br />
  And afterwards when they demanded a King, after the manner of the nations;
  yet it was not with a design to depart from the worship of God their King;
  but despairing of the justice of the sons of Samuel, they would have a
  King to judg them in Civill actions; but not that they would allow their
  King to change the Religion which they thought was recommended to them by
  Moses. So that they alwaies kept in store a pretext, either of Justice, or
  Religion, to discharge themselves of their obedience, whensoever they had
  hope to prevaile. Samuel was displeased with the people, for that they
  desired a King, (for God was their King already, and Samuel had but an
  authority under him); yet did Samuel, when Saul observed not his counsell,
  in destroying Agag as God had commanded, anoint another King, namely
  David, to take the succession from his heirs. Rehoboam was no Idolater;
  but when the people thought him an Oppressor; that Civil pretence carried
  from him ten Tribes to Jeroboam an Idolater. And generally through the
  whole History of the Kings, as well of Judah, as of Israel, there were
  Prophets that alwaies controlled the Kings, for transgressing the
  Religion; and sometimes also for Errours of State; (2 Chro. 19. 2.) as
  Jehosaphat was reproved by the Prophet Jehu, for aiding the King of Israel
  against the Syrians; and Hezekiah, by Isaiah, for shewing his treasures to
  the Ambassadors of Babylon. By all which it appeareth, that though the
  power both of State and Religion were in the Kings; yet none of them were
  uncontrolled in the use of it, but such as were gracious for their own
  naturall abilities, or felicities. So that from the practise of those
  times, there can no argument be drawn, that the right of Supremacy in
  Religion was not in the Kings, unlesse we place it in the Prophets; and
  conclude, that because Hezekiah praying to the Lord before the Cherubins,
  was not answered from thence, nor then, but afterwards by the Prophet
  Isaiah, therefore Isaiah was supreme Head of the Church; or because Josiah
  consulted Hulda the Prophetesse, concerning the Book of the Law, that
  therefore neither he, nor the High Priest, but Hulda the Prophetesse had
  the Supreme authority in matter of Religion; which I thinke is not the
  opinion of any Doctor.

  After The Captivity The Jews Had No Setled Common-wealth


  During the Captivity, the Jews had no Common-wealth at all: And after
  their return, though they renewed their Covenant with God, yet there was
  no promise made of obedience, neither to Esdras, nor to any other; And
  presently after they became subjects to the Greeks (from whose Customes,
  and Daemonology, and from the doctrine of the Cabalists, their Religion
  became much corrupted): In such sort as nothing can be gathered from
  their confusion, both in State and Religion, concerning the Supremacy in
  either. And therefore so far forth as concerneth the Old Testament, we
  may conclude, that whosoever had the Soveraignty of the Common-wealth
  amongst the Jews, the same had also the Supreme Authority in matter of
  Gods externall worship; and represented Gods Person; that is the person
  of God the Father; though he were not called by the name of Father, till
  such time as he sent into the world his Son Jesus Christ, to redeem
  mankind from their sins, and bring them into his Everlasting Kingdome, to
  be saved for evermore. Of which we are to speak in the Chapter following.

  CHAPTER XLI.<br />OF THE OFFICE OF OUR BLESSED SAVIOUR

  Three Parts Of The Office Of Christ


  We find in Holy Scripture three parts of the Office of the Messiah: the
  first of a Redeemer, or Saviour: The second of a Pastor, Counsellour, or
  Teacher, that is, of a Prophet sent from God, to convert such as God hath
  elected to Salvation; The third of a King, and Eternall King, but under
  his Father, as Moses and the High Priests were in their severall times.
  And to these three parts are corespondent three times. For our Redemption
  he wrought at his first coming, by the Sacrifice, wherein he offered up
  himself for our sinnes upon the Crosse: our conversion he wrought partly
  then in his own Person; and partly worketh now by his Ministers; and will
  continue to work till his coming again. And after his coming again, shall
  begin that his glorious Reign over his elect, which is to last eternally.

  His Office As A Redeemer


  To the Office of a Redeemer, that is, of one that payeth the Ransome of
  Sin, (which Ransome is Death,) it appertaineth, that he was Sacrificed,
  and thereby bare upon his own head, and carryed away from us our
  iniquities, in such sort as God had required. Not that the death of one
  man, though without sinne, can satisfie for the offences of all men, in
  the rigour of Justice, but in the Mercy of God, that ordained such
  Sacrifices for sin, as he was pleased in his mercy to accept. In the old
  Law (as we may read, Leviticus the 16.) the Lord required, that there
  should every year once, bee made an Atonement for the Sins of all Israel,
  both Priests, and others; for the doing whereof, Aaron alone was to
  sacrifice for himself and the Priests a young Bullock; and for the rest of
  the people, he was to receive from them two young Goates, of which he was
  to Sacrifice one; but as for the other, which was the Scape Goat, he was
  to lay his hands on the head thereof, and by a confession of the
  iniquities of the people, to lay them all on that head, and then by some
  opportune man, to cause the Goat to be led into the wildernesse, and there
  to Escape, and carry away with him the iniquities of the people. As the
  Sacrifice of the one Goat was a sufficient (because an acceptable) price
  for the Ransome of all Israel; so the death of the Messiah, is a
  sufficient price, for the Sins of all mankind, because there was no more
  required. Our Saviour Christs sufferings seem to be here figured, as
  cleerly, as in the oblation of Isaac, or in any other type of him in the
  Old Testament: He was both the sacrificed Goat, and the Scape Goat; &ldquo;Hee
  was oppressed, and he was afflicted (Isa. 53.7.); he opened not his mouth;
  he brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep is dumbe before the
  shearer, so opened he not his mouth:&rdquo; Here he is the Sacrificed Goat. &ldquo;He
  hath born our Griefs, (ver.4.) and carried our sorrows;&rdquo; And again, (ver.
  6.) &ldquo;the Lord hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all:&rdquo; And so he is
  the Scape Goat. &ldquo;He was cut off from the land of the living (ver. 8.) for
  the transgression of my People:&rdquo; There again he is the Sacrificed Goat.
  And again (ver. 11.) &ldquo;he shall bear their sins:&rdquo; Hee is the Scape Goat.
  Thus is the Lamb of God equivalent to both those Goates; sacrificed, in
  that he dyed; and escaping, in his Resurrection; being raised opportunely
  by his Father, and removed from the habitation of men in his Ascension.

  Christs Kingdome Not Of This World


  For as much therefore, as he that Redeemeth, hath no title to the Thing
  Redeemed, before the Redemption, and Ransome paid; and this Ransome was
  the Death of the Redeemer; it is manifest, that our Saviour (as man) was
  not King of those that he Redeemed, before hee suffered death; that is,
  during that time hee conversed bodily on the Earth. I say, he was not then
  King in present, by vertue of the Pact, which the faithfull make with him
  in Baptisme; Neverthelesse, by the renewing of their Pact with God in
  Baptisme, they were obliged to obey him for King, (under his Father)
  whensoever he should be pleased to take the Kingdome upon him. According
  whereunto, our Saviour himself expressely saith, (John 18.36.) &ldquo;My
  Kingdome is not of this world.&rdquo; Now seeing the Scripture maketh mention
  but of two worlds; this that is now, and shall remain to the day of
  Judgment, (which is therefore also called, The Last Day;) and that which
  shall bee a new Heaven, and a new Earth; the Kingdome of Christ is not to
  begin till the general Resurrection. And that is it which our Saviour
  saith, (Mat. 16.27.) &ldquo;The Son of man shall come in the glory of his
  Father, with his Angels; and then he shall reward every man according to
  his works.&rdquo; To reward every man according to his works, is to execute the
  Office of a King; and this is not to be till he come in the glory of his
  Father, with his Angells. When our Saviour saith, (Mat. 23.2.) &ldquo;The
  Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat; All therefore whatsoever they bid
  you doe, that observe and doe;&rdquo; hee declareth plainly, that hee ascribeth
  Kingly Power, for that time, not to himselfe, but to them. And so hee hath
  also, where he saith, (Luke 12.14.) &ldquo;Who made mee a Judge, or Divider over
  you?&rdquo; And (John 12.47.) &ldquo;I came not to judge the world, but to save the
  world.&rdquo; And yet our Saviour came into this world that hee might bee a
  King, and a Judge in the world to come: For hee was the Messiah, that is,
  the Christ, that is, the Anointed Priest, and the Soveraign Prophet of
  God; that is to say, he was to have all the power that was in Moses the
  Prophet, in the High Priests that succeeded Moses, and in the Kings that
  succeeded the Priests. And St. John saies expressely (chap. 5. ver. 22.)
  &ldquo;The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son.&rdquo;
  And this is not repugnant to that other place, &ldquo;I came not to judge the
  world:&rdquo; for this is spoken of the world present, the other of the world to
  come; as also where it is said, that at the second coming of Christ, (Mat.
  19. 28.) &ldquo;Yee that have followed me in the Regeneration, when the Son of
  man shall sit in the throne of his Glory, yee shall also sit on twelve
  thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.&rdquo;

  The End Of Christs Comming Was To Renew The Covenant Of The Kingdome Of
  God, And To Perswade The Elect To Imbrace It, Which Was The Second Part
  Of His Office


  If then Christ while hee was on Earth, had no Kingdome in this World, to
  what end was his first coming? It was to restore unto God, by a new
  Covenant, the Kingdome, which being his by the Old Covenant, had been cut
  off by the rebellion of the Israelites in the election of Saul. Which to
  doe, he was to preach unto them, that he was the Messiah, that is, the
  King promised to them by the Prophets; and to offer himselfe in sacrifice
  for the sinnes of them that should by faith submit themselves thereto; and
  in case the nation generally should refuse him, to call to his obedience
  such as should beleeve in him amongst the Gentiles. So that there are two
  parts of our Saviours Office during his aboad upon the Earth; One to
  Proclaim himself the Christ; and another by Teaching, and by working of
  Miracles, to perswade, and prepare men to live so, as to be worthy of the
  Immortality Beleevers were to enjoy, at such time as he should come in
  majesty, to take possession of his Fathers Kingdome. And therefore it is,
  that the time of his preaching, is often by himself called the
  Regeneration; which is not properly a Kingdome, and thereby a warrant to
  deny obedience to the Magistrates that then were, (for hee commanded to
  obey those that sate then in Moses chaire, and to pay tribute to Caesar;)
  but onely an earnest of the Kingdome of God that was to come, to those to
  whom God had given the grace to be his disciples, and to beleeve in him;
  For which cause the Godly are said to bee already in the Kingdome of
  Grace, as naturalized in that heavenly Kingdome.

  The Preaching Of Christ Not Contrary To The Then Law Of The Jews,
  Nor Of Caesar


  Hitherto therefore there is nothing done, or taught by Christ, that
  tendeth to the diminution of the Civill Right of the Jewes, or of Caesar.
  For as touching the Common-wealth which then was amongst the Jews, both
  they that bare rule amongst them, that they that were governed, did all
  expect the Messiah, and Kingdome of God; which they could not have done if
  their Laws had forbidden him (when he came) to manifest, and declare
  himself. Seeing therefore he did nothing, but by Preaching, and Miracles
  go about to prove himselfe to be that Messiah, hee did therein nothing
  against their laws. The Kingdome hee claimed was to bee in another world;
  He taught all men to obey in the mean time them that sate in Moses seat:
  he allowed them to give Caesar his tribute, and refused to take upon
  himselfe to be a Judg. How then could his words, or actions bee seditious,
  or tend to the overthrow of their then Civill Government? But God having
  determined his sacrifice, for the reduction of his elect to their former
  covenanted obedience, for the means, whereby he would bring the same to
  effect, made use of their malice, and ingratitude. Nor was it contrary to
  the laws of Caesar. For though Pilate himself (to gratifie the Jews)
  delivered him to be crucified; yet before he did so, he pronounced openly,
  that he found no fault in him: And put for title of his condemnation, not
  as the Jews required, &ldquo;that he pretended to be King;&rdquo; but simply, &ldquo;That
  hee was King of the Jews;&rdquo; and notwithstanding their clamour, refused to
  alter it; saying, &ldquo;What I have written, I have written.&rdquo;

  The Third Part Of His Office Was To Be King (Under His Father) Of The
  Elect


  As for the third part of his Office, which was to be King, I have already
  shewn that his Kingdome was not to begin till the Resurrection. But then
  he shall be King, not onely as God, in which sense he is King already, and
  ever shall be, of all the Earth, in vertue of his omnipotence; but also
  peculiarly of his own Elect, by vertue of the pact they make with him in
  their Baptisme. And therefore it is, that our Saviour saith (Mat. 19.28.)
  that his Apostles should sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve
  tribes of Israel, &ldquo;When the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his
  glory;&rdquo; whereby he signified that he should reign then in his humane
  nature; and (Mat. 16.27.) &ldquo;The Son of man shall come in the glory of his
  Father, with his Angels, and then he shall reward every man according to
  his works.&rdquo; The same we may read, Marke 13..26. and 14.26. and more
  expressely for the time, Luke 22.29, 30. &ldquo;I appoint unto you a Kingdome,
  as my Father hath appointed to mee, that you may eat and drink at my table
  in my Kingdome, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.&rdquo;
  By which it is manifest that the Kingdome of Christ appointed to him by
  his Father, is not to be before the Son of Man shall come in Glory, and
  make his Apostles Judges of the twelve tribes of Israel. But a man may
  here ask, seeing there is no marriage in the Kingdome of Heaven, whether
  men shall then eat, and drink; what eating therefore is meant in this
  place? This is expounded by our Saviour (John 6.27.) where he saith,
  &ldquo;Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth
  unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give you.&rdquo; So that by
  eating at Christs table, is meant the eating of the Tree of Life; that is
  to say, the enjoying of Immortality, in the Kingdome of the Son of Man. By
  which places, and many more, it is evident, that our Saviours Kingdome is
  to bee exercised by him in his humane nature.

  Christs Authority In The Kingdome Of God Subordinate To His Father


  Again, he is to be King then, no otherwise than as subordinate, or
  Viceregent of God the Father, as Moses was in the wildernesse; and as the
  High Priests were before the reign of Saul; and as the Kings were after
  it. For it is one of the Prophecies concerning Christ, that he should be
  like (in Office) to Moses; &ldquo;I will raise them up a Prophet (saith the
  Lord, Deut. 18.18.) from amongst their Brethren like unto thee, and will
  put my words into his mouth,&rdquo; and this similitude with Moses, is also
  apparent in the actions of our Saviour himself, whilest he was conversant
  on Earth. For as Moses chose twelve Princes of the tribes, to govern under
  him; so did our Saviour choose twelve Apostles, who shall sit on twelve
  thrones, and judge the twelve tribes of Israel; And as Moses authorized
  Seventy Elders, to receive the Spirit of God, and to Prophecy to the
  people, that is, (as I have said before,) to speak unto them in the name
  of God; so our Saviour also ordained seventy Disciples, to preach his
  Kingdome, and Salvation to all Nations. And as when a complaint was made
  to Moses, against those of the Seventy that prophecyed in the camp of
  Israel, he justified them in it, as being subservient therein to his
  government; so also our Saviour, when St. John complained to him of a
  certain man that cast out Devills in his name, justified him therein,
  saying, (Luke 9.50.) &ldquo;Forbid him not, for hee that is not against us, is
  on our part.&rdquo;
<br />
  Again, our Saviour resembled Moses in the institution of Sacraments, both
  of Admission into the Kingdome of God, and of Commemoration of his
  deliverance of his Elect from their miserable condition. As the Children
  of Israel had for Sacrament of their Reception into the Kingdome of God,
  before the time of Moses, the rite of Circumcision, which rite having been
  omitted in the Wildernesse, was again restored as soon as they came into
  the land of Promise; so also the Jews, before the coming of our Saviour,
  had a rite of Baptizing, that is, of washing with water all those that
  being Gentiles, embraced the God of Israel. This rite St. John the Baptist
  used in the reception of all them that gave their names to the Christ,
  whom hee preached to bee already come into the world; and our Saviour
  instituted the same for a Sacrament to be taken by all that beleeved in
  him. From what cause the rite of Baptisme first proceeded, is not
  expressed formally in the Scripture; but it may be probably thought to be
  an imitation of the law of Moses, concerning Leprousie; wherein the
  Leprous man was commanded to be kept out of the campe of Israel for a
  certain time; after which time being judged by the Priest to be clean, hee
  was admitted into the campe after a solemne Washing. And this may
  therefore bee a type of the Washing in Baptisme; wherein such men as are
  cleansed of the Leprousie of Sin by Faith, are received into the Church
  with the solemnity of Baptisme. There is another conjecture drawn from the
  Ceremonies of the Gentiles, in a certain case that rarely happens; and
  that is, when a man that was thought dead, chanced to recover, other men
  made scruple to converse with him, as they would doe to converse with a
  Ghost, unlesse hee were received again into the number of men, by Washing,
  as Children new born were washed from the uncleannesse of their nativity,
  which was a kind of new birth. This ceremony of the Greeks, in the time
  that Judaea was under the Dominion of Alexander, and the Greeks his
  successors, may probably enough have crept into the Religion of the Jews.
  But seeing it is not likely our Saviour would countenance a Heathen rite,
  it is most likely it proceeded from the Legall Ceremony of Washing after
  Leprosie. And for the other Sacraments, of eating the Paschall Lambe, it
  is manifestly imitated in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; in which the
  Breaking of the Bread, and the pouring out of the Wine, do keep in memory
  our deliverance from the Misery of Sin, by Christs Passion, as the eating
  of the Paschall Lambe, kept in memory the deliverance of the Jewes out of
  the Bondage of Egypt. Seeing therefore the authority of Moses was but
  subordinate, and hee but a Lieutenant to God; it followeth, that Christ,
  whose authority, as man, was to bee like that of Moses, was no more but
  subordinate to the authority of his Father. The same is more expressely
  signified, by that that hee teacheth us to pray, &ldquo;Our Father, Let thy
  Kingdome come;&rdquo; and, &ldquo;For thine is the Kingdome, the power and the Glory;&rdquo;
  and by that it is said, that &ldquo;Hee shall come in the Glory of his Father;&rdquo;
  and by that which St. Paul saith, (1 Cor. 15.24.) &ldquo;then commeth the end,
  when hee shall have delivered up the Kingdome to God, even the Father;&rdquo;
  and by many other most expresse places.

  One And The Same God Is The Person Represented By Moses, And By Christ


  Our Saviour therefore, both in Teaching, and Reigning, representeth (as
  Moses Did) the Person of God; which God from that time forward, but not
  before, is called the Father; and being still one and the same substance,
  is one Person as represented by Moses, and another Person as represented
  by his Sonne the Christ. For Person being a relative to a Representer, it
  is consequent to plurality of Representers, that there bee a plurality of
  Persons, though of one and the same Substance.

  CHAPTER XLII.<br />OF POWER ECCLESIASTICALL


  For the understanding of POWER ECCLESIASTICALL, what, and in whom it is,
  we are to distinguish the time from the Ascension of our Saviour, into two
  parts; one before the Conversion of Kings, and men endued with Soveraign
  Civill Power; the other after their Conversion. For it was long after the
  Ascension, before any King, or Civill Soveraign embraced, and publiquely
  allowed the teaching of Christian Religion.

  Of The Holy Spirit That Fel On The Apostles


  And for the time between, it is manifest, that the Power Ecclesiasticall,
  was in the Apostles; and after them in such as were by them ordained to
  Preach the Gospell, and to convert men to Christianity, and to direct them
  that were converted in the way of Salvation; and after these the Power was
  delivered again to others by these ordained, and this was done by
  Imposition of hands upon such as were ordained; by which was signified the
  giving of the Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God, to those whom they ordained
  Ministers of God, to advance his Kingdome. So that Imposition of hands,
  was nothing else but the Seal of their Commission to Preach Christ, and
  teach his Doctrine; and the giving of the Holy Ghost by that ceremony of
  Imposition of hands, was an imitation of that which Moses did. For Moses
  used the same ceremony to his Minister Joshua, as wee read Deuteronomy 34.
  ver. 9. &ldquo;And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the Spirit of Wisdome; for
  Moses had laid his hands upon him.&rdquo; Our Saviour therefore between his
  Resurrection, and Ascension, gave his Spirit to the Apostles; first, by
  &ldquo;Breathing on them, and saying,&rdquo; (John 20.22.) &ldquo;Receive yee the Holy
  Spirit;&rdquo; and after his Ascension (Acts 2.2, 3.) by sending down upon them,
  a &ldquo;mighty wind, and Cloven tongues of fire;&rdquo; and not by Imposition of
  hands; as neither did God lay his hands on Moses; and his Apostles
  afterward, transmitted the same Spirit by Imposition of hands, as Moses
  did to Joshua. So that it is manifest hereby, in whom the Power
  Ecclesiasticall continually remained, in those first times, where there
  was not any Christian Common-wealth; namely, in them that received the
  same from the Apostles, by successive laying on of hands.

  Of The Trinity


  Here wee have the Person of God born now the third time. For as Moses, and
  the High Priests, were Gods Representative in the Old Testament; and our
  Saviour himselfe as Man, during his abode on earth: So the Holy Ghost,
  that is to say, the Apostles, and their successors, in the Office of
  Preaching, and Teaching, that had received the Holy Spirit, have
  Represented him ever since. But a Person, (as I have shewn before, [chapt.
  16.].) is he that is Represented, as often as hee is Represented; and
  therefore God, who has been Represented (that is, Personated) thrice, may
  properly enough be said to be three Persons; though neither the word
  Person, nor Trinity be ascribed to him in the Bible. St. John indeed (1
  Epist. 5.7.) saith, &ldquo;There be three that bear witnesse in heaven, the
  Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these Three are One:&rdquo; But this
  disagreeth not, but accordeth fitly with three Persons in the proper
  signification of Persons; which is, that which is Represented by another.
  For so God the Father, as Represented by Moses, is one Person; and as
  Represented by his Sonne, another Person, and as Represented by the
  Apostles, and by the Doctors that taught by authority from them derived,
  is a third Person; and yet every Person here, is the Person of one and the
  same God. But a man may here ask, what it was whereof these three bare
  witnesse. St. John therefore tells us (verse 11.) that they bear witnesse,
  that &ldquo;God hath given us eternall life in his Son.&rdquo; Again, if it should be
  asked, wherein that testimony appeareth, the Answer is easie; for he hath
  testified the same by the miracles he wrought, first by Moses; secondly,
  by his Son himself; and lastly by his Apostles, that had received the Holy
  Spirit; all which in their times Represented the Person of God; and either
  prophecyed, or preached Jesus Christ. And as for the Apostles, it was the
  character of the Apostleship, in the twelve first and great Apostles, to
  bear Witnesse of his Resurrection; as appeareth expressely (Acts 1. ver.
  21,22.) where St Peter, when a new Apostle was to be chosen in the place
  of Judas Iscariot, useth these words, &ldquo;Of these men which have companied
  with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongst us,
  beginning at the Baptisme of John, unto that same day that hee was taken
  up from us, must one bee ordained to be a Witnesse with us of his
  Resurrection:&rdquo; which words interpret the Bearing of Witnesse, mentioned by
  St. John. There is in the same place mentioned another Trinity of
  Witnesses in Earth. For (ver. 8.) he saith, &ldquo;there are three that bear
  Witnesse in Earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Bloud; and these
  three agree in one:&rdquo; that is to say, the graces of Gods Spirit, and the
  two Sacraments, Baptisme, and the Lords Supper, which all agree in one
  Testimony, to assure the consciences of beleevers, of eternall life; of
  which Testimony he saith (verse 10.) &ldquo;He that beleeveth on the Son of man
  hath the Witnesse in himselfe.&rdquo; In this Trinity on Earth the Unity is not
  of the thing; for the Spirit, the Water, and the Bloud, are not the same
  substance, though they give the same testimony: But in the Trinity of
  Heaven, the Persons are the persons of one and the same God, though
  Represented in three different times and occasions. To conclude, the
  doctrine of the Trinity, as far as can be gathered directly from the
  Scripture, is in substance this; that God who is alwaies One and the same,
  was the Person Represented by Moses; the Person Represented by his Son
  Incarnate; and the Person Represented by the Apostles. As Represented by
  the Apostles, the Holy Spirit by which they spake, is God; As Represented
  by his Son (that was God and Man), the Son is that God; As represented by
  Moses, and the High Priests, the Father, that is to say, the Father of our
  Lord Jesus Christ, is that God: From whence we may gather the reason why
  those names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the signification of the
  Godhead, are never used in the Old Testament: For they are Persons, that
  is, they have their names from Representing; which could not be, till
  divers men had Represented Gods Person in ruling, or in directing under
  him.
<br />
  Thus wee see how the Power Ecclesiasticall was left by our Saviour to the
  Apostles; and how they were (to the end they might the better exercise
  that Power,) endued with the Holy Spirit, which is therefore called
  sometime in the New Testament Paracletus which signifieth an Assister, or
  one called to for helpe, though it bee commonly translated a Comforter.
  Let us now consider the Power it selfe, what it was, and over whom.

  The Power Ecclesiasticall Is But The Power To Teach


  Cardinall Bellarmine in his third generall Controversie, hath handled a
  great many questions concerning the Ecclesiasticall Power of the Pope of
  Rome; and begins with this, Whether it ought to be Monarchicall,
  Aristocraticall, or Democraticall. All which sorts of Power, are
  Soveraign, and Coercive. If now it should appear, that there is no
  Coercive Power left them by our Saviour; but onely a Power to proclaim the
  Kingdom of Christ, and to perswade men to submit themselves thereunto; and
  by precepts and good counsell, to teach them that have submitted, what
  they are to do, that they may be received into the Kingdom of God when it
  comes; and that the Apostles, and other Ministers of the Gospel, are our
  Schoolemasters, and not our Commanders, and their Precepts not Laws, but
  wholesome Counsells then were all that dispute in vain.

  An Argument Thereof, The Power Of Christ Himself


  I have shewn already (in the last Chapter,) that the Kingdome of Christ is
  not of this world: therefore neither can his Ministers (unlesse they be
  Kings,) require obedience in his name. For if the Supreme King, have not
  his Regall Power in this world; by what authority can obedience be
  required to his Officers? As my Father sent me, (so saith our Saviour) I
  send you. But our Saviour was sent to perswade the Jews to return to, and
  to invite the Gentiles, to receive the Kingdome of his Father, and not to
  reign in Majesty, no not, as his Fathers Lieutenant, till the day of
  Judgment.

  From The Name Of Regeneration


  The time between the Ascension, and the generall Resurrection, is called,
  not a Reigning, but a Regeneration; that is, a Preparation of men for the
  second and glorious coming of Christ, at the day of Judgment; as appeareth
  by the words of our Saviour, Mat. 19.28. &ldquo;You that have followed me in the
  Regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory,
  you shall also sit upon twelve Thrones;&rdquo; And of St. Paul (Ephes. 6.15.)
  &ldquo;Having your feet shod with the Preparation of the Gospell of Peace.&rdquo;

  From The Comparison Of It, With Fishing, Leaven, Seed


  And is compared by our Saviour, to Fishing; that is, to winning men to
  obedience, not by Coercion, and Punishing; but by Perswasion: and
  therefore he said not to his Apostles, hee would make them so many
  Nimrods, Hunters Of Men; But Fishers Of Men. It is compared also to
  Leaven; to Sowing of Seed, and to the Multiplication of a grain of
  Mustard-seed; by all which Compulsion is excluded; and consequently there
  can in that time be no actual Reigning. The work of Christs Ministers, is
  Evangelization; that is, a Proclamation of Christ, and a preparation for
  his second comming; as the Evangelization of John Baptist, was a
  preparation to his first coming.

  From The Nature Of Faith:


  Again, the Office of Christs Ministers in this world, is to make men
  Beleeve, and have Faith in Christ: But Faith hath no relation to, nor
  dependence at all upon Compulsion, or Commandement; but onely upon
  certainty, or probability of Arguments drawn from Reason, or from
  something men beleeve already. Therefore the Ministers of Christ in this
  world, have no Power by that title, to Punish any man for not Beleeving,
  or for Contradicting what they say; they have I say no Power by that title
  of Christs Ministers, to Punish such: but if they have Soveraign Civill
  Power, by politick institution, then they may indeed lawfully Punish any
  Contradiction to their laws whatsoever: And St. Paul, of himselfe and
  other then Preachers of the Gospell saith in expresse words, (2 Cor.
  1.24.) &ldquo;Wee have no Dominion over your Faith, but are Helpers of your
  Joy.&rdquo;

  From The Authority Christ Hath Left To Civill Princes


  Another Argument, that the Ministers of Christ in this present world have
  no right of Commanding, may be drawn from the lawfull Authority which
  Christ hath left to all Princes, as well Christians, as Infidels. St. Paul
  saith (Col. 3.20.) &ldquo;Children obey your Parents in all things; for this is
  well pleasing to the Lord.&rdquo; And ver. 22. &ldquo;Servants obey in all things your
  Masters according to the flesh, not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but
  in singlenesse of heart, as fearing the Lord;&rdquo; This is spoken to them
  whose Masters were Infidells; and yet they are bidden to obey them In All
  Things. And again, concerning obedience to Princes. (Rom. 13. the first 6.
  verses) exhorting to &ldquo;be subject to the Higher Powers,&rdquo; he saith, &ldquo;that
  all Power is ordained of God;&rdquo; and &ldquo;that we ought to be subject to them,
  not onely for&rdquo; fear of incurring their &ldquo;wrath, but also for conscience
  sake.&rdquo; And St. Peter, (1 Epist. chap. 2e ver. 13, 14, 15.) &ldquo;Submit your
  selves to every Ordinance of Man, for the Lords sake, whether it bee to
  the King, as Supreme, or unto Governours, as to them that be sent by him
  for the punishment of evill doers, and for the praise of them that doe
  well; for so is the will of God.&rdquo; And again St. Paul (Tit. 3.1.) &ldquo;Put men
  in mind to be subject to Principalities, and Powers, and to obey
  Magistrates.&rdquo; These Princes, and Powers, whereof St. Peter, and St. Paul
  here speak, were all Infidels; much more therefore we are to obey those
  Christians, whom God hath ordained to have Soveraign Power over us. How
  then can wee be obliged to doe any thing contrary to the Command of the
  King, or other Soveraign Representant of the Common-wealth, whereof we are
  members, and by whom we look to be protected? It is therefore manifest,
  that Christ hath not left to his Ministers in this world, unlesse they be
  also endued with Civill Authority, any authority to Command other men.

  What Christians May Do To Avoid Persecution


  But what (may some object) if a King, or a Senate, or other Soveraign
  Person forbid us to beleeve in Christ? To this I answer, that such
  forbidding is of no effect, because Beleef, and Unbeleef never follow mens
  Commands. Faith is a gift of God, which Man can neither give, nor take
  away by promise of rewards, or menaces of torture. And if it be further
  asked, What if wee bee commanded by our lawfull Prince, to say with our
  tongue, wee beleeve not; must we obey such command? Profession with the
  tongue is but an externall thing, and no more then any other gesture
  whereby we signifie our obedience; and wherein a Christian, holding
  firmely in his heart the Faith of Christ, hath the same liberty which the
  Prophet Elisha allowed to Naaman the Syrian. Naaman was converted in his
  heart to the God of Israel; For hee saith (2 Kings 5.17.) &ldquo;Thy servant
  will henceforth offer neither burnt offering, nor sacrifice unto other
  Gods but unto the Lord. In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant, that
  when my Master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he
  leaneth on my hand, and I bow my selfe in the house of Rimmon; when I bow
  my selfe in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this
  thing.&rdquo; This the Prophet approved, and bid him &ldquo;Goe in peace.&rdquo; Here Naaman
  beleeved in his heart; but by bowing before the Idol Rimmon, he denyed the
  true God in effect, as much as if he had done it with his lips. But then
  what shall we answer to our Saviours saying, &ldquo;Whosoever denyeth me before
  men, I will deny him before my Father which is in Heaven?&rdquo; This we may
  say, that whatsoever a Subject, as Naaman was, is compelled to in
  obedience to his Soveraign, and doth it not in order to his own mind, but
  in order to the laws of his country, that action is not his, but his
  Soveraigns; nor is it he that in this case denyeth Christ before men, but
  his Governour, and the law of his countrey. If any man shall accuse this
  doctrine, as repugnant to true, and unfeigned Christianity; I ask him, in
  case there should be a subject in any Christian Common-wealth, that should
  be inwardly in his heart of the Mahometan Religion, whether if his
  Soveraign Command him to bee present at the divine service of the
  Christian Church, and that on pain of death, he think that Mamometan
  obliged in conscience to suffer death for that cause, rather than to obey
  that command of his lawful Prince. If he say, he ought rather to suffer
  death, then he authorizeth all private men, to disobey their Princes, in
  maintenance of their Religion, true, or false; if he say, he ought to bee
  obedient, then he alloweth to himself, that which hee denyeth to another,
  contrary to the words of our Saviour, &ldquo;Whatsoever you would that men
  should doe unto you, that doe yee unto them;&rdquo; and contrary to the Law of
  Nature, (which is the indubitable everlasting Law of God) &ldquo;Do not to
  another, that which thou wouldest not he should doe unto thee.&rdquo;

  Of Martyrs


  But what then shall we say of all those Martyrs we read of in the History
  of the Church, that they have needlessely cast away their lives? For
  answer hereunto, we are to distinguish the persons that have been for that
  cause put to death; whereof some have received a Calling to preach, and
  professe the Kingdome of Christ openly; others have had no such Calling,
  nor more has been required of them than their owne faith. The former sort,
  if they have been put to death, for bearing witnesse to this point, that
  Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, were true Martyrs; For a Martyr is,
  (to give the true definition of the word) a Witnesse of the Resurrection
  of Jesus the Messiah; which none can be but those that conversed with him
  on earth, and saw him after he was risen: For a Witnesse must have seen
  what he testifieth, or else his testimony is not good. And that none but
  such, can properly be called Martyrs of Christ, is manifest out of the
  words of St. Peter, Act. 1.21, 22. &ldquo;Wherefore of these men which have
  companyed with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongst
  us, beginning from the Baptisme of John unto that same day hee was taken
  up from us, must one be ordained to be a Martyr (that is a Witnesse) with
  us of his Resurrection:&rdquo; Where we may observe, that he which is to bee a
  Witnesse of the truth of the Resurrection of Christ, that is to say, of
  the truth of this fundamentall article of Christian Religion, that Jesus
  was the Christ, must be some Disciple that conversed with him, and saw him
  before, and after his Resurrection; and consequently must be one of his
  originall Disciples: whereas they which were not so, can Witnesse no more,
  but that their antecessors said it, and are therefore but Witnesses of
  other mens testimony; and are but second Martyrs, or Martyrs of Christs
  Witnesses.
<br />
  He, that to maintain every doctrine which he himself draweth out of the
  History of our Saviours life, and of the Acts, or Epistles of the
  Apostles; or which he beleeveth upon the authority of a private man, wil
  oppose the Laws and Authority of the Civill State, is very far from being
  a Martyr of Christ, or a Martyr of his Martyrs. &rsquo;Tis one Article onely,
  which to die for, meriteth so honorable a name; and that Article is this,
  that Jesus Is The Christ; that is to say, He that hath redeemed us, and
  shall come again to give us salvation, and eternall life in his glorious
  Kingdome. To die for every tenet that serveth the ambition, or profit of
  the Clergy, is not required; nor is it the Death of the Witnesse, but the
  Testimony it self that makes the Martyr: for the word signifieth nothing
  else, but the man that beareth Witnesse, whether he be put to death for
  his testimony, or not.
<br />
  Also he that is not sent to preach this fundamentall article, but taketh
  it upon him of his private authority, though he be a Witnesse, and
  consequently a Martyr, either primary of Christ, or secondary of his
  Apostles, Disciples, or their Successors; yet is he not obliged to suffer
  death for that cause; because being not called thereto, tis not required
  at his hands; nor ought hee to complain, if he loseth the reward he
  expecteth from those that never set him on work. None therefore can be a
  Martyr, neither of the first, nor second degree, that have not a warrant
  to preach Christ come in the flesh; that is to say, none, but such as are
  sent to the conversion of Infidels. For no man is a Witnesse to him that
  already beleeveth, and therefore needs no Witnesse; but to them that deny,
  or doubt, or have not heard it. Christ sent his Apostles, and his Seventy
  Disciples, with authority to preach; he sent not all that beleeved: And he
  sent them to unbeleevers; &ldquo;I send you (saith he) as sheep amongst wolves;&rdquo;
  not as sheep to other sheep.

  Argument From The Points Of Their Commission


  Lastly the points of their Commission, as they are expressely set down in
  the Gospel, contain none of them any authority over the Congregation.

  To Preach


  We have first (Mat. 10.) that the twelve Apostles were sent &ldquo;to the lost
  sheep of the house of Israel,&rdquo; and commanded to Preach, &ldquo;that the Kingdome
  of God was at hand.&rdquo; Now Preaching in the originall, is that act, which a
  Crier, Herald, or other Officer useth to doe publiquely in Proclaiming of
  a King. But a Crier hath not right to Command any man. And (Luke 10.2.)
  the seventy Disciples are sent out, &ldquo;as Labourers, not as Lords of the
  Harvest;&rdquo; and are bidden (verse 9.) to say, &ldquo;The Kingdome of God is come
  nigh unto you;&rdquo; and by Kingdome here is meant, not the Kingdome of Grace,
  but the Kingdome of Glory; for they are bidden to denounce it (ver. 11.)
  to those Cities which shall not receive them, as a threatning, that it
  shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodome, than for such a City. And
  (Mat. 20.28.) our Saviour telleth his Disciples, that sought Priority of
  place, their Office was to minister, even as the Son of man came, not to
  be ministred unto, but to minister. Preachers therefore have not
  Magisteriall, but Ministeriall power: &ldquo;Bee not called Masters, (saith our
  Saviour, Mat. 23.10) for one is your Master, even Christ.&rdquo;

  And Teach


  Another point of their Commission, is, to Teach All Nations; as it is in
  Mat. 28.19. or as in St. Mark 16.15 &ldquo;Goe into all the world, and Preach
  the Gospel to every creature.&rdquo; Teaching therefore, and Preaching is the
  same thing. For they that Proclaim the comming of a King, must withall
  make known by what right he commeth, if they mean men shall submit
  themselves unto him: As St. Paul did to the Jews of Thessalonica, when
  &ldquo;three Sabbath days he reasoned with them out of the Scriptures, opening,
  and alledging that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from
  the dead, and that this Jesus is Christ.&rdquo; But to teach out of the Old
  Testament that Jesus was Christ, (that is to say, King,) and risen from
  the dead, is not to say, that men are bound after they beleeve it, to obey
  those that tell them so, against the laws, and commands of their
  Soveraigns; but that they shall doe wisely, to expect the coming of Christ
  hereafter, in Patience, and Faith, with Obedience to their present
  Magistrates.

  To Baptize;


  Another point of their Commission, is to Baptize, &ldquo;in the name of the
  Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.&rdquo; What is Baptisme? Dipping
  into water. But what is it to Dip a man into the water in the name of any
  thing? The meaning of these words of Baptisme is this. He that is
  Baptized, is Dipped or Washed, as a sign of becomming a new man, and a
  loyall subject to that God, whose Person was represented in old time by
  Moses, and the High Priests, when he reigned over the Jews; and to Jesus
  Christ, his Sonne, God, and Man, that hath redeemed us, and shall in his
  humane nature Represent his Fathers Person in his eternall Kingdome after
  the Resurrection; and to acknowledge the Doctrine of the Apostles, who
  assisted by the Spirit of the Father, and of the Son, were left for guides
  to bring us into that Kingdome, to be the onely, and assured way
  thereunto. This, being our promise in Baptisme; and the Authority of
  Earthly Soveraigns being not to be put down till the day of Judgment; (for
  that is expressely affirmed by S. Paul 1 Cor. 15. 22, 23, 24. where he
  saith, &ldquo;As in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive. But
  every man in his owne order, Christ the first fruits, afterward they that
  are Christs, at his comming; Then Commeth the end, when he shall have
  delivered up the Kingdome of God, even the Father, when he shall have put
  down all Rule, and all Authority and Power&rdquo;) it is manifest, that we do
  not in Baptisme constitute over us another authority, by which our
  externall actions are to be governed in this life; but promise to take the
  doctrine of the Apostles for our direction in the way to life eternall.

  And To Forgive, And Retain Sinnes


  The Power of Remission, And Retention Of Sinnes, called also the Power of
  Loosing, and Binding, and sometimes the Keyes Of The Kingdome Of Heaven,
  is a consequence of the Authority to Baptize, or refuse to Baptize. For
  Baptisme is the Sacrament of Allegeance, of them that are to be received
  into the Kingdome of God; that is to say, into Eternall life; that is to
  say, to Remission of Sin: For as Eternall life was lost by the Committing,
  so it is recovered by the Remitting of mens Sins. The end of Baptisme is
  Remission of Sins: and therefore St. Peter, when they that were converted
  by his Sermon on the day of Pentecost, asked what they were to doe,
  advised them to &ldquo;repent, and be Baptized in the name of Jesus, for the
  Remission of Sins.&rdquo; And therefore seeing to Baptize is to declare the
  Reception of men into Gods Kingdome; and to refuse to Baptize is to
  declare their Exclusion; it followeth, that the Power to declare them Cast
  out, or Retained in it, was given to the same Apostles, and their
  Substitutes, and Successors. And therefore after our Saviour had breathed
  upon them, saying, (John 20.22.) &ldquo;Receive the Holy Ghost,&rdquo; hee addeth in
  the next verse, &ldquo;Whose soever Sins ye Remit, they are Remitted unto them;
  and whose soever Sins ye Retain, they are Retained.&rdquo; By which words, is
  not granted an Authority to Forgive, or Retain Sins, simply and
  absolutely, as God Forgiveth or Retaineth them, who knoweth the Heart of
  man, and truth of his Penitence and Conversion; but conditionally, to the
  Penitent: And this Forgivenesse, or Absolution, in case the absolved have
  but a feigned Repentance, is thereby without other act, or sentence of the
  Absolvent, made void, and hath no effect at all to Salvation, but on the
  contrary, to the Aggravation of his Sin. Therefore the Apostles, and their
  Successors, are to follow but the outward marks of Repentance; which
  appearing, they have no Authority to deny Absolution; and if they appeare
  not, they have no authority to Absolve. The same also is to be observed in
  Baptisme: for to a converted Jew, or Gentile, the Apostles had not the
  Power to deny Baptisme; nor to grant it to the Un-penitent. But seeing no
  man is able to discern the truth of another mans Repentance, further than
  by externall marks, taken from his words, and actions, which are subject
  to hypocrisie; another question will arise, Who it is that is constituted
  Judge of those marks. And this question is decided by our Saviour himself;
  (Mat. 18. 15, 16, 17.) &ldquo;If thy Brother (saith he) shall trespasse against
  thee, go and tell him his fault between thee, and him alone; if he shall
  hear thee, thou hast gained thy Brother. But if he will not hear thee,
  then take with thee one, or two more. And if he shall neglect to hear
  them, tell it unto the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen man, and
  a Publican.&rdquo; By which it is manifest, that the Judgment concerning the
  truth of Repentance, belonged not to any one Man, but to the Church, that
  is, to the Assembly of the Faithfull, or to them that have authority to
  bee their Representant. But besides the Judgment, there is necessary also
  the pronouncing of Sentence: And this belonged alwaies to the Apostle, or
  some Pastor of the Church, as Prolocutor; and of this our Saviour speaketh
  in the 18 verse, &ldquo;Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in
  heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in
  heaven.&rdquo; And comformable hereunto was the practise of St. Paul (1 Cor.
  5.3, 4, & 5.) where he saith, &ldquo;For I verily, as absent in body, but
  present in spirit, have determined already, as though I were present,
  concerning him that hath so done this deed; In the name of our Lord Jesus
  Christ when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our
  Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such a one to Satan;&rdquo; that is to say, to
  cast him out of the Church, as a man whose Sins are not Forgiven. Paul
  here pronounceth the Sentence; but the Assembly was first to hear the
  Cause, (for St. Paul was absent;) and by consequence to condemn him. But
  in the same chapter (ver. 11, 12.) the Judgment in such a case is more
  expressely attributed to the Assembly: &ldquo;But now I have written unto you,
  not to keep company, if any man that is called a Brother be a Fornicator,
  &c. with such a one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judg them
  that are without? Do not ye judg them that are within?&rdquo; The Sentence
  therefore by which a man was put out of the Church, was pronounced by the
  Apostle, or Pastor; but the Judgment concerning the merit of the cause,
  was in the Church; that is to say, (as the times were before the
  conversion of Kings, and men that had Soveraign Authority in the
  Common-wealth,) the Assembly of the Christians dwelling in the same City;
  as in Corinth, in the Assembly of the Christians of Corinth.

  Of Excommunication


  This part of the Power of the Keyes, by which men were thrust out from the
  Kingdome of God, is that which is called Excommunication; and to
  excommunicate, is in the Originall, Aposunagogon Poiein, To Cast Out Of
  The Synagogue; that is, out of the place of Divine service; a word drawn
  from the custom of the Jews, to cast out of their Synagogues, such as they
  thought in manners, or doctrine, contagious, as Lepers were by the Law of
  Moses separated from the congregation of Israel, till such time as they
  should be by the Priest pronounced clean.

  The Use Of Excommunication Without Civill Power.


  The Use and Effect of Excommunication, whilest it was not yet strengthened
  with the Civill Power, was no more, than that they, who were not
  Excommunicate, were to avoid the company of them that were. It was not
  enough to repute them as Heathen, that never had been Christians; for with
  such they might eate, and drink; which with Excommunicate persons they
  might not do; as appeareth by the words of St. Paul, (1 Cor. 5. ver. 9,
  10, &c.) where he telleth them, he had formerly forbidden them to
  &ldquo;company with Fornicators;&rdquo; but (because that could not bee without going
  out of the world,) he restraineth it to such Fornicators, and otherwise
  vicious persons, as were of the brethren; &ldquo;with such a one&rdquo; (he saith)
  they ought not to keep company, &ldquo;no, not to eat.&rdquo; And this is no more than
  our Saviour saith (Mat. 18.17.) &ldquo;Let him be to thee as a Heathen, and as a
  Publican.&rdquo; For Publicans (which signifieth Farmers, and Receivers of the
  revenue of the Common-wealth) were so hated, and detested by the Jews that
  were to pay for it, as that Publican and Sinner were taken amongst them
  for the same thing: Insomuch, as when our Saviour accepted the invitation
  of Zacchaeus a Publican; though it were to Convert him, yet it was
  objected to him as a Crime. And therefore, when our Saviour, to Heathen,
  added Publican, he did forbid them to eat with a man Excommunicate.
<br />
  As for keeping them out of their Synagogues, or places of Assembly, they
  had no Power to do it, but that of the owner of the place, whether he were
  Christian, or Heathen. And because all places are by right, in the
  Dominion of the Common-wealth; as well hee that was Excommunicated, as hee
  that never was Baptized, might enter into them by Commission from the
  Civill Magistrate; as Paul before his conversion entred into their
  Synagogues at Damascus, (Acts 9.2.) to apprehend Christians, men and
  women, and to carry them bound to Jerusalem, by Commission from the High
  Priest.

  Of No Effect Upon An Apostate


  By which it appears, that upon a Christian, that should become an
  Apostate, in a place where the Civill Power did persecute, or not assist
  the Church, the effect of Excommunication had nothing in it, neither of
  dammage in this world, nor of terrour: Not of terrour, because of their
  unbeleef; nor of dammage, because they returned thereby into the favour of
  the world; and in the world to come, were to be in no worse estate, then
  they which never had beleeved. The dammage redounded rather to the Church,
  by provocation of them they cast out, to a freer execution of their
  malice.

  But Upon The Faithfull Only


  Excommunication therefore had its effect onely upon those, that beleeved
  that Jesus Christ was to come again in Glory, to reign over, and to judge
  both the quick, and the dead, and should therefore refuse entrance into
  his Kingdom, to those whose Sins were Retained; that is, to those that
  were Excommunicated by the Church. And thence it is that St. Paul calleth
  Excommunication, a delivery of the Excommunicate person to Satan. For
  without the Kingdom of Christ, all other Kingdomes after Judgment, are
  comprehended in the Kingdome of Satan. This is it that the faithfull stood
  in fear of, as long as they stood Excommunicate, that is to say, in an
  estate wherein their sins were not Forgiven. Whereby wee may understand,
  that Excommunication in the time that Christian Religion was not
  authorized by the Civill Power, was used onely for a correction of
  manners, not of errours in opinion: for it is a punishment, whereof none
  could be sensible but such as beleeved, and expected the coming again of
  our Saviour to judge the world; and they who so beleeved, needed no other
  opinion, but onely uprightnesse of life, to be saved.

  For What Fault Lyeth Excommunication


  There Lyeth Excommunication for Injustice; as (Mat. 18.) If thy Brother
  offend thee, tell it him privately; then with Witnesses; lastly, tell the
  Church; and then if he obey not, &ldquo;Let him be to thee as an Heathen man,
  and a Publican.&rdquo; And there lyeth Excommunication for a Scandalous Life, as
  (1 Cor. 5. 11.) &ldquo;If any man that is called a Brother, be a Fornicator, or
  Covetous, or an Idolater, or a Drunkard, or an Extortioner, with such a
  one yee are not to eat.&rdquo; But to Excommunicate a man that held this
  foundation, that Jesus Was The Christ, for difference of opinion in other
  points, by which that Foundation was not destroyed, there appeareth no
  authority in the Scripture, nor example in the Apostles. There is indeed
  in St. Paul (Titus 3.10.) a text that seemeth to be to the contrary. &ldquo;A
  man that is an Haeretique, after the first and second admonition, reject.&rdquo;
  For an Haeretique, is he, that being a member of the Church, teacheth
  neverthelesse some private opinion, which the Church has forbidden: and
  such a one, S. Paul adviseth Titus, after the first, and second
  admonition, to Reject. But to Reject (in this place) is not to
  Excommunicate the Man; But to Give Over Admonishing Him, To Let Him Alone,
  To Set By Disputing With Him, as one that is to be convinced onely by
  himselfe. The same Apostle saith (2 Tim. 2.23.) &ldquo;Foolish and unlearned
  questions avoid;&rdquo; The word Avoid in this place, and Reject in the former,
  is the same in the Originall, paraitou: but Foolish questions may bee set
  by without Excommunication. And again, (Tit. 3.93) &ldquo;Avoid Foolish
  questions,&rdquo; where the Originall, periistaso, (set them by) is equivalent
  to the former word Reject. There is no other place that can so much as
  colourably be drawn, to countenance the Casting out of the Church
  faithfull men, such as beleeved the foundation, onely for a singular
  superstructure of their own, proceeding perhaps from a good & pious
  conscience. But on the contrary, all such places as command avoiding such
  disputes, are written for a Lesson to Pastors, (such as Timothy and Titus
  were) not to make new Articles of Faith, by determining every small
  controversie, which oblige men to a needlesse burthen of Conscience, or
  provoke them to break the union of the Church. Which Lesson the Apostles
  themselves observed well. S. Peter and S. Paul, though their controversie
  were great, (as we may read in Gal. 2.11.) yet they did not cast one
  another out of the Church. Neverthelesse, during the Apostles time, there
  were other Pastors that observed it not; As Diotrephes (3 John 9. &c.)
  who cast out of the Church, such as S. John himself thought fit to be
  received into it, out of a pride he took in Praeeminence; so early it was,
  that Vainglory, and Ambition had found entrance into the Church of Christ.

  Of Persons Liable To Excommunication


  That a man be liable to Excommunication, there be many conditions
  requisite; as First, that he be a member of some Commonalty, that is to
  say, of some lawfull Assembly, that is to say, of some Christian Church,
  that hath power to judge of the cause for which hee is to bee
  Excommunicated. For where there is no community, there can bee no
  Excommunication; nor where there is no power to Judge, can there bee any
  power to give Sentence. From hence it followeth, that one Church cannot be
  Excommunicated by another: For either they have equall power to
  Excommunicate each other, in which case Excommunication is not Discipline,
  nor an act of Authority, but Schisme, and Dissolution of charity; or one
  is so subordinate to the other, as that they both have but one voice, and
  then they be but one Church; and the part Excommunicated, is no more a
  Church, but a dissolute number of individuall persons.
<br />
  And because the sentence of Excommunication, importeth an advice, not to
  keep company, nor so much as to eat with him that is Excommunicate, if a
  Soveraign Prince, or Assembly bee Excommunicate, the sentence is of no
  effect. For all Subjects are bound to be in the company and presence of
  their own Soveraign (when he requireth it) by the law of Nature; nor can
  they lawfully either expell him from any place of his own Dominion,
  whether profane or holy; nor go out of his Dominion, without his leave;
  much lesse (if he call them to that honour,) refuse to eat with him. And
  as to other Princes and States, because they are not parts of one and the
  same congregation, they need not any other sentence to keep them from
  keeping company with the State Excommunicate: for the very Institution, as
  it uniteth many men into one Community; so it dissociateth one Community
  from another: so that Excommunication is not needfull for keeping Kings
  and States asunder; nor has any further effect then is in the nature of
  Policy it selfe; unlesse it be to instigate Princes to warre upon one
  another.
<br />
  Nor is the Excommunication of a Christian Subject, that obeyeth the laws
  of his own Soveraign, whether Christian, or Heathen, of any effect. For if
  he beleeve that &ldquo;Jesus is the Christ, he hath the Spirit of God&rdquo; (1 Joh.
  4.1.) &ldquo;and God dwelleth in him, and he in God,&rdquo; (1 Joh. 4.15.) But hee
  that hath the Spirit of God; hee that dwelleth in God; hee in whom God
  dwelleth, can receive no harm by the Excommunication of men. Therefore, he
  that beleeveth Jesus to be the Christ, is free from all the dangers
  threatned to persons Excommunicate. He that beleeveth it not, is no
  Christian. Therefore a true and unfeigned Christian is not liable to
  Excommunication; Nor he also that is a professed Christian, till his
  Hypocrisy appear in his Manners, that is, till his behaviour bee contrary
  to the law of his Soveraign, which is the rule of Manners, and which
  Christ and his Apostles have commanded us to be subject to. For the Church
  cannot judge of Manners but by externall Actions, which Actions can never
  bee unlawfull, but when they are against the Law of the Common-wealth.
<br />
  If a mans Father, or Mother, or Master bee Excommunicate, yet are not the
  Children forbidden to keep them Company, nor to Eat with them; for that
  were (for the most part) to oblige them not to eat at all, for want of
  means to get food; and to authorise them to disobey their Parents, and
  Masters, contrary to the Precept of the Apostles.
<br />
  In summe, the Power of Excommunication cannot be extended further than to
  the end for which the Apostles and Pastors of the Church have their
  Commission from our Saviour; which is not to rule by Command and Coaction,
  but by Teaching and Direction of men in the way of Salvation in the world
  to come. And as a Master in any Science, may abandon his Scholar, when hee
  obstinately neglecteth the practise of his rules; but not accuse him of
  Injustice, because he was never bound to obey him: so a Teacher of
  Christian doctrine may abandon his Disciples that obstinately continue in
  an unchristian life; but he cannot say, they doe him wrong, because they
  are not obliged to obey him: For to a Teacher that shall so complain, may
  be applyed the Answer of God to Samuel in the like place, (1 Sam. 8.)
  &ldquo;They have not rejected thee, but mee.&rdquo; Excommunication therefore when it
  wanteth the assistance of the Civill Power, as it doth, when a Christian
  State, or Prince is Excommunicate by a forain Authority, is without
  effect; and consequently ought to be without terrour. The name of Fulmen
  Excommunicationis (that is, the Thunderbolt Of Excommunication) proceeded
  from an imagination of the Bishop of Rome, which first used it, that he
  was King of Kings, as the Heathen made Jupiter King of the Gods; and
  assigned him in their Poems, and Pictures, a Thunderbolt, wherewith to
  subdue, and punish the Giants, that should dare to deny his power: Which
  imagination was grounded on two errours; one, that the Kingdome of Christ
  is of this world, contrary to our Saviours owne words, &ldquo;My Kingdome is not
  of this world;&rdquo; the other, that hee is Christs Vicar, not onely over his
  owne Subjects, but over all the Christians of the World; whereof there is
  no ground in Scripture, and the contrary shall bee proved in its due
  place.

  Of The Interpreter Of The Scriptures Before Civill Soveraigns Became
  Christians


  St. Paul coming to Thessalonica, where was a Synagogue of the Jews, (Acts
  17.2, 3.) &ldquo;As his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath dayes
  reasoned with them out of the Scriptures, Opening and alledging, that
  Christ must needs have suffered and risen again from the dead; and that
  this Jesus whom he preached was the Christ.&rdquo; The Scriptures here mentioned
  were the Scriptures of the Jews, that is, the Old Testament. The men, to
  whom he was to prove that Jesus was the Christ, and risen again from the
  dead, were also Jews, and did beleeve already, that they were the Word of
  God. Hereupon (as it is verse 4.) some of them beleeved, and (as it is in
  the 5. ver.) some beleeved not. What was the reason, when they all
  beleeved the Scripture, that they did not all beleeve alike; but that some
  approved, others disapproved the Interpretation of St. Paul that cited
  them; and every one Interpreted them to himself? It was this; S. Paul came
  to them without any Legall Commission, and in the manner of one that would
  not Command, but Perswade; which he must needs do, either by Miracles, as
  Moses did to the Israelites in Egypt, that they might see his Authority in
  Gods works; or by Reasoning from the already received Scripture, that they
  might see the truth of his doctrine in Gods Word. But whosoever perswadeth
  by reasoning from principles written, maketh him to whom hee speaketh
  Judge, both of the meaning of those principles, and also of the force of
  his inferences upon them. If these Jews of Thessalonica were not, who else
  was the Judge of what S. Paul alledged out of Scripture? If S. Paul, what
  needed he to quote any places to prove his doctrine? It had been enough to
  have said, I find it so in Scripture, that is to say, in your Laws, of
  which I am Interpreter, as sent by Christ. The Interpreter therefore of
  the Scripture, to whose Interpretation the Jews of Thessalonica were bound
  to stand, could be none: every one might beleeve, or not beleeve,
  according as the Allegations seemed to himselfe to be agreeable, or not
  agreeable to the meaning of the places alledged. And generally in all
  cases of the world, hee that pretendeth any proofe, maketh Judge of his
  proofe him to whom he addresseth his speech. And as to the case of the
  Jews in particular, they were bound by expresse words (Deut. 17.) to
  receive the determination of all hard questions, from the Priests and
  Judges of Israel for the time being. But this is to bee understood of the
  Jews that were yet unconverted.
<br />
  For the Conversion of the Gentiles, there was no use of alledging the
  Scriptures, which they beleeved not. The Apostles therefore laboured by
  Reason to confute their Idolatry; and that done, to perswade them to the
  faith of Christ, by their testimony of his Life, and Resurrection. So that
  there could not yet bee any controversie concerning the authority to
  Interpret Scripture; seeing no man was obliged during his infidelity, to
  follow any mans Interpretation of any Scripture, except his Soveraigns
  Interpretation of the Laws of his countrey.
<br />
  Let us now consider the Conversion it self, and see what there was
  therein, that could be cause of such an obligation. Men were converted to
  no other thing then to the Beleef of that which the Apostles preached: And
  the Apostles preached nothing, but that Jesus was the Christ, that is to
  say, the King that was to save them, and reign over them eternally in the
  world to come; and consequently that hee was not dead, but risen again
  from the dead, and gone up into Heaven, and should come again one day to
  judg the world, (which also should rise again to be judged,) and reward
  every man according to his works. None of them preached that himselfe, or
  any other Apostle was such an Interpreter of the Scripture, as all that
  became Christians, ought to take their Interpretation for Law. For to
  Interpret the Laws, is part of the Administration of a present Kingdome;
  which the Apostles had not. They prayed then, and all other Pastors ever
  since, &ldquo;Let thy Kingdome come;&rdquo; and exhorted their Converts to obey their
  then Ethnique Princes. The New Testament was not yet published in one
  Body. Every of the Evangelists was Interpreter of his own Gospel; and
  every Apostle of his own Epistle; And of the Old Testament, our Saviour
  himselfe saith to the Jews (John 5. 39.) &ldquo;Search the Scriptures; for in
  them yee thinke to have eternall life, and they are they that testifie of
  me.&rdquo; If hee had not meant they should Interpret them, hee would not have
  bidden them take thence the proof of his being the Christ; he would either
  have Interpreted them himselfe, or referred them to the Interpretation of
  the Priests.
<br />
  When a difficulty arose, the Apostles and Elders of the Church assembled
  themselves together, and determined what should bee preached, and taught,
  and how they should Interpret the Scriptures to the People; but took not
  from the People the liberty to read, and Interpret them to themselves. The
  Apostles sent divers Letters to the Churches, and other Writings for their
  instruction; which had been in vain, if they had not allowed them to
  Interpret, that is, to consider the meaning of them. And as it was in the
  Apostles time, it must be till such time as there should be Pastors, that
  could authorise an Interpreter, whose Interpretation should generally be
  stood to: But that could not be till Kings were Pastors, or Pastors Kings.

  Of The Power To Make Scripture Law


  There be two senses, wherein a Writing may be said to be Canonicall; for
  Canon, signifieth a Rule; and a Rule is a Precept, by which a man is
  guided, and directed in any action whatsoever. Such Precepts, though given
  by a Teacher to his Disciple, or a Counsellor to his friend, without power
  to Compell him to observe them, are neverthelesse Canons; because they are
  Rules: But when they are given by one, whom he that receiveth them is
  bound to obey, then are those Canons, not onely Rules, but Laws: The
  question therefore here, is of the Power to make the Scriptures (which are
  the Rules of Christian Faith) Laws.

  Of The Ten Commandements


  That part of the Scripture, which was first Law, was the Ten
  Commandements, written in two Tables of Stone, and delivered by God
  himselfe to Moses; and by Moses made known to the people. Before that time
  there was no written Law of God, who as yet having not chosen any people
  to bee his peculiar Kingdome, had given no Law to men, but the Law of
  Nature, that is to say, the Precepts of Naturall Reason, written in every
  mans own heart. Of these two Tables, the first containeth the law of
  Soveraignty; 1. That they should not obey, nor honour the Gods of other
  Nations, in these words, &ldquo;Non habebis Deos alienos coram me,&rdquo; that is,
  &ldquo;Thou shalt not have for Gods, the Gods that other Nations worship; but
  onely me:&rdquo; whereby they were forbidden to obey, or honor, as their King
  and Governour, any other God, than him that spake unto them then by Moses,
  and afterwards by the High Priest. 2. That they &ldquo;should not make any Image
  to represent him;&rdquo; that is to say, they were not to choose to themselves,
  neither in heaven, nor in earth, any Representative of their own fancying,
  but obey Moses and Aaron, whom he had appointed to that office. 3. That
  &ldquo;they should not take the Name of God in vain;&rdquo; that is, they should not
  speak rashly of their King, nor dispute his Right, nor the commissions of
  Moses and Aaron, his Lieutenants. 4. That &ldquo;they should every Seventh day
  abstain from their ordinary labour,&rdquo; and employ that time in doing him
  Publique Honor. The second Table containeth the Duty of one man towards
  another, as &ldquo;To honor Parents; Not to kill; Not to Commit Adultery; Not to
  steale; Not to corrupt Judgment by false witnesse;&rdquo; and finally, &ldquo;Not so
  much as to designe in their heart the doing of any injury one to another.&rdquo;
  The question now is, Who it was that gave to these written Tables the
  obligatory force of Lawes. There is no doubt but that they were made Laws
  by God himselfe: But because a Law obliges not, nor is Law to any, but to
  them that acknowledge it to be the act of the Soveraign, how could the
  people of Israel that were forbidden to approach the Mountain to hear what
  God said to Moses, be obliged to obedience to all those laws which Moses
  propounded to them? Some of them were indeed the Laws of Nature, as all
  the Second Table; and therefore to be acknowledged for Gods Laws; not to
  the Israelites alone, but to all people: But of those that were peculiar
  to the Israelites, as those of the first Table, the question remains;
  saving that they had obliged themselves, presently after the propounding
  of them, to obey Moses, in these words (Exod. 20.19.) &ldquo;Speak them thou to
  us, and we will hear thee; but let not God speak to us, lest we die.&rdquo; It
  was therefore onely Moses then, and after him the High Priest, whom (by
  Moses) God declared should administer this his peculiar Kingdome, that had
  on Earth, the power to make this short Scripture of the Decalogue to bee
  Law in the Common-wealth of Israel. But Moses, and Aaron, and the
  succeeding High Priests were the Civill Soveraigns. Therefore hitherto,
  the Canonizing, or making of the Scripture Law, belonged to the Civill
  Soveraigne.

  Of The Judicial, And Leviticall Law


  The Judiciall Law, that is to say, the Laws that God prescribed to the
  Magistrates of Israel, for the rule of their administration of Justice,
  and of the Sentences, or Judgments they should pronounce, in Pleas between
  man and man; and the Leviticall Law, that is to say, the rule that God
  prescribed touching the Rites and Ceremonies of the Priests and Levites,
  were all delivered to them by Moses onely; and therefore also became
  Lawes, by vertue of the same promise of obedience to Moses. Whether these
  laws were then written, or not written, but dictated to the People by
  Moses (after his forty dayes being with God in the Mount) by word of
  mouth, is not expressed in the Text; but they were all positive Laws, and
  equivalent to holy Scripture, and made Canonicall by Moses the Civill
  Soveraign.

  The Second Law


  After the Israelites were come into the Plains of Moab over against
  Jericho, and ready to enter into the land of Promise, Moses to the former
  Laws added divers others; which therefore are called Deuteronomy: that is,
  Second Laws. And are (as it is written, Deut. 29.1.) &ldquo;The words of a
  Covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Children of
  Israel, besides the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb.&rdquo; For having
  explained those former Laws, in the beginning of the Book of Deuteronomy,
  he addeth others, that begin at the 12. Cha. and continue to the end of
  the 26. of the same Book. This Law (Deut. 27.1.) they were commanded to
  write upon great stones playstered over, at their passing over Jordan:
  This Law also was written by Moses himself in a Book; and delivered into
  the hands of the &ldquo;Priests, and to the Elders of Israel,&rdquo; (Deut. 31.9.) and
  commanded (ve. 26.) &ldquo;to be put in the side of the Arke;&rdquo; for in the Ark it
  selfe was nothing but the Ten Commandements. This was the Law, which Moses
  (Deuteronomy 17.18.) commanded the Kings of Israel should keep a copie of:
  And this is the Law, which having been long time lost, was found again in
  the Temple in the time of Josiah, and by his authority received for the
  Law of God. But both Moses at the writing, and Josiah at the recovery
  thereof, had both of them the Civill Soveraignty. Hitherto therefore the
  Power of making Scripture Canonicall, was in the Civill Soveraign.
<br />
  Besides this Book of the Law, there was no other Book, from the time of
  Moses, till after the Captivity, received amongst the Jews for the Law of
  God. For the Prophets (except a few) lived in the time of the Captivity it
  selfe; and the rest lived but a little before it; and were so far from
  having their Prophecies generally received for Laws, as that their persons
  were persecuted, partly by false Prophets, and partly by the Kings which
  were seduced by them. And this Book it self, which was confirmed by Josiah
  for the Law of God, and with it all the History of the Works of God, was
  lost in the Captivity, and sack of the City of Jerusalem, as appears by
  that of 2 Esdras 14.21. &ldquo;Thy Law is burnt; therefor no man knoweth the
  things that are done of thee, of the works that shall begin.&rdquo; And before
  the Captivity, between the time when the Law was lost, (which is not
  mentioned in the Scripture, but may probably be thought to be the time of
  Rehoboam, when Shishak King of Egypt took the spoils of the Temple,(1
  Kings 14.26.)) and the time of Josiah, when it was found againe, they had
  no written Word of God, but ruled according to their own discretion, or by
  the direction of such, as each of them esteemed Prophets.

  The Old Testament, When Made Canonicall


  From whence we may inferre, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament,
  which we have at this day, were not Canonicall, nor a Law unto the Jews,
  till the renovation of their Covenant with God at their return from the
  Captivity, and restauration of their Common-wealth under Esdras. But from
  that time forward they were accounted the Law of the Jews, and for such
  translated into Greek by Seventy Elders of Judaea, and put into the
  Library of Ptolemy at Alexandria, and approved for the Word of God. Now
  seeing Esdras was the High Priest, and the High Priest was their Civill
  Soveraigne, it is manifest, that the Scriptures were never made Laws, but
  by the Soveraign Civill Power.
<br />
  The New Testament Began To Be Canonicall Under Christian Soveraigns By the
  Writings of the Fathers that lived in the time before that Christian
  Religion was received, and authorised by Constantine the Emperour, we may
  find, that the Books wee now have of the New Testament, were held by the
  Christians of that time (except a few, in respect of whose paucity the
  rest were called the Catholique Church, and others Haeretiques) for the
  dictates of the Holy Ghost; and consequently for the Canon, or Rule of
  Faith: such was the reverence and opinion they had of their Teachers; as
  generally the reverence that the Disciples bear to their first Masters, in
  all manner of doctrine they receive from them, is not small. Therefore
  there is no doubt, but when S. Paul wrote to the Churches he had
  converted; or any other Apostle, or Disciple of Christ, to those which had
  then embraced Christ, they received those their Writings for the true
  Christian Doctrine. But in that time, when not the Power and Authority of
  the Teacher, but the Faith of the Hearer caused them to receive it, it was
  not the Apostles that made their own Writings Canonicall, but every
  Convert made them so to himself.
<br />
  But the question here, is not what any Christian made a Law, or Canon to
  himself, (which he might again reject, by the same right he received it;)
  but what was so made a Canon to them, as without injustice they could not
  doe any thing contrary thereunto. That the New Testament should in this
  sense be Canonicall, that is to say, a Law in any place where the Law of
  the Common-wealth had not made it so, is contrary to the nature of a Law.
  For a Law, (as hath been already shewn) is the Commandement of that Man,
  or Assembly, to whom we have given Soveraign Authority, to make such Rules
  for the direction of our actions, as hee shall think fit; and to punish
  us, when we doe any thing contrary to the same. When therefore any other
  man shall offer unto us any other Rules, which the Soveraign Ruler hath
  not prescribed, they are but Counsell, and Advice; which, whether good, or
  bad, hee that is counselled, may without injustice refuse to observe, and
  when contrary to the Laws already established, without injustice cannot
  observe, how good soever he conceiveth it to be. I say, he cannot in this
  case observe the same in his actions, nor in his discourse with other men;
  though he may without blame beleeve the his private Teachers, and wish he
  had the liberty to practise their advice; and that it were publiquely
  received for Law. For internall faith is in its own nature invisible, and
  consequently exempted from all humane jurisdiction; whereas the words, and
  actions that proceed from it, as breaches of our Civil obedience, are
  injustice both before God and Man. Seeing then our Saviour hath denyed his
  Kingdome to be in this world, seeing he hath said, he came not to judge,
  but to save the world, he hath not subjected us to other Laws than those
  of the Common-wealth; that is, the Jews to the Law of Moses, (which he
  saith (Mat. 5.) he came not to destroy, but to fulfill,) and other Nations
  to the Laws of their severall Soveraigns, and all men to the Laws of
  Nature; the observing whereof, both he himselfe, and his Apostles have in
  their teaching recommended to us, as a necessary condition of being
  admitted by him in the last day into his eternall Kingdome, wherein shall
  be Protection, and Life everlasting. Seeing then our Saviour, and his
  Apostles, left not new Laws to oblige us in this world, but new Doctrine
  to prepare us for the next; the Books of the New Testament, which containe
  that Doctrine, untill obedience to them was commanded, by them that God
  hath given power to on earth to be Legislators, were not obligatory
  Canons, that is, Laws, but onely good, and safe advice, for the direction
  of sinners in the way to salvation, which every man might take, and refuse
  at his owne perill, without injustice.
<br />
  Again, our Saviour Christs Commission to his Apostles, and Disciples, was
  to Proclaim his Kingdome (not present, but) to come; and to Teach all
  Nations; and to Baptize them that should beleeve; and to enter into the
  houses of them that should receive them; and where they were not received,
  to shake off the dust of their feet against them; but not to call for fire
  from heaven to destroy them, nor to compell them to obedience by the
  Sword. In all which there is nothing of Power, but of Perswasion. He sent
  them out as Sheep unto Wolves, not as Kings to their Subjects. They had
  not in Commission to make Laws; but to obey, and teach obedience to Laws
  made; and consequently they could not make their Writings obligatory
  Canons, without the help of the Soveraign Civill Power. And therefore the
  Scripture of the New Testament is there only Law, where the lawfull Civill
  Power hath made it so. And there also the King, or Soveraign, maketh it a
  Law to himself; by which he subjecteth himselfe, not to the Doctor, or
  Apostle, that converted him, but to God himself, and his Son Jesus Christ,
  as immediately as did the Apostles themselves.

  Of The Power Of Councells To Make The Scripture Law


  That which may seem to give the New Testament, in respect of those that
  have embraced Christian Doctrine, the force of Laws, in the times, and
  places of persecution, is the decrees they made amongst themselves in
  their Synods. For we read (Acts 15.28.) the stile of the Councell of the
  Apostles, the Elders, and the whole Church, in this manner, &ldquo;It seemed
  good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burthen than
  these necessary things, &C.&rdquo; which is a stile that signifieth a Power
  to lay a burthen on them that had received their Doctrine. Now &ldquo;to lay a
  burthen on another,&rdquo; seemeth the same that &ldquo;to oblige;&rdquo; and therefore the
  Acts of that Councell were Laws to the then Christians. Neverthelesse,
  they were no more Laws than are these other Precepts, &ldquo;Repent, Be
  Baptized; Keep the Commandements; Beleeve the Gospel; Come unto me; Sell
  all that thou hast; Give it to the poor;&rdquo; and &ldquo;Follow me;&rdquo; which are not
  Commands, but Invitations, and Callings of men to Christianity, like that
  of Esay 55.1. &ldquo;Ho, every man that thirsteth, come yee to the waters, come,
  and buy wine and milke without money.&rdquo; For first, the Apostles power was
  no other than that of our Saviour, to invite men to embrace the Kingdome
  of God; which they themselves acknowledged for a Kingdome (not present,
  but) to come; and they that have no Kingdome, can make no Laws. And
  secondly, if their Acts of Councell, were Laws, they could not without sin
  be disobeyed. But we read not any where, that they who received not the
  Doctrine of Christ, did therein sin; but that they died in their sins;
  that is, that their sins against the Laws to which they owed obedience,
  were not pardoned. And those Laws were the Laws of Nature, and the Civill
  Laws of the State, whereto every Christian man had by pact submitted
  himself. And therefore by the Burthen, which the Apostles might lay on
  such as they had converted, are not to be understood Laws, but Conditions,
  proposed to those that sought Salvation; which they might accept, or
  refuse at their own perill, without a new sin, though not without the
  hazard of being condemned, and excluded out of the Kingdome of God for
  their sins past. And therefore of Infidels, S. John saith not, the wrath
  of God shall &ldquo;come&rdquo; upon them, but &ldquo;the wrath of God remaineth upon them;&rdquo;
  and not that they shall be condemned; but that &ldquo;they are condemned
  already.&rdquo;(John 3.36, 3.18) Nor can it be conceived, that the benefit of
  Faith, &ldquo;is Remission of sins&rdquo; unlesse we conceive withall, that the
  dammage of Infidelity, is &ldquo;the Retention of the same sins.&rdquo;
<br />
  But to what end is it (may some man aske), that the Apostles, and other
  Pastors of the Church, after their time, should meet together, to agree
  upon what Doctrine should be taught, both for Faith and Manners, if no man
  were obliged to observe their Decrees? To this may be answered, that the
  Apostles, and Elders of that Councell, were obliged even by their entrance
  into it, to teach the Doctrine therein concluded, and decreed to be
  taught, so far forth, as no precedent Law, to which they were obliged to
  yeeld obedience, was to the contrary; but not that all other Christians
  should be obliged to observe, what they taught. For though they might
  deliberate what each of them should teach; yet they could not deliberate
  what others should do, unless their Assembly had had a Legislative Power;
  which none could have but Civill Soveraigns. For though God be the
  Soveraign of all the world, we are not bound to take for his Law,
  whatsoever is propounded by every man in his name; nor any thing contrary
  to the Civill Law, which God hath expressely commanded us to obey.
<br />
  Seeing then the Acts of Councell of the Apostles, were then no Laws, but
  Councells; much lesse are Laws the Acts of any other Doctors, or Councells
  since, if assembled without the Authority of the Civill Soveraign. And
  consequently, the Books of the New Testament, though most perfect Rules of
  Christian Doctrine, could not be made Laws by any other authority then
  that of Kings, or Soveraign Assemblies.
<br />
  The first Councell, that made the Scriptures we now have, Canon, is not
  extant: For that Collection the first Bishop of Rome after S. Peter, is
  subject to question: For though the Canonicall books bee there reckoned
  up; yet these words, &ldquo;Sint vobis omnibus Clericis & Laicis Libris
  venerandi, &c.&rdquo; containe a distinction of Clergy, and Laity, that was
  not in use so neer St. Peters time. The first Councell for setling the
  Canonicall Scripture, that is extant, is that of Laodicea, Can. 59. which
  forbids the reading of other Books then those in the Churches; which is a
  Mandate that is not addressed to every Christian, but to those onely that
  had authority to read any publiquely in the Church; that is, to
  Ecclesiastiques onely.

  Of The Right Of Constituting Ecclesiasticall Officers In The Time Of The
  Apostles


  Of Ecclesiastical Officers in the time of the Apostles, some were
  Magisteriall, some Ministeriall. Magisteriall were the Offices of
  preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to Infidels; of administring
  the Sacraments, and Divine Service; and of teaching the Rules of Faith and
  Manners to those that were converted. Ministeriall was the Office of
  Deacons, that is, of them that were appointed to the administration of the
  secular necessities of the Church, at such time as they lived upon a
  common stock of mony, raised out of the voluntary contributions of the
  faithfull.
<br />
  Amongst the Officers Magisteriall, the first, and principall were the
  Apostles; whereof there were at first but twelve; and these were chosen
  and constituted by our Saviour himselfe; and their Office was not onely to
  Preach, Teach, and Baptize, but also to be Martyrs, (Witnesses of our
  Saviours Resurrection.) This Testimony, was the specificall, and
  essentiall mark; whereby the Apostleship was distinguished from other
  Magistracy Ecclesiasticall; as being necessary for an Apostle, either to
  have seen our Saviour after his Resurrection, or to have conversed with
  him before, and seen his works, and other arguments of his Divinity,
  whereby they might be taken for sufficient Witnesses. And therefore at the
  election of a new Apostle in the place of Judas Iscariot, S. Peter saith
  (Acts 1.21,22.) &ldquo;Of these men that have companyed with us, all the time
  that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the Baptisme
  of John unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be
  ordained to be a Witnesse with us of his Resurrection:&rdquo; where, by this
  word Must, is implyed a necessary property of an Apostle, to have
  companyed with the first and prime Apostles in the time that our Saviour
  manifested himself in the flesh.

  Matthias Made Apostle By The Congregation.


  The first Apostle, of those which were not constituted by Christ in the
  time he was upon the Earth, was Matthias, chosen in this manner: There
  were assembled together in Jerusalem about 120 Christians (Acts 1.15.)
  These appointed two, Joseph the Just, and Matthias (ver. 23.) and caused
  lots to be drawn; &ldquo;and (ver. 26.) the Lot fell on Matthias and he was
  numbred with the Apostles.&rdquo; So that here we see the ordination of this
  Apostle, was the act of the Congregation, and not of St. Peter, nor of the
  eleven, otherwise then as Members of the Assembly.

  Paul And Barnabas Made Apostles By The Church Of Antioch


  After him there was never any other Apostle ordained, but Paul and
  Barnabas, which was done (as we read Acts 13.1,2,3.) in this manner.
  &ldquo;There were in the Church that was at Antioch, certaine Prophets, and
  Teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of
  Cyrene, and Manaen; which had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch, and
  Saul. As they ministred unto the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said,
  &lsquo;Separate mee Barnabas, and Saul for the worke whereunto I have called
  them.&rsquo; And when they had fasted, and prayed, and laid their hands on them,
  they sent them away.&rdquo;
<br />
  By which it is manifest, that though they were called by the Holy Ghost,
  their Calling was declared unto them, and their Mission authorized by the
  particular Church of Antioch. And that this their calling was to the
  Apostleship, is apparent by that, that they are both called (Acts 14.14.)
  Apostles: And that it was by vertue of this act of the Church of Antioch,
  that they were Apostles, S. Paul declareth plainly (Rom. 1.1.) in that hee
  useth the word, which the Holy Ghost used at his calling: For he stileth
  himself, &ldquo;An Apostle separated unto the Gospel of God;&rdquo; alluding to the
  words of the Holy Ghost, &ldquo;Separate me Barnabas and Saul, &c.&rdquo; But
  seeing the work of an Apostle, was to be a Witnesse of the Resurrection of
  Christ, and man may here aske, how S. Paul that conversed not with our
  Saviour before his passion, could know he was risen. To which it is easily
  answered, that our Saviour himself appeared to him in the way to Damascus,
  from Heaven, after his Ascension; &ldquo;and chose him for a vessell to bear his
  name before the Gentiles, and Kings, and Children of Israel;&rdquo; and
  consequently (having seen the Lord after his passion) was a competent
  Witnesse of his Resurrection: And as for Barnabas, he was a Disciple
  before the Passion. It is therefore evident that Paul, and Barnabas were
  Apostles; and yet chosen, and authorized (not by the first Apostles alone,
  but) by the Church of Antioch; as Matthias was chosen, and authorized by
  the Church of Jerusalem.

  What Offices In The Church Are Magisteriall


  Bishop, a word formed in our language, out of the Greek Episcopus,
  signifieth an overseer, or Superintendent of any businesse, and
  particularly a Pastor or Shepherd; and thence by metaphor was taken, not
  only amongst the Jews that were originally Shepherds, but also amongst the
  Heathen, to signifie the Office of a King, or any other Ruler, or Guide of
  People, whether he ruled by Laws, or Doctrine. And so the Apostles were
  the first Christian Bishops, instituted by Christ himselfe: in which sense
  the Apostleship of Judas is called (Acts 1.20.) his Bishoprick. And
  afterwards, when there were constituted Elders in the Christian Churches,
  with charge to guide Christs flock by their doctrine, and advice; these
  Elders were also called Bishops. Timothy was an Elder (which word Elder,
  in the New Testament is a name of Office, as well as of Age;) yet he was
  also a Bishop. And Bishops were then content with the Title of Elders. Nay
  S. John himselfe, the Apostle beloved of our Lord, beginneth his Second
  Epistle with these words, &ldquo;The Elder to the Elect Lady.&rdquo; By which it is
  evident, that Bishop, Pastor, Elder, Doctor, that is to say, Teacher, were
  but so many divers names of the same Office in the time of the Apostles.
  For there was then no government by Coercion, but only by Doctrine, and
  Perswading. The Kingdome of God was yet to come, in a new world; so that
  there could be no authority to compell in any Church, till the
  Common-wealth had embraced the Christian Faith; and consequently no
  diversity of Authority, though there were diversity of Employments.
<br />
  Besides these Magisteriall employments in the Church, namely Apostles,
  Bishops, Elders, Pastors, and Doctors, whose calling was to proclaim
  Christ to the Jews, and Infidels, and to direct, and teach those that
  beleeved we read in the New Testament of no other. For by the names of
  Evangelists and Prophets, is not signified any Office, but severall Gifts,
  by which severall men were profitable to the Church: as Evangelists, by
  writing the life and acts of our Saviour; such as were S. Matthew and S.
  John Apostles, and S. Marke and S. Luke Disciples, and whosoever else
  wrote of that subject, (as S. Thomas, and S. Barnabas are said to have
  done, though the Church have not received the Books that have gone under
  their names:) and as Prophets, by the gift of interpreting the Old
  Testament; and sometimes by declaring their speciall Revelations to the
  Church. For neither these gifts, nor the gifts of Languages, nor the gift
  of Casting out Devils, or of Curing other diseases, nor any thing else did
  make an Officer in the Church, save onely the due calling and election to
  the charge of Teaching.

  Ordination Of Teachers


  As the Apostles, Matthias, Paul, and Barnabas, were not made by our
  Saviour himself, but were elected by the Church, that is, by the Assembly
  of Christians; namely, Matthias by the Church of Jerusalem, and Paul, and
  Barnabas by the Church of Antioch; so were also the Presbyters, and
  Pastors in other Cities, elected by the Churches of those Cities. For
  proof whereof, let us consider, first, how S. Paul proceeded in the
  Ordination of Presbyters, in the Cities where he had converted men to the
  Christian Faith, immediately after he and Barnabas had received their
  Apostleship. We read (Acts 14.23.) that &ldquo;they ordained Elders in every
  Church;&rdquo; which at first sight may be taken for an Argument, that they
  themselves chose, and gave them their authority: But if we consider the
  Originall text, it will be manifest, that they were authorized, and chosen
  by the Assembly of the Christians of each City. For the words there are,
  &ldquo;cheirotonesantes autoispresbuterous kat ekklesian,&rdquo; that is, &ldquo;When they
  had Ordained them Elders by the Holding up of Hands in every
  Congregation.&rdquo; Now it is well enough known, that in all those Cities, the
  manner of choosing Magistrates, and Officers, was by plurality of
  suffrages; and (because the ordinary way of distinguishing the Affirmative
  Votes from the Negatives, was by Holding up of Hands) to ordain an Officer
  in any of the Cities, was no more but to bring the people together, to
  elect them by plurality of Votes, whether it were by plurality of elevated
  hands, or by plurality of voices, or plurality of balls, or beans, or
  small stones, of which every man cast in one, into a vessell marked for
  the Affirmative, or Negative; for divers Cities had divers customes in
  that point. It was therefore the Assembly that elected their own Elders:
  the Apostles were onely Presidents of the Assembly to call them together
  for such Election, and to pronounce them Elected, and to give them the
  benediction, which now is called Consecration. And for this cause they
  that were Presidents of the Assemblies, as (in the absence of the
  Apostles) the Elders were, were called proestotes, and in Latin
  Antistities; which words signifie the Principall Person of the Assembly,
  whose office was to number the Votes, and to declare thereby who was
  chosen; and where the Votes were equall, to decide the matter in question,
  by adding his own; which is the Office of a President in Councell. And
  (because all the Churches had their Presbyters ordained in the same
  manner,) where the word is Constitute, (as Titus 1.5.) &ldquo;ina katasteses
  kata polin presbuterous,&rdquo; &ldquo;For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou
  shouldest constitute Elders in every City,&rdquo; we are to understand the same
  thing; namely, that hee should call the faithfull together, and ordain
  them Presbyters by plurality of suffrages. It had been a strange thing, if
  in a Town, where men perhaps had never seen any Magistrate otherwise
  chosen then by an Assembly, those of the Town becomming Christians, should
  so much as have thought on any other way of Election of their Teachers,
  and Guides, that is to say, of their Presbyters, (otherwise called
  Bishops,) then this of plurality of suffrages, intimated by S. Paul (Acts
  14.23.) in the word Cheirotonesantes: Nor was there ever any choosing of
  Bishops, (before the Emperors found it necessary to regulate them in order
  to the keeping of the peace amongst them,) but by the Assemblies of the
  Christians in every severall Town.
<br />
  The same is also confirmed by the continuall practise even to this day, in
  the Election of the Bishops of Rome. For if the Bishop of any place, had
  the right of choosing another, to the succession of the Pastorall Office,
  in any City, at such time as he went from thence, to plant the same in
  another place; much more had he had the Right, to appoint his successour
  in that place, in which he last resided and dyed: And we find not, that
  ever any Bishop of Rome appointed his successor. For they were a long time
  chosen by the People, as we may see by the sedition raised about the
  Election, between Damascus, and Ursinicus; which Ammianus Marcellinus
  saith was so great, that Juventius the Praefect, unable to keep the peace
  between them, was forced to goe out of the City; and that there were above
  an hundred men found dead upon that occasion in the Church it self. And
  though they afterwards were chosen, first, by the whole Clergy of Rome,
  and afterwards by the Cardinalls; yet never any was appointed to the
  succession by his predecessor. If therefore they pretended no right to
  appoint their successors, I think I may reasonably conclude, they had no
  right to appoint the new power; which none could take from the Church to
  bestow on them, but such as had a lawfull authority, not onely to Teach,
  but to Command the Church; which none could doe, but the Civill Soveraign.

  Ministers Of The Church What


  The word Minister in the Originall Diakonos signifieth one that
  voluntarily doth the businesse of another man; and differeth from a
  Servant onely in this, that Servants are obliged by their condition, to
  what is commanded them; whereas Ministers are obliged onely by their
  undertaking, and bound therefore to no more than that they have
  undertaken: So that both they that teach the Word of God, and they that
  administer the secular affairs of the Church, are both Ministers, but they
  are Ministers of different Persons. For the Pastors of the Church, called
  (Acts 6.4.) &ldquo;The Ministers of the Word,&rdquo; are Ministers of Christ, whose
  Word it is: But the Ministery of a Deacon, which is called (verse 2. of
  the same Chapter) &ldquo;Serving of Tables,&rdquo; is a service done to the Church, or
  Congregation: So that neither any one man, nor the whole Church, could
  ever of their Pastor say, he was their Minister; but of a Deacon, whether
  the charge he undertook were to serve tables, or distribute maintenance to
  the Christians, when they lived in each City on a common stock, or upon
  collections, as in the first times, or to take a care of the House of
  Prayer, or of the Revenue, or other worldly businesse of the Church, the
  whole Congregation might properly call him their Minister.
<br />
  For their employment, as Deacons, was to serve the Congregation; though
  upon occasion they omitted not to preach the Gospel, and maintain the
  Doctrine of Christ, every one according to his gifts, as S. Steven did;
  and both to Preach, and Baptize, as Philip did: For that Philip, which
  (Act. 8. 5.) Preached the Gospel at Samaria, and (verse 38.) Baptized the
  Eunuch, was Philip the Deacon, not Philip the Apostle. For it is manifest
  (verse 1.) that when Philip preached in Samaria, the Apostles were at
  Jerusalem, and (verse 14.) &ldquo;When they heard that Samaria had received the
  Word of God, sent Peter and John to them;&rdquo; by imposition of whose hands,
  they that were Baptized (verse 15.) received (which before by the Baptisme
  of Philip they had not received) the Holy Ghost. For it was necessary for
  the conferring of the Holy Ghost, that their Baptisme should be
  administred, or confirmed by a Minister of the Word, not by a Minister of
  the Church. And therefore to confirm the Baptisme of those that Philip the
  Deacon had Baptized, the Apostles sent out of their own number from
  Jerusalem to Samaria, Peter, and John; who conferred on them that before
  were but Baptized, those graces that were signs of the Holy Spirit, which
  at that time did accompany all true Beleevers; which what they were may be
  understood by that which S. Marke saith (chap. 16.17.) &ldquo;These signs follow
  them that beleeve in my Name; they shall cast out Devills; they shall
  speak with new tongues; They shall take up Serpents, and if they drink any
  deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; They shall lay hands on the sick,
  and they shall recover.&rdquo; This to doe, was it that Philip could not give;
  but the Apostles could, and (as appears by this place) effectually did to
  every man that truly beleeved, and was by a Minister of Christ himself
  Baptized: which power either Christs Ministers in this age cannot
  conferre, or else there are very few true Beleevers, or Christ hath very
  few Ministers.

  And How Chosen What


  That the first Deacons were chosen, not by the Apostles, but by a
  Congregation of the Disciples; that is, of Christian men of all sorts, is
  manifest out of Acts 6. where we read that the Twelve, after the number of
  Disciples was multiplyed, called them together, and having told them, that
  it was not fit that the Apostles should leave the Word of God, and serve
  tables, said unto them (verse 3.) &ldquo;Brethren looke you out among you seven
  men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost, and of Wisdome, whom we may
  appoint over this businesse.&rdquo; Here it is manifest, that though the
  Apostles declared them elected; yet the Congregation chose them; which
  also, (verse the fift) is more expressely said, where it is written, that
  &ldquo;the saying pleased the multitude, and they chose seven, &c.&rdquo;

  Of Ecclesiasticall Revenue, Under The Law Of Moses


  Under the Old Testament, the Tribe of Levi were onely capable of the
  Priesthood, and other inferiour Offices of the Church. The land was
  divided amongst the other Tribes (Levi excepted,) which by the subdivision
  of the Tribe of Joseph, into Ephraim and Manasses, were still twelve. To
  the Tribe of Levi were assigned certain Cities for their habitation, with
  the suburbs for their cattell: but for their portion, they were to have
  the tenth of the fruits of the land of their Brethren. Again, the Priests
  for their maintenance had the tenth of that tenth, together with part of
  the oblations, and sacrifices. For God had said to Aaron (Numb. 18. 20.)
  &ldquo;Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any
  part amongst them, I am thy part, and thine inheritance amongst the
  Children of Israel.&rdquo; For God being then King, and having constituted the
  Tribe of Levi to be his Publique Ministers, he allowed them for their
  maintenance, the Publique revenue, that is to say, the part that God had
  reserved to himself; which were Tythes, and Offerings: and that it is
  which is meant, where God saith, I am thine inheritance. And therefore to
  the Levites might not unfitly be attributed the name of Clergy from
  Kleros, which signifieth Lot, or Inheritance; not that they were heirs of
  the Kingdome of God, more than other; but that Gods inheritance, was their
  maintenance. Now seeing in this time God himself was their King, and
  Moses, Aaron, and the succeeding High Priests were his Lieutenants; it is
  manifest, that the Right of Tythes, and Offerings was constituted by the
  Civill Power.
<br />
  After their rejection of God in the demand of a King, they enjoyed still
  the same revenue; but the Right thereof was derived from that, that the
  Kings did never take it from them: for the Publique Revenue was at the
  disposing of him that was the Publique Person; and that (till the
  Captivity) was the King. And again, after the return from the Captivity,
  they paid their Tythes as before to the Priest. Hitherto therefore Church
  Livings were determined by the Civill Soveraign.

  In Our Saviours Time, And After


  Of the maintenance of our Saviour, and his Apostles, we read onely they
  had a Purse, (which was carried by Judas Iscariot;) and, that of the
  Apostles, such as were Fisher-men, did sometimes use their trade; and that
  when our Saviour sent the Twelve Apostles to Preach, he forbad them &ldquo;to
  carry Gold, and Silver, and Brasse in their purses, for that the workman
  is worthy of his hire:&rdquo; (Mat. 10. 9,10.) By which it is probable, their
  ordinary maintenance was not unsuitable to their employment; for their
  employment was (ver. 8.) &ldquo;freely to give, because they had freely
  received;&rdquo; and their maintenance was the Free Gift of those that beleeved
  the good tyding they carryed about of the coming of the Messiah their
  Saviour. To which we may adde, that which was contributed out of
  gratitude, by such as our Saviour had healed of diseases; of which are
  mentioned &ldquo;Certain women (Luke 8. 2,3.) which had been healed of evill
  spirits and infirmities; Mary Magdalen, out of whom went seven Devills;
  and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herods Steward; and Susanna, and many
  others, which ministred unto him of their substance.
<br />
  After our Saviours Ascension, the Christians of every City lived in
  Common, (Acts 4. 34.) upon the mony which was made of the sale of their
  lands and possessions, and laid down at the feet of the Apostles, of good
  will, not of duty; for &ldquo;whilest the Land remained (saith S. Peter to
  Ananias Acts 5.4.) was it not thine? and after it was sold, was it not in
  thy power?&rdquo; which sheweth he needed not to have saved his land, nor his
  money by lying, as not being bound to contribute any thing at all, unlesse
  he had pleased. And as in the time of the Apostles, so also all the time
  downward, till after Constantine the Great, we shall find, that the
  maintenance of the Bishops, and Pastors of the Christian Church, was
  nothing but the voluntary contribution of them that had embraced their
  Doctrine. There was yet no mention of Tythes: but such was in the time of
  Constantine, and his Sons, the affection of Christians to their Pastors,
  as Ammianus Marcellinus saith (describing the sedition of Damasus and
  Ursinicus about the Bishopricke,) that it was worth their contention, in
  that the Bishops of those times by the liberality of their flock, and
  especially of Matrons, lived splendidly, were carryed in Coaches, and
  sumptuous in their fare and apparell.
<br />
  The Ministers Of The Gospel Lived On The Benevolence Of Their Flocks But
  here may some ask, whether the Pastor were then bound to live upon
  voluntary contribution, as upon almes, &ldquo;For who (saith S. Paul 1 Cor. 9.
  7.) goeth to war at his own charges? or who feedeth a flock, and eatheth
  not of the milke of the flock?&rdquo; And again, (1 Cor. 9. 13.) &ldquo;Doe ye not
  know that they which minister about holy things, live of the things of the
  Temple; and they which wait at the Altar, partake with the Altar;&rdquo; that is
  to say, have part of that which is offered at the Altar for their
  maintenance? And then he concludeth, &ldquo;Even so hath the Lord appointed,
  that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. From which
  place may be inferred indeed, that the Pastors of the Church ought to be
  maintained by their flocks; but not that the Pastors were to determine,
  either the quantity, or the kind of their own allowance, and be (as it
  were) their own Carvers. Their allowance must needs therefore be
  determined, either by the gratitude, and liberality of every particular
  man of their flock, or by the whole Congregation. By the whole
  Congregation it could not be, because their Acts were then no Laws:
  Therefore the maintenance of Pastors, before Emperours and Civill
  Soveraigns had made Laws to settle it, was nothing but Benevolence. They
  that served at the Altar lived on what was offered. In what court should
  they sue for it, who had no Tribunalls? Or if they had Arbitrators amongst
  themselves, who should execute their Judgments, when they had no power to
  arme their Officers? It remaineth therefore, that there could be no
  certaine maintenance assigned to any Pastors of the Church, but by the
  whole Congregation; and then onely, when their Decrees should have the
  force (not onely of Canons, but also) of Laws; which Laws could not be
  made, but by Emperours, Kings, or other Civill Soveraignes. The Right of
  Tythes in Moses Law, could not be applyed to the then Ministers of the
  Gospell; because Moses and the High Priests were the Civill Soveraigns of
  the people under God, whose Kingdom amongst the Jews was present; whereas
  the Kingdome of God by Christ is yet to come.
<br />
  Hitherto hath been shewn what the Pastors of the Church are; what are the
  points of their Commission (as that they were to Preach, to Teach, to
  Baptize, to be Presidents in their severall Congregations;) what is
  Ecclesiasticall Censure, viz. Excommunication, that is to say, in those
  places where Christianity was forbidden by the Civill Laws, a putting of
  themselves out of the company of the Excommunicate, and where Christianity
  was by the Civill Law commanded, a putting the Excommunicate out of the
  Congregations of Christians; who elected the Pastors and Ministers of the
  Church, (that it was, the Congregation); who consecrated and blessed them,
  (that it was the Pastor); what was their due revenue, (that it was none
  but their own possessions, and their own labour, and the voluntary
  contributions of devout and gratefull Christians). We are to consider now,
  what Office those persons have, who being Civill Soveraignes, have
  embraced also the Christian Faith.

  The Civill Soveraign Being A Christian Hath The Right Of Appointing
  Pastors


  And first, we are to remember, that the Right of Judging what Doctrines
  are fit for Peace, and to be taught the Subjects, is in all Common-wealths
  inseparably annexed (as hath been already proved cha. 18.) to the
  Soveraign Power Civill, whether it be in one Man, or in one Assembly of
  men. For it is evident to the meanest capacity, that mens actions are
  derived from the opinions they have of the Good, or Evill, which from
  those actions redound unto themselves; and consequently, men that are once
  possessed of an opinion, that their obedience to the Soveraign Power, will
  bee more hurtfull to them, than their disobedience, will disobey the Laws,
  and thereby overthrow the Common-wealth, and introduce confusion, and
  Civill war; for the avoiding whereof, all Civill Government was ordained.
  And therefore in all Common-wealths of the Heathen, the Soveraigns have
  had the name of Pastors of the People, because there was no Subject that
  could lawfully Teach the people, but by their permission and authority.
<br />
  This Right of the Heathen Kings, cannot bee thought taken from them by
  their conversion to the Faith of Christ; who never ordained, that Kings
  for beleeving in him, should be deposed, that is, subjected to any but
  himself, or (which is all one) be deprived of the power necessary for the
  conservation of Peace amongst their Subjects, and for their defence
  against foraign Enemies. And therefore Christian Kings are still the
  Supreme Pastors of their people, and have power to ordain what Pastors
  they please, to teach the Church, that is, to teach the People committed
  to their charge.
<br />
  Again, let the right of choosing them be (as before the conversion of
  Kings) in the Church, for so it was in the time of the Apostles themselves
  (as hath been shewn already in this chapter); even so also the Right will
  be in the Civill Soveraign, Christian. For in that he is a Christian, he
  allowes the Teaching; and in that he is the Soveraign (which is as much as
  to say, the Church by Representation,) the Teachers hee elects, are
  elected by the Church. And when an Assembly of Christians choose their
  Pastor in a Christian Common-wealth, it is the Soveraign that electeth
  him, because tis done by his Authority; In the same manner, as when a Town
  choose their Maior, it is the act of him that hath the Soveraign Power:
  For every act done, is the act of him, without whose consent it is
  invalid. And therefore whatsoever examples may be drawn out of History,
  concerning the Election of Pastors, by the People, or by the Clergy, they
  are no arguments against the Right of any Civill Soveraign, because they
  that elected them did it by his Authority.
<br />
  Seeing then in every Christian Common-wealth, the Civill Soveraign is the
  Supreme Pastor, to whose charge the whole flock of his Subjects is
  committed, and consequently that it is by his authority, that all other
  Pastors are made, and have power to teach, and performe all other
  Pastorall offices; it followeth also, that it is from the Civill
  Soveraign, that all other Pastors derive their right of Teaching,
  Preaching, and other functions pertaining to that Office; and that they
  are but his Ministers; in the same manner as the Magistrates of Towns,
  Judges in Courts of Justice, and Commanders of Armies, are all but
  Ministers of him that is the Magistrate of the whole Common-wealth, Judge
  of all Causes, and Commander of the whole Militia, which is alwayes the
  Civill Soveraign. And the reason hereof, is not because they that Teach,
  but because they that are to Learn, are his Subjects. For let it be
  supposed, that a Christian King commit the Authority of Ordaining Pastors
  in his Dominions to another King, (as divers Christian Kings allow that
  power to the Pope;) he doth not thereby constitute a Pastor over himself,
  nor a Soveraign Pastor over his People; for that were to deprive himself
  of the Civill Power; which depending on the opinion men have of their Duty
  to him, and the fear they have of Punishment in another world, would
  depend also on the skill, and loyalty of Doctors, who are no lesse
  subject, not only to Ambition, but also to Ignorance, than any other sort
  of men. So that where a stranger hath authority to appoint Teachers, it is
  given him by the Soveraign in whose Dominions he teacheth. Christian
  Doctors are our Schoolmasters to Christianity; But Kings are Fathers of
  Families, and may receive Schoolmasters for their Subjects from the
  recommendation of a stranger, but not from the command; especially when
  the ill teaching them shall redound to the great and manifest profit of
  him that recommends them: nor can they be obliged to retain them, longer
  than it is for the Publique good; the care of which they stand so long
  charged withall, as they retain any other essentiall Right of the
  Soveraignty.

  The Pastorall Authority Of Soveraigns Only Is De Jure Divino, That Of
  Other Pastors Is Jure Civili


  If a man therefore should ask a Pastor, in the execution of his Office, as
  the chief Priests and Elders of the people (Mat. 21.23.) asked our
  Saviour, &ldquo;By what authority dost thou these things, and who gave thee this
  authority:&rdquo; he can make no other just Answer, but that he doth it by the
  Authority of the Common-wealth, given him by the King, or Assembly that
  representeth it. All Pastors, except the Supreme, execute their charges in
  the Right, that is by the Authority of the Civill Soveraign, that is, Jure
  Civili. But the King, and every other Soveraign executeth his Office of
  Supreme Pastor, by immediate Authority from God, that is to say, In Gods
  Right, or Jure Divino. And therefore none but Kings can put into their
  Titles (a mark of their submission to God onely ) Dei Gratia Rex, &c.
  Bishops ought to say in the beginning of their Mandates, &ldquo;By the favour of
  the Kings Majesty, Bishop of such a Diocesse;&rdquo; or as Civill Ministers, &ldquo;In
  his Majesties Name.&rdquo; For in saying, Divina Providentia, which is the same
  with Dei Gratia, though disguised, they deny to have received their
  authority from the Civill State; and sliely slip off the Collar of their
  Civill Subjection, contrary to the unity and defence of the Common-wealth.

  Christian Kings Have Power To Execute All Manner Of Pastoral Function


  But if every Christian Soveraign be the Supreme Pastor of his own
  Subjects, it seemeth that he hath also the Authority, not only to Preach
  (which perhaps no man will deny;) but also to Baptize, and to Administer
  the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; and to Consecrate both Temples, and
  Pastors to Gods service; which most men deny; partly because they use not
  to do it; and partly because the Administration of Sacraments, and
  Consecration of Persons, and Places to holy uses, requireth the Imposition
  of such mens hands, as by the like Imposition successively from the time
  of the Apostles have been ordained to the like Ministery. For proof
  therefore that Christian Kings have power to Baptize, and to Consecrate, I
  am to render a reason, both why they use not to doe it, and how, without
  the ordinary ceremony of Imposition of hands, they are made capable of
  doing it, when they will.
<br />
  There is no doubt but any King, in case he were skilfull in the Sciences,
  might by the same Right of his Office, read Lectures of them himself, by
  which he authorizeth others to read them in the Universities.
  Neverthelesse, because the care of the summe of the businesse of the
  Common-wealth taketh up his whole time, it were not convenient for him to
  apply himself in Person to that particular. A King may also if he please,
  sit in Judgment, to hear and determine all manner of Causes, as well as
  give others authority to doe it in his name; but that the charge that
  lyeth upon him of Command and Government, constrain him to bee continually
  at the Helm, and to commit the Ministeriall Offices to others under him.
  In the like manner our Saviour (who surely had power to Baptize) Baptized
  none himselfe, but sent his Apostles and Disciples to Baptize. (John 4.2.)
  So also S. Paul, by the necessity of Preaching in divers and far distant
  places, Baptized few: Amongst all the Corinthians he Baptized only
  Crispus, Cajus, and Stephanus; (1 Cor.1.14,16.) and the reason was,
  because his principall Charge was to Preach. (1 Cor. 1.17.) Whereby it is
  manifest, that the greater Charge, (such as is the Government of the
  Church,) is a dispensation for the lesse. The reason therefore why
  Christian Kings use not to Baptize, is evident, and the same, for which at
  this day there are few Baptized by Bishops, and by the Pope fewer.
<br />
  And as concerning Imposition of Hands, whether it be needfull, for the
  authorizing of a King to Baptize, and Consecrate, we may consider thus.
<br />
  Imposition of Hands, was a most ancient publique ceremony amongst the
  Jews, by which was designed, and made certain, the person, or other thing
  intended in a mans prayer, blessing, sacrifice, consecration,
  condemnation, or other speech. So Jacob in blessing the children of Joseph
  (Gen. 48.14.) &ldquo;Laid his right Hand on Ephraim the younger, and his left
  Hand on Manasseh the first born;&rdquo; and this he did Wittingly (though they
  were so presented to him by Joseph, as he was forced in doing it to
  stretch out his arms acrosse) to design to whom he intended the greater
  blessing. So also in the sacrificing of the Burnt offering, Aaron is
  commanded (Exod. 29.10.) &ldquo;to Lay his Hands on the head of the bullock;&rdquo;
  and (ver. 15.) &ldquo;to Lay his Hand on the head of the ramme.&rdquo; The same is
  also said again, Levit. 1.4. & 8.14. Likewise Moses when he ordained
  Joshua to be Captain of the Israelites, that is, consecrated him to Gods
  service, (Numb. 27.23.) &ldquo;Laid his hands upon him, and gave him his
  Charge,&rdquo; designing and rendring certain, who it was they were to obey in
  war. And in the consecration of the Levites (Numb. 8.10.) God commanded
  that &ldquo;the Children of Israel should Put their Hands upon the Levites.&rdquo; And
  in the condemnation of him that had blasphemed the Lord (Levit. 24.14.)
  God commanded that &ldquo;all that heard him should Lay their Hands on his head,
  and that all the Congregation should stone him.&rdquo; And why should they only
  that heard him, Lay their Hands upon him, and not rather a Priest, Levite,
  or other Minister of Justice, but that none else were able to design, and
  demonstrate to the eyes of the Congregation, who it was that had
  blasphemed, and ought to die? And to design a man, or any other thing, by
  the Hand to the Eye is lesse subject to mistake, than when it is done to
  the Eare by a Name.
<br />
  And so much was this ceremony observed, that in blessing the whole
  Congregation at once, which cannot be done by Laying on of Hands, yet
  &ldquo;Aaron (Levit. 9.22.) did lift up his Hand towards the people when he
  blessed them.&rdquo; And we read also of the like ceremony of Consecration of
  Temples amongst the Heathen, as that the Priest laid his Hands on some
  post of the Temple, all the while he was uttering the words of
  Consecration. So naturall it is to design any individuall thing, rather by
  the Hand, to assure the Eyes, than by Words to inform the Eare in matters
  of Gods Publique service.
<br />
  This ceremony was not therefore new in our Saviours time. For Jairus (Mark
  5.23.) whose daughter was sick, besought our Saviour (not to heal her,
  but) &ldquo;to Lay his Hands upon her, that shee might bee healed.&rdquo; And (Matth.
  19.13.) &ldquo;they brought unto him little children, that hee should Put his
  Hands on them, and Pray.&rdquo;
<br />
  According to this ancient Rite, the Apostles, and Presbyters, and the
  Presbytery it self, Laid Hands on them whom they ordained Pastors, and
  withall prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost; and that
  not only once, but sometimes oftner, when a new occasion was presented:
  but the end was still the same, namely a punctuall, and religious
  designation of the person, ordained either to the Pastorall Charge in
  general, or to a particular Mission: so (Act. 6.6.) &ldquo;The Apostles Prayed,
  and Laid their Hands&rdquo; on the seven Deacons; which was done, not to give
  them the Holy Ghost, (for they were full of the Holy Ghost before thy were
  chosen, as appeareth immediately before, verse 3.) but to design them to
  that Office. And after Philip the Deacon had converted certain persons in
  Samaria, Peter and John went down (Act. 8.17.)&rdquo; and laid their Hands on
  them, and they received the Holy Ghost.&rdquo; And not only an Apostle, but a
  Presbyter had this power: For S. Paul adviseth Timothy (1 Tim. 5.22.) &ldquo;Lay
  Hands suddenly on no man;&rdquo; that is, designe no man rashly to the Office of
  a Pastor. The whole Presbytery Laid their Hands on Timothy, as we read 1
  Tim. 4.14. but this is to be understood, as that some did it by the
  appointment of the Presbytery, and most likely their Proestos, or
  Prolocutor, which it may be was St. Paul himself. For in his 2 Epist. to
  Tim. ver. 6. he saith to him, &ldquo;Stirre up the gift of God which is in thee,
  by the Laying on of my Hands:&rdquo; where note by the way, that by the Holy
  ghost, is not meant the third Person in the Trinity, but the Gifts
  necessary to the Pastorall Office. We read also, that St. Paul had
  Imposition of Hands twice; once from Ananias at Damascus (Acts 9.17,18.)
  at the time of his Baptisme; and again (Acts 13.3.) at Antioch, when he
  was first sent out to Preach. The use then of this ceremony considered in
  the Ordination of Pastors, was to design the Person to whom they gave such
  Power. But if there had been then any Christian, that had had the Power of
  Teaching before; the Baptizing of him, that is the making of him a
  Christian, had given him no new Power, but had onely caused him to preach
  true Doctrine, that is, to use his Power aright; and therefore the
  Imposition of Hands had been unnecessary; Baptisme it selfe had been
  sufficient. But every Soveraign, before Christianity, had the power of
  Teaching, and Ordaining Teachers; and therefore Christianity gave them no
  new Right, but only directed them in the way of teaching truth; and
  consequently they needed no Imposition of Hands (besides that which is
  done in Baptisme) to authorize them to exercise any part of the Pastorall
  Function, as namely, to Baptize, and Consecrate. And in the Old Testament,
  though the Priest only had right to Consecrate, during the time that the
  Soveraignty was in the High Priest; yet it was not so when the Soveraignty
  was in the King: For we read (1 Kings 8.) That Solomon Blessed the People,
  Consecrated the Temple, and pronounced that Publique Prayer, which is the
  pattern now for Consecration of all Christian Churches, and Chappels:
  whereby it appears, he had not only the right of Ecclesiasticall
  Government; but also of exercising Ecclesiasticall Functions.

  The Civill Soveraigne If A Christian, Is Head Of The Church In His Own
  Dominions


  From this consolidation of the Right Politique, and Ecclesiastique in
  Christian Soveraigns, it is evident, they have all manner of Power over
  their Subjects, that can be given to man, for the government of mens
  externall actions, both in Policy, and Religion; and may make such Laws,
  as themselves shall judge fittest, for the government of their own
  Subjects, both as they are the Common-wealth, and as they are the Church:
  for both State, and Church are the same men.
<br />
  If they please therefore, they may (as many Christian Kings now doe)
  commit the government of their Subjects in matters of Religion to the
  Pope; but then the Pope is in that point Subordinate to them, and
  exerciseth that Charge in anothers Dominion Jure Civili, in the Right of
  the Civill Soveraign; not Jure Divino, in Gods Right; and may therefore be
  discharged of that Office, when the Soveraign for the good of his Subjects
  shall think it necessary. They may also if they please, commit the care of
  Religion to one Supreme Pastor, or to an Assembly of Pastors; and give
  them what power over the Church, or one over another, they think most
  convenient; and what titles of honor, as of Bishops, Archbishops, Priests,
  or Presbyters, they will; and make such Laws for their maintenance, either
  by Tithes, or otherwise, as they please, so they doe it out of a sincere
  conscience, of which God onely is the Judge. It is the Civill Soveraign,
  that is to appoint Judges, and Interpreters of the Canonicall Scriptures;
  for it is he that maketh them Laws. It is he also that giveth strength to
  Excommunications; which but for such Laws and Punishments, as may humble
  obstinate Libertines, and reduce them to union with the rest of the
  Church, would bee contemned. In summe, he hath the Supreme Power in all
  causes, as well Ecclesiasticall, as Civill, as far as concerneth actions,
  and words, for these onely are known, and may be accused; and of that
  which cannot be accused, there is no Judg at all, but God, that knoweth
  the heart. And these Rights are incident to all Soveraigns, whether
  Monarchs, or Assemblies: for they that are the Representants of a
  Christian People, are Representants of the Church: for a Church, and a
  Common-wealth of Christian People, are the same thing.

  Cardinal Bellarmines Books De Summo Pontifice Considered


  Though this that I have here said, and in other places of this Book, seem
  cleer enough for the asserting of the Supreme Ecclesiasticall Power to
  Christian Soveraigns; yet because the Pope of Romes challenge to that
  Power universally, hath been maintained chiefly, and I think as strongly
  as is possible, by Cardinall Bellarmine, in his Controversie De Summo
  Pontifice; I have thought it necessary, as briefly as I can, to examine
  the grounds, and strength of his Discourse.

  The First Book


  Of five Books he hath written of this subject, the first containeth three
  Questions: One, Which is simply the best government, Monarchy,
  Aristocracy, or Democracy; and concludeth for neither, but for a
  government mixt of all there: Another, which of these is the best
  Government of the Church; and concludeth for the mixt, but which should
  most participate of Monarchy: the third, whether in this mixt Monarchy,
  St. Peter had the place of Monarch. Concerning his first Conclusion, I
  have already sufficiently proved (chapt. 18.) that all Governments which
  men are bound to obey, are Simple, and Absolute. In Monarchy there is but
  One Man Supreme; and all other men that have any kind of Power in the
  State, have it by his Commission, during his pleasure; and execute it in
  his name: And in Aristocracy, and Democracy, but One Supreme Assembly,
  with the same Power that in Monarchy belongeth to the Monarch, which is
  not a Mixt, but an Absolute Soveraignty. And of the three sorts, which is
  the best, is not to be disputed, where any one of them is already
  established; but the present ought alwaies to be preferred, maintained,
  and accounted best; because it is against both the Law of Nature, and the
  Divine positive Law, to doe any thing tending to the subversion thereof.
  Besides, it maketh nothing to the Power of any Pastor, (unlesse he have
  the Civill Soveraignty,) what kind of Government is the best; because
  their Calling is not to govern men by Commandement, but to teach them, and
  perswade them by Arguments, and leave it to them to consider, whether they
  shall embrace, or reject the Doctrine taught. For Monarchy, Aristocracy,
  and Democracy, do mark out unto us three sorts of Soveraigns, not of
  Pastors; or, as we may say, three sorts of Masters of Families, not three
  sorts of Schoolmasters for their children.
<br />
  And therefore the second Conclusion, concerning the best form of
  Government of the Church, is nothing to the question of the Popes Power
  without his own Dominions: For in all other Common-wealths his Power (if
  hee have any at all) is that of the Schoolmaster onely, and not of the
  Master of the Family.
<br />
  For the third Conclusion, which is, that St. Peter was Monarch of the
  Church, he bringeth for his chiefe argument the place of S. Matth. (chap.
  16.18, 19.) &ldquo;Thou art Peter, And upon this rock I will build my Church,
  &c. And I will give thee the keyes of Heaven; whatsoever thou shalt
  bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose
  on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven.&rdquo; Which place well considered, proveth
  no more, but that the Church of Christ hath for foundation one onely
  Article; namely, that which Peter in the name of all the Apostles
  professing, gave occasion to our Saviour to speak the words here cited;
  which that wee may cleerly understand, we are to consider, that our
  Saviour preached by himself, by John Baptist, and by his Apostles, nothing
  but this Article of Faith, &ldquo;that he was the Christ;&rdquo; all other Articles
  requiring faith no otherwise, than as founded on that. John began first,
  (Mat. 3.2.) preaching only this, &ldquo;The Kingdome of God is at hand.&rdquo; Then
  our Saviour himself (Mat. 4.17.) preached the same: And to his Twelve
  Apostles, when he gave them their Commission (Mat. 10.7.) there is no
  mention of preaching any other Article but that. This was the fundamentall
  Article, that is the Foundation of the Churches Faith. Afterwards the
  Apostles being returned to him, he asketh them all, (Mat. 16.13) not Peter
  onely, &ldquo;Who men said he was;&rdquo; and they answered, that &ldquo;some said he was
  John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the
  Prophets:&rdquo; Then (ver. 15.) he asked them all again, (not Peter onely)
  &ldquo;Whom say yee that I am?&rdquo; Therefore Peter answered (for them all) &ldquo;Thou
  art Christ, the Son of the Living God;&rdquo; which I said is the Foundation of
  the Faith of the whole Church; from which our Saviour takes the occasion
  of saying, &ldquo;Upon this stone I will build my Church;&rdquo; By which it is
  manifest, that by the Foundation-Stone of the Church, was meant the
  Fundamentall Article of the Churches Faith. But why then (will some
  object) doth our Saviour interpose these words, &ldquo;Thou art Peter&rdquo;? If the
  originall of this text had been rigidly translated, the reason would
  easily have appeared: We are therefore to consider, that the Apostle
  Simon, was surnamed Stone, (which is the signification of the Syriacke
  word Cephas, and of the Greek word Petrus). Our Saviour therefore after
  the confession of that Fundamentall Article, alluding to his name, said
  (as if it were in English) thus, Thou art &ldquo;Stone,&rdquo; and upon this Stone I
  will build my Church: which is as much as to say, this Article, that &ldquo;I am
  the Christ,&rdquo; is the Foundation of all the Faith I require in those that
  are to bee members of my Church: Neither is this allusion to a name, an
  unusuall thing in common speech: But it had been a strange, and obscure
  speech, if our Saviour intending to build his Church on the Person of St.
  Peter, had said, &ldquo;thou art a Stone, and upon this Stone I will build my
  Church,&rdquo; when it was so obvious without ambiguity to have said, &ldquo;I will
  build my Church on thee; and yet there had been still the same allusion to
  his name.
<br />
  And for the following words, &ldquo;I will give thee the Keyes of Heaven, &c.&rdquo;
  it is no more than what our Saviour gave also to all the rest of his
  Disciples (Matth. 18.18.) &ldquo;Whatsoever yee shall bind on Earth, shall be
  bound in Heaven. And whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth, shall be loosed
  in Heaven.&rdquo; But howsoever this be interpreted, there is no doubt but the
  Power here granted belongs to all Supreme Pastors; such as are all
  Christian Civill Soveraignes in their own Dominions. In so much, as if St.
  Peter, or our Saviour himself had converted any of them to beleeve him,
  and to acknowledge his Kingdome; yet because his Kingdome is not of this
  world, he had left the supreme care of converting his subjects to none but
  him; or else hee must have deprived him of the Soveraignty, to which the
  Right of Teaching is inseparably annexed. And thus much in refutation of
  his first Book, wherein hee would prove St. Peter to have been the Monarch
  Universall of the Church, that is to say, of all the Christians in the
  world.

  The Second Book


  The second Book hath two Conclusions: One, that S. Peter was Bishop of
  Rome, and there dyed: The other, that the Popes of Rome are his
  Successors. Both which have been disputed by others. But supposing them to
  be true; yet if by Bishop of Rome bee understood either the Monarch of the
  Church, or the Supreme Pastor of it; not Silvester, but Constantine (who
  was the first Christian Emperour) was that Bishop; and as Constantine, so
  all other Christian Emperors were of Right supreme Bishops of the Roman
  Empire; I say of the Roman Empire, not of all Christendome: For other
  Christian Soveraigns had the same Right in their severall Territories, as
  to an Office essentially adhaerent to their Soveraignty. Which shall serve
  for answer to his second Book.

  The Third Book


  In the third Book, he handleth the question whether the Pope be
  Antichrist. For my part, I see no argument that proves he is so, in that
  sense that Scripture useth the name: nor will I take any argument from the
  quality of Antichrist, to contradict the Authority he exerciseth, or hath
  heretofore exercised in the Dominions of any other Prince, or State.
<br />
  It is evident that the Prophets of the Old Testament foretold, and the
  Jews expected a Messiah, that is, a Christ, that should re-establish
  amongst them the kingdom of God, which had been rejected by them in the
  time of Samuel, when they required a King after the manner of other
  Nations. This expectation of theirs, made them obnoxious to the Imposture
  of all such, as had both the ambition to attempt the attaining of the
  Kingdome, and the art to deceive the People by counterfeit miracles, by
  hypocriticall life, or by orations and doctrine plausible. Our Saviour
  therefore, and his Apostles forewarned men of False Prophets, and of False
  Christs. False Christs, are such as pretend to be the Christ, but are not,
  and are called properly Antichrists, in such sense, as when there
  happeneth a Schisme in the Church by the election of two Popes, the one
  calleth the other Antipapa, or the false Pope. And therefore Antichrist in
  the proper signification hath two essentiall marks; One, that he denyeth
  Jesus to be Christ; and another that he professeth himselfe to bee Christ.
  The first Mark is set down by S. John in his 1 Epist. 4. ch. 3. ver.
  &ldquo;Every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh,
  is not of God; And this is the Spirit of Antichrist.&rdquo; The other Mark is
  expressed in the words of our Saviour, (Mat. 24.5.) &ldquo;Many shall come in my
  name, saying, I am Christ;&rdquo; and again, &ldquo;If any man shall say unto you,
  Loe, here is Christ, there is Christ beleeve it not.&rdquo; And therefore
  Antichrist must be a False Christ, that is, some one of them that shall
  pretend themselves to be Christ. And out of these two Marks, &ldquo;to deny
  Jesus to be the Christ,&rdquo; and to &ldquo;affirm himselfe to be the Christ,&rdquo; it
  followeth, that he must also be an &ldquo;Adversary of the true Christ,&rdquo; which
  is another usuall signification of the word Antichrist. But of these many
  Antichrists, there is one speciall one, O Antichristos, The Antichrist, or
  Antichrist definitely, as one certaine person; not indefinitely An
  Antichrist. Now seeing the Pope of Rome, neither pretendeth himself, nor
  denyeth Jesus to be the Christ, I perceive not how he can be called
  Antichrist; by which word is not meant, one that falsely pretendeth to be
  His Lieutenant, or Vicar Generall, but to be Hee. There is also some Mark
  of the time of this speciall Antichrist, as (Mat. 24.15.) when that
  abominable Destroyer, spoken of by Daniel, (Dan. 9. 27.) shall stand in
  the Holy place, and such tribulation as was not since the beginning of the
  world, nor ever shall be again, insomuch as if it were to last long, (ver.
  22.) &ldquo;no flesh could be saved; but for the elects sake those days shall be
  shortened&rdquo; (made fewer). But that tribulation is not yet come; for it is
  to be followed immediately (ver. 29.) by a darkening of the Sun and Moon,
  a falling of the Stars, a concussion of the Heavens, and the glorious
  coming again of our Saviour, in the cloudes. And therefore The Antichrist
  is not yet come; whereas, many Popes are both come and gone. It is true,
  the Pope in taking upon him to give Laws to all Christian Kings, and
  Nations, usurpeth a Kingdome in this world, which Christ took not on him:
  but he doth it not As Christ, but as For Christ, wherein there is nothing
  of the Antichrist.

  The Fourth Book


  In the fourth Book, to prove the Pope to be the supreme Judg in all
  questions of Faith and Manners, (which is as much as to be the absolute
  Monarch of all Christians in the world,) be bringeth three Propositions:
  The first, that his Judgments are Infallible: The second, that he can make
  very Laws, and punish those that observe them not: The third, that our
  Saviour conferred all Jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall on the Pope of Rome.

  Texts For The Infallibility Of The Popes Judgement In Points Of Faith


  For the Infallibility of his Judgments, he alledgeth the Scriptures: and
  first, that of Luke 22.31. &ldquo;Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired you that hee
  may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith faile
  not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy Brethren.&rdquo; This,
  according to Bellarmines exposition, is, that Christ gave here to Simon
  Peter two priviledges: one, that neither his Faith should fail, neither
  he, nor any of his successors should ever define any point concerning
  Faith, or Manners erroneously, or contrary to the definition of a former
  Pope: Which is a strange, and very much strained interpretation. But he
  that with attention readeth that chapter, shall find there is no place in
  the whole Scripture, that maketh more against the Popes Authority, than
  this very place. The Priests and Scribes seeking to kill our Saviour at
  the Passeover, and Judas possessed with a resolution to betray him, and
  the day of killing the Passeover being come, our Saviour celebrated the
  same with his Apostles, which he said, till the Kingdome of God was come
  hee would doe no more; and withall told them, that one of them was to
  betray him: Hereupon they questioned, which of them it should be; and
  withall (seeing the next Passeover their Master would celebrate should be
  when he was King) entred into a contention, who should then be the greater
  man. Our Saviour therefore told them, that the Kings of the Nations had
  Dominion over their Subjects, and are called by a name (in Hebrew) that
  signifies Bountifull; but I cannot be so to you, you must endeavour to
  serve one another; I ordain you a Kingdome, but it is such as my Father
  hath ordained mee; a Kingdome that I am now to purchase with my blood, and
  not to possesse till my second coming; then yee shall eat and drink at my
  Table, and sit on Thrones, judging the twelve Tribes of Israel: And then
  addressing himself to St. Peter, he saith, Simon, Simon, Satan seeks by
  suggesting a present domination, to weaken your faith of the future; but I
  have prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not fail; Thou therefore (Note
  this,) being converted, and understanding my Kingdome as of another world,
  confirm the same faith in thy Brethren: To which S. Peter answered (as one
  that no more expected any authority in this world) &ldquo;Lord I am ready to goe
  with thee, not onely to Prison, but to Death.&rdquo; Whereby it is manifest, S.
  Peter had not onely no jurisdiction given him in this world, but a charge
  to teach all the other Apostles, that they also should have none. And for
  the Infallibility of St. Peters sentence definitive in matter of Faith,
  there is no more to be attributed to it out of this Text, than that Peter
  should continue in the beleef of this point, namely, that Christ should
  come again, and possesse the Kingdome at the day of Judgement; which was
  not given by the Text to all his Successors; for wee see they claim it in
  the World that now is.
<br />
  The second place is that of Matth. 16. &ldquo;Thou art Peter, and upon this
  rocke I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail
  against it.&rdquo; By which (as I have already shewn in this chapter) is proved
  no more, than that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the
  confession of Peter, which gave occasion to that speech; namely this, That
  Jesus Is Christ The Sonne Of God.
<br />
  The third text is John 21. ver. 16,17. &ldquo;Feed my sheep;&rdquo; which contains no
  more but a Commission of Teaching: And if we grant the rest of the
  Apostles to be contained in that name of Sheep; then it is the supreme
  Power of Teaching: but it was onely for the time that there were no
  Christian Soveraigns already possessed of that Supremacy. But I have
  already proved, that Christian Soveraignes are in their owne Dominions the
  supreme Pastors, and instituted thereto, by vertue of their being
  Baptized, though without other Imposition of Hands. For such imposition
  being a Ceremony of designing the person, is needlesse, when hee is
  already designed to the Power of Teaching what Doctrine he will, by his
  institution to an Absolute Power over his Subjects. For as I have proved
  before, Soveraigns are supreme Teachers (in generall) by their Office and
  therefore oblige themselves (by their Baptisme) to teach the Doctrine of
  Christ: And when they suffer others to teach their people, they doe it at
  the perill of their own souls; for it is at the hands of the Heads of
  Families that God will require the account of the instruction of his
  Children and Servants. It is of Abraham himself, not of a hireling, that
  God saith (Gen. 18.19) &ldquo;I know him that he will command his Children, and
  his houshold after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, and do justice
  and judgement.
<br />
  The fourth place is that of Exod. 28.30. &ldquo;Thou shalt put in the
  Breastplate of Judgment, the Urim and the Thummin:&rdquo; which hee saith is
  interpreted by the Septuagint, delosin kai aletheian, that is, Evidence
  and Truth: And thence concludeth, God had given Evidence, and Truth,
  (which is almost infallibility,) to the High Priest. But be it Evidence
  and Truth it selfe that was given; or be it but Admonition to the Priest
  to endeavour to inform himself cleerly, and give judgment uprightly; yet
  in that it was given to the High Priest, it was given to the Civill
  Soveraign: For next under God was the High Priest in the Common-wealth of
  Israel; and is an argument for Evidence and Truth, that is, for the
  Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of Civill Soveraigns over their own Subjects,
  against the pretended Power of the Pope. These are all the Texts hee
  bringeth for the Infallibility of the Judgement of the Pope, in point of
  Faith.

  Texts For The Same In Point Of Manners


  For the Infallibility of his Judgment concerning Manners, hee bringeth one
  Text, which is that of John 16.13. &ldquo;When the Spirit of truth is come, hee
  will lead you into all truth&rdquo; where (saith he) by All Truth, is meant, at
  least, All Truth Necessary To Salvation. But with this mitigation, he
  attributeth no more Infallibility to the Pope, than to any man that
  professeth Christianity, and is not to be damned: For if any man erre in
  any point, wherein not to erre is necessary to Salvation, it is impossible
  he should be saved; for that onely is necessary to Salvation, without
  which to be saved is impossible. What points these are, I shall declare
  out of the Scripture in the Chapter following. In this place I say no
  more, but that though it were granted, the Pope could not possibly teach
  any error at all, yet doth not this entitle him to any Jurisdiction in the
  Dominions of another Prince, unlesse we shall also say, a man is obliged
  in conscience to set on work upon all occasions the best workman, even
  then also when he hath formerly promised his work to another.
<br />
  Besides the Text, he argueth from Reason, thus, If the Pope could erre in
  necessaries, then Christ hath not sufficiently provided for the Churches
  Salvation; because he hath commanded her to follow the Popes directions.
  But this Reason is invalid, unlesse he shew when, and where Christ
  commanded that, or took at all any notice of a Pope: Nay granting
  whatsoever was given to S. Peter was given to the Pope; yet seeing there
  is in the Scripture no command to any man to obey St. Peter, no man can
  bee just, that obeyeth him, when his commands are contrary to those of his
  lawfull Soveraign.
<br />
  Lastly, it hath not been declared by the Church, nor by the Pope himselfe,
  that he is the Civill Soveraign of all the Christians in the world; and
  therefore all Christians are not bound to acknowledge his Jurisdiction in
  point of Manners. For the Civill Soveraignty, and supreme Judicature in
  controversies of Manners, are the same thing: And the Makers of Civill
  Laws, are not onely Declarers, but also Makers of the justice, and
  injustice of actions; there being nothing in mens Manners that makes them
  righteous, or unrighteous, but their conformity with the Law of the
  Soveraign. And therefore when the Pope challengeth Supremacy in
  controversies of Manners, hee teacheth men to disobey the Civill
  Soveraign; which is an erroneous Doctrine, contrary to the many precepts
  of our Saviour and his Apostles, delivered to us in the Scripture.
<br />
  To prove the Pope has Power to make Laws, he alledgeth many places; as
  first, Deut. 17.12. &ldquo;The man that will doe presumptuously, and will not
  hearken unto the Priest, (that standeth to Minister there before the Lord
  thy God, or unto the Judge,) even that man shall die, and thou shalt put
  away the evill from Israel.&rdquo; For answer whereunto, we are to remember that
  the High Priest (next and immediately under God) was the Civill Soveraign;
  and all Judges were to be constituted by him. The words alledged sound
  therefore thus. &ldquo;The man that will presume to disobey the Civill Soveraign
  for the time being, or any of his Officers in the execution of their
  places, that man shall die, &c.&rdquo; which is cleerly for the Civill
  Soveraignty, against the Universall power of the Pope.
<br />
  Secondly, he alledgeth that of Matth. 16. &ldquo;Whatsoever yee shall bind,
  &c.&rdquo; and interpreteth it for such Binding as is attributed (Matth.
  23.4.) to the Scribes and Pharisees, &ldquo;They bind heavy burthens, and
  grievous to be born, and lay them on mens shoulders;&rdquo; by which is meant
  (he sayes) Making of Laws; and concludes thence, the Pope can make Laws.
  But this also maketh onely for the Legislative power of Civill Soveraigns:
  For the Scribes, and Pharisees sat in Moses Chaire, but Moses next under
  God was Soveraign of the People of Israel: and therefore our Saviour
  commanded them to doe all that they should say, but not all that they
  should do. That is, to obey their Laws, but not follow their Example.
<br />
  The third place, is John 21.16. &ldquo;Feed my sheep;&rdquo; which is not a Power to
  make Laws, but a command to Teach. Making Laws belongs to the Lord of the
  Family; who by his owne discretion chooseth his Chaplain, as also a
  Schoolmaster to Teach his children.
<br />
  The fourth place John 20.21. is against him. The words are, &ldquo;As my Father
  sent me, so send I you.&rdquo; But our Saviour was sent to Redeem (by his Death)
  such as should Beleeve; and by his own, and his Apostles preaching to
  prepare them for their entrance into his Kingdome; which he himself saith,
  is not of this world, and hath taught us to pray for the coming of it
  hereafter, though hee refused (Acts 1.6,7.) to tell his Apostles when it
  should come; and in which, when it comes, the twelve Apostles shall sit on
  twelve Thrones (every one perhaps as high as that of St. Peter) to judge
  the twelve tribes of Israel. Seeing then God the Father sent not our
  Saviour to make Laws in this present world, wee may conclude from the
  Text, that neither did our Saviour send S. Peter to make Laws here, but to
  perswade men to expect his second comming with a stedfast faith; and in
  the mean time, if Subjects, to obey their Princes; and if Princes, both to
  beleeve it themselves, and to do their best to make their Subjects doe the
  same; which is the Office of a Bishop. Therefore this place maketh most
  strongly for the joining of the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy to the Civill
  Soveraignty, contrary to that which Cardinall Bellarmine alledgeth it for.
<br />
  The fift place is Acts 15.28. &ldquo;It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and
  to us, to lay upon you no greater burden, than these necessary things,
  that yee abstaine from meats offered to Idols, and from bloud, and from
  things strangled, and from fornication.&rdquo; Here hee notes the word Laying Of
  Burdens for the Legislative Power. But who is there, that reading this
  Text, can say, this stile of the Apostles may not as properly be used in
  giving Counsell, as in making Laws? The stile of a Law is, We Command:
  But, We Think Good, is the ordinary stile of them, that but give Advice;
  and they lay a Burthen that give Advice, though it bee conditionall, that
  is, if they to whom they give it, will attain their ends: And such is the
  Burthen, of abstaining from things strangled, and from bloud; not
  absolute, but in case they will not erre. I have shewn before (chap. 25.)
  that Law, is distinguished from Counsell, in this, that the reason of a
  Law, is taken from the designe, and benefit of him that prescribeth it;
  but the reason of a Counsell, from the designe, and benefit of him, to
  whom the Counsell is given. But here, the Apostles aime onely at the
  benefit of the converted Gentiles, namely their Salvation; not at their
  own benefit; for having done their endeavour, they shall have their
  reward, whether they be obeyed, or not. And therefore the Acts of this
  Councell, were not Laws, but Counsells.
<br />
  The sixt place is that of Rom. 13. &ldquo;Let every Soul be subject to the
  Higher Powers, for there is no Power but of God;&rdquo; which is meant, he saith
  not onely of Secular, but also of Ecclesiasticall Princes. To which I
  answer, first, that there are no Ecclesiasticall Princes but those that
  are also Civill Soveraignes; and their Principalities exceed not the
  compasse of their Civill Soveraignty; without those bounds though they may
  be received for Doctors, they cannot be acknowledged for Princes. For if
  the Apostle had meant, we should be subject both to our own Princes, and
  also to the Pope, he had taught us a doctrine, which Christ himself hath
  told us is impossible, namely, &ldquo;to serve two Masters.&rdquo; And though the
  Apostle say in another place, &ldquo;I write these things being absent, lest
  being present I should use sharpnesse, according to the Power which the
  Lord hath given me;&rdquo; it is not, that he challenged a Power either to put
  to death, imprison, banish, whip, or fine any of them, which are
  Punishments; but onely to Excommunicate, which (without the Civill Power)
  is no more but a leaving of their company, and having no more to doe with
  them, than with a Heathen man, or a Publican; which in many occasions
  might be a greater pain to the Excommunicant, than to the Excommunicate.
<br />
  The seventh place is 1 Cor. 4.21. &ldquo;Shall I come unto you with a Rod, or in
  love, and the spirit of lenity?&rdquo; But here again, it is not the Power of a
  Magistrate to punish offenders, that is meant by a Rod; but onely the
  Power of Excommunication, which is not in its owne nature a Punishment,
  but onely a Denouncing of punishment, that Christ shall inflict, when he
  shall be in possession of his Kingdome, at the day of Judgment. Nor then
  also shall it bee properly a Punishment, as upon a Subject that hath
  broken the Law; but a Revenge, as upon an Enemy, or Revolter, that denyeth
  the Right of our Saviour to the Kingdome: And therefore this proveth not
  the Legislative Power of any Bishop, that has not also the Civill Power.
<br />
  The eighth place is, Timothy 3.2. &ldquo;A Bishop must be the husband but of one
  wife, vigilant, sober, &c.&rdquo; which he saith was a Law. I thought that
  none could make a Law in the Church, but the Monarch of the Church, St.
  Peter. But suppose this Precept made by the authority of St. Peter; yet I
  see no reason why to call it a Law, rather than an Advice, seeing Timothy
  was not a Subject, but a Disciple of St. Paul; nor the flock under the
  charge of Timothy, his Subjects in the Kingdome, but his Scholars in the
  Schoole of Christ: If all the Precepts he giveth Timothy, be Laws, why is
  not this also a Law, &ldquo;Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy
  healths sake&rdquo;? And why are not also the Precepts of good Physitians, so
  many Laws? but that it is not the Imperative manner of speaking, but an
  absolute Subjection to a Person, that maketh his Precept Laws.
<br />
  In like manner, the ninth place, 1 Tim. 5. 19. &ldquo;Against an Elder receive
  not an accusation, but before two or three Witnesses,&rdquo; is a wise Precept,
  but not a Law.
<br />
  The tenth place is, Luke 10.16. &ldquo;He that heareth you, heareth mee; and he
  that despiseth you, despiseth me.&rdquo; And there is no doubt, but he that
  despiseth the Counsell of those that are sent by Christ, despiseth the
  Counsell of Christ himself. But who are those now that are sent by Christ,
  but such as are ordained Pastors by lawfull Authority? and who are
  lawfully ordained, that are not ordained by the Soveraign Pastor? and who
  is ordained by the Soveraign Pastor in a Christian Common-wealth, that is
  not ordained by the authority of the Soveraign thereof? Out of this place
  therefore it followeth, that he which heareth his Soveraign being a
  Christian, heareth Christ; and hee that despiseth the Doctrine which his
  King being a Christian, authorizeth, despiseth the Doctrine of Christ
  (which is not that which Bellarmine intendeth here to prove, but the
  contrary). But all this is nothing to a Law. Nay more, a Christian King,
  as a Pastor, and Teacher of his Subjects, makes not thereby his Doctrines
  Laws. He cannot oblige men to beleeve; though as a Civill Soveraign he may
  make Laws suitable to his Doctrine, which may oblige men to certain
  actions, and sometimes to such as they would not otherwise do, and which
  he ought not to command; and yet when they are commanded, they are Laws;
  and the externall actions done in obedience to them, without the inward
  approbation, are the actions of the Soveraign, and not of the Subject,
  which is in that case but as an instrument, without any motion of his owne
  at all; because God hath commanded to obey them.
<br />
  The eleventh, is every place, where the Apostle for Counsell, putteth some
  word, by which men use to signifie Command; or calleth the following of
  his Counsell, by the name of Obedience. And therefore they are alledged
  out of 1 Cor. 11.2. &ldquo;I commend you for keeping my Precepts as I delivered
  them to you.&rdquo; The Greek is, &ldquo;I commend you for keeping those things I
  delivered to you, as I delivered them.&rdquo; Which is far from signifying that
  they were Laws, or any thing else, but good Counsell. And that of 1 Thess.
  4.2. &ldquo;You know what commandements we gave you:&rdquo; where the Greek word is
  paraggelias edokamen, equivalent to paredokamen, what wee delivered to
  you, as in the place next before alledged, which does not prove the
  Traditions of the Apostles, to be any more than Counsells; though as is
  said in the 8th verse, &ldquo;he that despiseth them, despiseth not man, but
  God&rdquo;: For our Saviour himself came not to Judge, that is, to be King in
  this world; but to Sacrifice himself for Sinners, and leave Doctors in his
  Church, to lead, not to drive men to Christ, who never accepteth forced
  actions, (which is all the Law produceth,) but the inward conversion of
  the heart; which is not the work of Laws, but of Counsell, and Doctrine.
<br />
  And that of 2 Thess. 3.14. &ldquo;If any man Obey not our word by this Epistle,
  note that man, and have no company with him, that he may bee ashamed&rdquo;:
  where from the word Obey, he would inferre, that this Epistle was a Law to
  the Thessalonians. The Epistles of the Emperours were indeed Laws. If
  therefore the Epistle of S. Paul were also a Law, they were to obey two
  Masters. But the word Obey, as it is in the Greek upakouei, signifieth
  Hearkening To, or Putting In Practice, not onely that which is Commanded
  by him that has right to punish, but also that which is delivered in a way
  of Counsell for our good; and therefore St. Paul does not bid kill him
  that disobeys, nor beat, nor imprison, nor amerce him, which Legislators
  may all do; but avoid his company, that he may bee ashamed: whereby it is
  evident, it was not the Empire of an Apostle, but his Reputation amongst
  the Faithfull, which the Christians stood in awe of.
<br />
  The last place is that of Heb. 13.17. &ldquo;Obey your Leaders, and submit your
  selves to them, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give
  account:&rdquo; And here also is intended by Obedience, a following of their
  Counsell: For the reason of our Obedience, is not drawn from the will and
  command of our Pastors, but from our own benefit, as being the Salvation
  of our Souls they watch for, and not for the Exaltation of their own
  Power, and Authority. If it were meant here, that all they teach were
  Laws, then not onely the Pope, but every Pastor in his Parish should have
  Legislative Power. Again, they that are bound to obey, their Pastors, have
  no power to examine their commands. What then shall wee say to St. John
  who bids us (1 Epist. chap. 4. ver. 1.) &ldquo;Not to beleeve every Spirit, but
  to try the Spirits whether they are of God, because many false Prophets
  are gone out into the world&rdquo;? It is therefore manifest, that wee may
  dispute the Doctrine of our Pastors; but no man can dispute a Law. The
  Commands of Civill Soveraigns are on all sides granted to be Laws: if any
  else can make a Law besides himselfe, all Common-wealth, and consequently
  all Peace, and Justice must cease; which is contrary to all Laws, both
  Divine and Humane. Nothing therefore can be drawn from these, or any other
  places of Scripture, to prove the Decrees of the Pope, where he has not
  also the Civill Soveraignty, to be Laws.
<br />
  The Question Of Superiority Between The Pope And Other Bishops The last
  point hee would prove, is this, &ldquo;That our Saviour Christ has committed
  Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction immediately to none but the Pope.&rdquo; Wherein he
  handleth not the Question of Supremacy between the Pope and Christian
  Kings, but between the Pope and other Bishops. And first, he sayes it is
  agreed, that the Jurisdiction of Bishops, is at least in the generall De
  Jure Divino, that is, in the Right of God; for which he alledges S. Paul,
  Ephes. 4.11. where hee sayes, that Christ after his Ascension into heaven,
  &ldquo;gave gifts to men, some Apostles, some Prophets, and some Evangelists,
  and some Pastors, and some Teachers:&rdquo; And thence inferres, they have
  indeed their Jurisdiction in Gods Right; but will not grant they have it
  immediately from God, but derived through the Pope. But if a man may be
  said to have his Jurisdiction De Jure Divino, and yet not immediately;
  what lawfull Jurisdiction, though but Civill, is there in a Christian
  Common-wealth, that is not also De Jure Divino? For Christian Kings have
  their Civill Power from God immediately; and the Magistrates under him
  exercise their severall charges in vertue of his Commission; wherein that
  which they doe, is no lesse De Jure Divino Mediato, than that which the
  Bishops doe, in vertue of the Popes Ordination. All lawfull Power is of
  God, immediately in the Supreme Governour, and mediately in those that
  have Authority under him: So that either hee must grant every Constable in
  the State, to hold his Office in the Right of God; or he must not hold
  that any Bishop holds his so, besides the Pope himselfe.
<br />
  But this whole Dispute, whether Christ left the Jurisdiction to the Pope
  onely, or to other Bishops also, if considered out of these places where
  the Pope has the Civill Soveraignty, is a contention De Lana Caprina: For
  none of them (where they are not Soveraigns) has any Jurisdiction at all.
  For Jurisdiction is the Power of hearing and determining Causes between
  man and man; and can belong to none, but him that hath the Power to
  prescribe the Rules of Right and Wrong; that is, to make Laws; and with
  the Sword of Justice to compell men to obey his Decisions, pronounced
  either by himself, or by the Judges he ordaineth thereunto; which none can
  lawfully do, but the Civill Soveraign.
<br />
  Therefore when he alledgeth out of the 6 of Luke, that our Saviour called
  his Disciples together, and chose twelve of them which he named Apostles,
  he proveth that he Elected them (all, except Matthias, Paul and Barnabas,)
  and gave them Power and Command to Preach, but not to Judge of Causes
  between man and man: for that is a Power which he refused to take upon
  himselfe, saying, &ldquo;Who made me a Judge, or a Divider, amongst you?&rdquo; and in
  another place, &ldquo;My Kingdome is not of this world.&rdquo; But hee that hath not
  the Power to hear, and determine Causes between man and man, cannot be
  said to have any Jurisdiction at all. And yet this hinders not, but that
  our Saviour gave them Power to Preach and Baptize in all parts of the
  world, supposing they were not by their own lawfull Soveraign forbidden:
  For to our own Soveraigns Christ himself, and his Apostles have in sundry
  places expressely commanded us in all things to be obedient.
<br />
  The arguments by which he would prove, that Bishops receive their
  Jurisdiction from the Pope (seeing the Pope in the Dominions of other
  Princes hath no Jurisdiction himself,) are all in vain. Yet because they
  prove, on the contrary, that all Bishops receive Jurisdiction when they
  have it from their Civill Soveraigns, I will not omit the recitall of
  them.
<br />
  The first, is from Numbers 11. where Moses not being able alone to
  undergoe the whole burthen of administring the affairs of the People of
  Israel, God commanded him to choose Seventy Elders, and took part of the
  spirit of Moses, to put it upon those Seventy Elders: by which it is
  understood, not that God weakened the spirit of Moses, for that had not
  eased him at all; but that they had all of them their authority from him;
  wherein he doth truly, and ingenuously interpret that place. But seeing
  Moses had the entire Soveraignty in the Common-wealth of the Jews, it is
  manifest, that it is thereby signified, that they had their Authority from
  the Civill Soveraign: and therefore that place proveth, that Bishops in
  every Christian Common-wealth have their Authority from the Civill
  Soveraign; and from the Pope in his own Territories only, and not in the
  Territories of any other State.
<br />
  The second argument, is from the nature of Monarchy; wherein all Authority
  is in one Man, and in others by derivation from him: But the Government of
  the Church, he says, is Monarchicall. This also makes for Christian
  Monarchs. For they are really Monarchs of their own people; that is, of
  their own Church (for the Church is the same thing with a Christian
  people;) whereas the Power of the Pope, though hee were S. Peter, is
  neither Monarchy, nor hath any thing of Archicall, nor Craticall, but
  onely of Didacticall; For God accepteth not a forced, but a willing
  obedience.
<br />
  The third, is, from that the Sea of S. Peter is called by S. Cyprian, the
  Head, the Source, the Roote, the Sun, from whence the Authority of Bishops
  is derived. But by the Law of Nature (which is a better Principle of Right
  and Wrong, than the word of any Doctor that is but a man) the Civill
  Soveraign in every Common-wealth, is the Head, the Source, the Root, and
  the Sun, from which all Jurisdiction is derived. And therefore, the
  Jurisdiction of Bishops, is derived from the Civill Soveraign.
<br />
  The fourth, is taken from the Inequality of their Jurisdictions: For if
  God (saith he) had given it them immediately, he had given aswell Equality
  of Jurisdiction, as of Order: But wee see, some are Bishops but of own
  Town, some of a hundred Towns, and some of many whole Provinces; which
  differences were not determined by the command of God; their Jurisdiction
  therefore is not of God, but of Man; and one has a greater, another a
  lesse, as it pleaseth the Prince of the Church. Which argument, if he had
  proved before, that the Pope had had an Universall Jurisdiction over all
  Christians, had been for his purpose. But seeing that hath not been
  proved, and that it is notoriously known, the large Jurisdiction of the
  Pope was given him by those that had it, that is, by the Emperours of
  Rome, (for the Patriarch of Constantinople, upon the same title, namely,
  of being Bishop of the Capitall City of the Empire, and Seat of the
  Emperour, claimed to be equal to him,) it followeth, that all other
  Bishops have their Jurisdiction from the Soveraigns of the place wherein
  they exercise the same: And as for that cause they have not their
  Authority De Jure Divino; so neither hath the Pope his De Jure Divino,
  except onely where hee is also the Civill Soveraign.
<br />
  His fift argument is this, &ldquo;If Bishops have their Jurisdiction immediately
  from God, the Pope could not take it from them, for he can doe nothing
  contrary to Gods ordination;&rdquo; And this consequence is good, and well
  proved. &ldquo;But, (saith he) the Pope can do this, and has done it.&rdquo; This also
  is granted, so he doe it in his own Dominions, or in the Dominions of any
  other Prince that hath given him that Power; but not universally, in Right
  of the Popedome: For that power belongeth to every Christian Soveraign,
  within the bounds of his owne Empire, and is inseparable from the
  Soveraignty. Before the People of Israel had (by the commandment of God to
  Samuel) set over themselves a King, after the manner of other Nations, the
  High Priest had the Civill Government; and none but he could make, nor
  depose an inferiour Priest: But that Power was afterwards in the King, as
  may be proved by this same argument of Bellarmine; For if the Priest (be
  he the High Priest or any other) had his Jurisdiction immediately from
  God, then the King could not take it from him; &ldquo;for he could do nothing
  contrary to Gods ordinance: But it is certain, that King Solomon (1 Kings
  2.26.) deprived Abiathar the High Priest of his office, and placed Zadok
  (verse 35.) in his room. Kings therefore may in the like manner Ordaine,
  and Deprive Bishops, as they shall thinke fit, for the well governing of
  their Subjects.
<br />
  His sixth argument is this, If Bishops have their Jurisdiction De Jure
  Divino (that is, immediately from God,) they that maintaine it, should
  bring some Word of God to prove it: But they can bring none. The argument
  is good; I have therefore nothing to say against it. But it is an argument
  no lesse good, to prove the Pope himself to have no Jurisdiction in the
  Dominion of any other Prince.
<br />
  Lastly, hee bringeth for argument, the testimony of two Popes, Innocent,
  and Leo; and I doubt not but hee might have alledged, with as good reason,
  the testimonies of all the Popes almost since S. Peter: For considering
  the love of Power naturally implanted in mankind, whosoever were made
  Pope, he would be tempted to uphold the same opinion. Neverthelesse, they
  should therein but doe, as Innocent, and Leo did, bear witnesse of
  themselves, and therefore their witness should not be good.

  Of The Popes Temporall Power


  In the fift Book he hath four Conclusions. The first is, &ldquo;That the Pope in
  not Lord of all the world:&rdquo; the second, &ldquo;that the Pope is not Lord of all
  the Christian world:&rdquo; The third, &ldquo;That the Pope (without his owne
  Territory) has not any Temporall Jurisdiction DIRECTLY:&rdquo; These three
  Conclusions are easily granted. The fourth is, &ldquo;That the Pope has (in the
  Dominions of other Princes) the Supreme Temporall Power INDIRECTLY:&rdquo; which
  is denyed; unlesse he mean by Indirectly, that he has gotten it by
  Indirect means; then is that also granted. But I understand, that when he
  saith he hath it Indirectly, he means, that such Temporall Jurisdiction
  belongeth to him of Right, but that this Right is but a Consequence of his
  Pastorall Authority, the which he could not exercise, unlesse he have the
  other with it: And therefore to the Pastorall Power (which he calls
  Spirituall) the Supreme Power Civill is necessarily annexed; and that
  thereby hee hath a Right to change Kingdomes, giving them to one, and
  taking them from another, when he shall think it conduces to the Salvation
  of Souls.
<br />
  Before I come to consider the Arguments by which hee would prove this
  doctrine, it will not bee amisse to lay open the Consequences of it; that
  Princes, and States, that have the Civill Soveraignty in their severall
  Common-wealths, may bethink themselves, whether it bee convenient for
  them, and conducing to the good of their Subjects, of whom they are to
  give an account at the day of Judgment, to admit the same.
<br />
  When it is said, the Pope hath not (in the Territories of other States)
  the Supreme Civill Power Directly; we are to understand, he doth not
  challenge it, as other Civill Soveraigns doe, from the originall
  submission thereto of those that are to be governed. For it is evident,
  and has already been sufficiently in this Treatise demonstrated, that the
  Right of all Soveraigns, is derived originally from the consent of every
  one of those that are to bee governed; whether they that choose him, doe
  it for their common defence against an Enemy, as when they agree amongst
  themselves to appoint a Man, or an Assembly of men to protect them; or
  whether they doe it, to save their lives, by submission to a conquering
  Enemy. The Pope therefore, when he disclaimeth the Supreme Civill Power
  over other States Directly, denyeth no more, but that his Right cometh to
  him by that way; He ceaseth not for all that, to claime it another way;
  and that is, (without the consent of them that are to be governed) by a
  Right given him by God, (which hee calleth Indirectly,) in his Assumption
  to the Papacy. But by what way soever he pretend, the Power is the same;
  and he may (if it bee granted to be his Right) depose Princes and States,
  as often as it is for the Salvation of Soules, that is, as often as he
  will; for he claimeth also the Sole Power to Judge, whether it be to the
  salvation of mens Souls, or not. And this is the Doctrine, not onely that
  Bellarmine here, and many other Doctors teach in their Sermons and Books,
  but also that some Councells have decreed, and the Popes have decreed, and
  the Popes have accordingly, when the occasion hath served them, put in
  practise. For the fourth Councell of Lateran held under Pope Innocent the
  third, (in the third Chap. De Haereticis,) hath this Canon. &ldquo;If a King at
  the Popes admonition, doe not purge his Kingdome of Haeretiques, and being
  Excommunicate for the same, make not satisfaction within a year, his
  subjects are absolved of their Obedience.&rdquo; And the practise hereof hath
  been seen on divers occasions; as in the Deposing of Chilperique, King of
  France; in the Translation of the Roman Empire to Charlemaine; in the
  Oppression of John King of England; in Transferring the Kingdome of
  Navarre; and of late years, in the League against Henry the third of
  France, and in many more occurrences. I think there be few Princes that
  consider not this as Injust, and Inconvenient; but I wish they would all
  resolve to be Kings, or Subjects. Men cannot serve two Masters: They ought
  therefore to ease them, either by holding the Reins of Government wholly
  in their own hands; or by wholly delivering them into the hands of the
  Pope; that such men as are willing to be obedient, may be protected in
  their obedience. For this distinction of Temporall, and Spirituall Power
  is but words. Power is as really divided, and as dangerously to all
  purposes, by sharing with another Indirect Power, as with a Direct one.
  But to come now to his Arguments.
<br />
  The first is this, &ldquo;The Civill Power is subject to the Spirituall:
  Therefore he that hath the Supreme Power Spirituall, hath right to command
  Temporall Princes, and dispose of their Temporalls in order to the
  Spirituall. As for the distinction of Temporall, and Spirituall, let us
  consider in what sense it may be said intelligibly, that the Temporall, or
  Civill Power is subject to the Spirituall. There be but two ways that
  those words can be made sense. For when wee say, one Power is subject to
  another Power, the meaning either is, that he which hath the one, is
  subject to him that hath the other; or that the one Power is to the other,
  as the means to the end. For wee cannot understand, that one Power hath
  Power over another Power; and that one Power can have Right or Command
  over another: For Subjection, Command, Right, and Power are accidents, not
  of Powers, but of Persons: One Power may be subordinate to another, as the
  art of a Sadler, to the art of a Rider. If then it be granted, that the
  Civill Government be ordained as a means to bring us to a Spirituall
  felicity; yet it does not follow, that if a King have the Civill Power,
  and the Pope the Spirituall, that therefore the King is bound to obey the
  Pope, more then every Sadler is bound to obey every Rider. Therefore as
  from Subordination of an Art, cannot be inferred the Subjection of the
  Professor; so from the Subordination of a Government, cannot be inferred
  the Subjection of the Governor. When therefore he saith, the Civill Power
  is Subject to the Spirituall, his meaning is, that the Civill Soveraign,
  is Subject to the Spirituall Soveraign. And the Argument stands thus, &ldquo;The
  Civil Soveraign, is subject to the Spirituall; Therefore the Spirituall
  Prince may command Temporall Princes.&rdquo; Where the conclusion is the same,
  with the Antecedent he should have proved. But to prove it, he alledgeth
  first, this reason, &ldquo;Kings and Popes, Clergy and Laity make but one
  Common-wealth; that is to say, but one Church: And in all Bodies the
  Members depend one upon another: But things Spirituall depend not of
  things Temporall: Therefore, Temporall depend on Spirituall. And therefore
  are Subject to them.&rdquo; In which Argumentation there be two grosse errours:
  one is, that all Christian Kings, Popes, Clergy, and all other Christian
  men, make but one Common-wealth: For it is evident that France is one
  Common-wealth, Spain another, and Venice a third, &c. And these
  consist of Christians; and therefore also are severall Bodies of
  Christians; that is to say, severall Churches: And their severall
  Soveraigns Represent them, whereby they are capable of commanding and
  obeying, of doing and suffering, as a natural man; which no Generall or
  Universall Church is, till it have a Representant; which it hath not on
  Earth: for if it had, there is no doubt but that all Christendome were one
  Common-wealth, whose Soveraign were that Representant, both in things
  Spirituall and Temporall: And the Pope, to make himself this Representant,
  wanteth three things that our Saviour hath not given him, to Command, and
  to Judge, and to Punish, otherwise than (by Excommunication) to run from
  those that will not Learn of him: For though the Pope were Christs onely
  Vicar, yet he cannot exercise his government, till our Saviours second
  coming: And then also it is not the Pope, but St. Peter himselfe, with the
  other Apostles, that are to be Judges of the world.
<br />
  The other errour in this his first Argument is, that he sayes, the Members
  of every Common-wealth, as of a naturall Body, depend one of another: It
  is true, they cohaere together; but they depend onely on the Soveraign,
  which is the Soul of the Common-wealth; which failing, the Common-wealth
  is dissolved into a Civill war, no one man so much as cohaering to
  another, for want of a common Dependance on a known Soveraign; Just as the
  Members of the naturall Body dissolve into Earth, for want of a Soul to
  hold them together. Therefore there is nothing in this similitude, from
  whence to inferre a dependance of the Laity on the Clergy, or of the
  Temporall Officers on the Spirituall; but of both on the Civill Soveraign;
  which ought indeed to direct his Civill commands to the Salvation of
  Souls; but is not therefore subject to any but God himselfe. And thus you
  see the laboured fallacy of the first Argument, to deceive such men as
  distinguish not between the Subordination of Actions in the way to the
  End; and the Subjection of Persons one to another in the administration of
  the Means. For to every End, the Means are determined by Nature, or by God
  himselfe supernaturally: but the Power to make men use the Means, is in
  every nation resigned (by the Law of Nature, which forbiddeth men to
  violate their Faith given) to the Civill Soveraign.
<br />
  His second Argument is this, &ldquo;Every Common-wealth, (because it is supposed
  to be perfect and sufficient in it self,) may command any other
  Common-wealth, not subject to it, and force it to change the
  administration of the Government, nay depose the Prince, and set another
  in his room, if it cannot otherwise defend it selfe against the injuries
  he goes about to doe them: much more may a Spirituall Common-wealth
  command a Temporall one to change the administration of their Government,
  and may depose Princes, and institute others, when they cannot otherwise
  defend the Spirituall Good.&rdquo;
<br />
  That a Common-wealth, to defend it selfe against injuries, may lawfully
  doe all that he hath here said, is very true; and hath already in that
  which hath gone before been sufficiently demonstrated. And if it were also
  true, that there is now in this world a Spirituall Common-wealth, distinct
  from a Civill Common-wealth, then might the Prince thereof, upon injury
  done him, or upon want of caution that injury be not done him in time to
  come, repaire, and secure himself by Warre; which is in summe, deposing,
  killing, or subduing, or doing any act of Hostility. But by the same
  reason, it would be no lesse lawfull for a Civill Soveraign, upon the like
  injuries done, or feared, to make warre upon the Spirituall Soveraign;
  which I beleeve is more than Cardinall Bellarmine would have inferred from
  his own proposition.
<br />
  But Spirituall Common-wealth there is none in this world: for it is the
  same thing with the Kingdome of Christ; which he himselfe saith, is not of
  this world; but shall be in the next world, at the Resurrection, when they
  that have lived justly, and beleeved that he was the Christ, shall (though
  they died Naturall bodies) rise Spirituall bodies; and then it is, that
  our Saviour shall judge the world, and conquer his Adversaries, and make a
  Spirituall Common-wealth. In the mean time, seeing there are no men on
  earth, whose bodies are Spirituall; there can be no Spirituall
  Common-wealth amongst men that are yet in the flesh; unlesse wee call
  Preachers, that have Commission to Teach, and prepare men for their
  reception into the Kingdome of Christ at the Resurrection, a
  Common-wealth; which I have proved to bee none.
<br />
  The third Argument is this; &ldquo;It is not lawfull for Christians to tolerate
  an Infidel, or Haereticall King, in case he endeavour to draw them to his
  Haeresie, or Infidelity. But to judge whether a King draw his subjects to
  Haeresie, or not, belongeth to the Pope. Therefore hath the Pope Right, to
  determine whether the Prince be to be deposed, or not deposed.&rdquo;
<br />
  To this I answer, that both these assertions are false. For Christians,
  (or men of what Religion soever,) if they tolerate not their King,
  whatsoever law hee maketh, though it bee concerning Religion, doe violate
  their faith, contrary to the Divine Law, both Naturall and Positive: Nor
  is there any Judge of Haeresie amongst Subjects, but their own Civill
  Soveraign; for &ldquo;Haeresie is nothing else, but a private opinion,
  obstinately maintained, contrary to the opinion which the Publique Person
  (that is to say, the Representant of the Common-wealth) hath commanded to
  bee taught.&rdquo; By which it is manifest, that an opinion publiquely appointed
  to bee taught, cannot be Haeresie; nor the Soveraign Princes that
  authorize them, Haeretiques. For Haeretiques are none but private men,
  that stubbornly defend some Doctrine, prohibited by their lawful
  Soveraigns.
<br />
  But to prove that Christians are not to tolerate Infidell, or Haereticall
  Kings, he alledgeth a place in Deut. 17. where God forbiddeth the Jews,
  when they shall set a King over themselves, to choose a stranger; And from
  thence inferreth, that it is unlawfull for a Christian, to choose a King,
  that is not a Christian. And &rsquo;tis true, that he that is a Christian, that
  is, hee that hath already obliged himself to receive our Saviour when he
  shall come, for his King, shal tempt God too much in choosing for King in
  this world, one that hee knoweth will endeavour, both by terrour, and
  perswasion to make him violate his faith. But, it is (saith hee) the same
  danger, to choose one that is not a Christian, for King, and not to depose
  him, when hee is chosen. To this I say, the question is not of the danger
  of not deposing; but of the Justice of deposing him. To choose him, may in
  some cases bee unjust; but to depose him, when he is chosen, is in no case
  Just. For it is alwaies violation of faith, and consequently against the
  Law of Nature, which is the eternal Law of God. Nor doe wee read, that any
  such Doctrine was accounted Christian in the time of the Apostles; nor in
  the time of the Romane Emperours, till the Popes had the Civill
  Soveraignty of Rome. But to this he hath replyed, that the Christians of
  old, deposed not Nero, nor Diocletian, nor Julian, nor Valens an Arrian,
  for this cause onely, that they wanted Temporall forces. Perhaps so. But
  did our Saviour, who for calling for, might have had twelve Legions of
  immortall, invulnerable Angels to assist him, want forces to depose
  Caesar, or at least Pilate, that unjustly, without finding fault in him,
  delivered him to the Jews to bee crucified? Or if the Apostles wanted
  Temporall forces to depose Nero, was it therefore necessary for them in
  their Epistles to the new made Christians, to teach them, (as they did) to
  obey the Powers constituted over them, (whereof Nero in that time was
  one,) and that they ought to obey them, not for fear of their wrath, but
  for conscience sake? Shall we say they did not onely obey, but also teach
  what they meant not, for want of strength? It is not therefore for want of
  strength, but for conscience sake, that Christians are to tolerate their
  Heathen Princes, or Princes (for I cannot call any one whose Doctrine is
  the Publique Doctrine, an Haeretique) that authorize the teaching of an
  Errour. And whereas for the Temporall Power of the Pope, he alledgeth
  further, that St. Paul (1 Cor. 6.) appointed Judges under the Heathen
  Princes of those times, such as were not ordained by those Princes; it is
  not true. For St. Paul does but advise them, to take some of their
  Brethren to compound their differences, as Arbitrators, rather than to goe
  to law one with another before the Heathen Judges; which is a wholsome
  Precept, and full of Charity, fit to bee practised also in the Best
  Christian Common-wealths. And for the danger that may arise to Religion,
  by the Subjects tolerating of an Heathen, or an Erring Prince, it is a
  point, of which a Subject is no competent Judge; or if hee bee, the Popes
  Temporall Subjects may judge also of the Popes Doctrine. For every
  Christian Prince, as I have formerly proved, is no lesse Supreme Pastor of
  his own Subjects, than the Pope of his.
<br />
  The fourth Argument, is taken from the Baptisme of Kings; wherein, that
  they may be made Christians they submit their Scepters to Christ; and
  promise to keep, and defend the Christian Faith. This is true; for
  Christian Kings are no more but Christs Subjects: but they may, for all
  that, bee the Popes Fellowes; for they are Supreme Pastors of their own
  Subjects; and the Pope is no more but King, and Pastor, even in Rome it
  selfe.
<br />
  The fifth Argument, is drawn from the words spoken by our Saviour, Feed My
  Sheep; by which was give all Power necessary for a Pastor; as the Power to
  chase away Wolves, such as are Haeretiques; the Power to shut up Rammes,
  if they be mad, or push at the other Sheep with their Hornes, such as are
  Evill (though Christian) Kings; and Power to give the Flock convenient
  food: From whence hee inferreth, that St. Peter had these three Powers
  given him by Christ. To which I answer, that the last of these Powers, is
  no more than the Power, or rather Command to Teach. For the first, which
  is to chase away Wolves, that is, Haeretiques, the place hee quoteth is
  (Matth. 7.15.) &ldquo;Beware of false Prophets which come to you in Sheeps
  clothing, but inwardly are ravening Wolves.&rdquo; But neither are Haeretiques
  false Prophets, or at all Prophets: nor (admitting Haeretiques for the
  Wolves there meant,) were the Apostles commanded to kill them, or if they
  were Kings, to depose them; but to beware of, fly, and avoid them: nor was
  it to St. Peter, nor to any of the Apostles, but to the multitude of the
  Jews that followed him into the mountain, men for the most part not yet
  converted, that hee gave this Counsell, to Beware of false Prophets: which
  therefore if it conferre a Power of chasing away Kings, was given, not
  onely to private men; but to men that were not at all Christians. And as
  to the Power of Separating, and Shutting up of furious Rammes, (by which
  hee meaneth Christian Kings that refuse to submit themselves to the Roman
  Pastor,) our Saviour refused to take upon him that Power in this world
  himself, but advised to let the Corn and Tares grow up together till the
  day of Judgment: much lesse did hee give it to St. Peter, or can S. Peter
  give it to the Popes. St. Peter, and all other Pastors, are bidden to
  esteem those Christians that disobey the Church, that is, (that disobey
  the Christian Soveraigne) as Heathen men, and as Publicans. Seeing then
  men challenge to the Pope no authority over Heathen Princes, they ought to
  challenge none over those that are to bee esteemed as Heathen.
<br />
  But from the Power to Teach onely, hee inferreth also a Coercive Power in
  the Pope, over Kings. The Pastor (saith he) must give his flock convenient
  food: Therefore the Pope may, and ought to compell Kings to doe their
  duty. Out of which it followeth, that the Pope, as Pastor of Christian
  men, is King of Kings: which all Christian Kings ought indeed either to
  Confesse, or else they ought to take upon themselves the Supreme Pastorall
  Charge, every one in his own Dominion.
<br />
  His sixth, and last Argument, is from Examples. To which I answer, first,
  that Examples prove nothing; Secondly, that the Examples he alledgeth make
  not so much as a probability of Right. The fact of Jehoiada, in Killing
  Athaliah (2 Kings 11.) was either by the Authority of King Joash, or it
  was a horrible Crime in the High Priest, which (ever after the election of
  King Saul) was a mere Subject. The fact of St. Ambrose, in Excommunicating
  Theodosius the Emperour, (if it were true hee did so,) was a Capitall
  Crime. And for the Popes, Gregory 1. Greg. 2. Zachary, and Leo 3. their
  Judgments are void, as given in their own Cause; and the Acts done by them
  conformably to this Doctrine, are the greatest Crimes (especially that of
  Zachary) that are incident to Humane Nature. And thus much of Power
  Ecclesiasticall; wherein I had been more briefe, forbearing to examine
  these Arguments of Bellarmine, if they had been his, as a Private man, and
  not as the Champion of the Papacy, against all other Christian Princes,
  and States.

  CHAPTER XLIII.<br />OF WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR A MANS RECEPTION INTO THE
  KINGDOME OF HEAVEN

  The Difficulty Of Obeying God And Man Both At Once


  The most frequent praetext of Sedition, and Civill Warre, in Christian
  Common-wealths hath a long time proceeded from a difficulty, not yet
  sufficiently resolved, of obeying at once, both God, and Man, then when
  their Commandements are one contrary to the other. It is manifest enough,
  that when a man receiveth two contrary Commands, and knows that one of
  them is Gods, he ought to obey that, and not the other, though it be the
  command even of his lawfull Soveraign (whether a Monarch, or a Soveraign
  Assembly,) or the command of his Father. The difficulty therefore
  consisteth in this, that men when they are commanded in the name of God,
  know not in divers Cases, whether the command be from God, or whether he
  that commandeth, doe but abuse Gods name for some private ends of his own.
  For as there ware in the Church of the Jews, many false Prophets, that
  sought reputation with the people, by feigned Dreams, and Visions; so
  there have been in all times in the Church of Christ, false Teachers, that
  seek reputation with the people, by phantasticall and false Doctrines; and
  by such reputation (as is the nature of Ambition,) to govern them for
  their private benefit.

  Is None To Them That Distinguish Between What Is, And What Is Not
  Necessary To Salvation


  But this difficulty of obeying both God, and the Civill Soveraign on
  earth, to those that can distinguish between what is Necessary, and what
  is not Necessary for their Reception into the Kingdome of God, is of no
  moment. For if the command of the Civill Soveraign bee such, as that it
  may be obeyed, without the forfeiture of life Eternall; not to obey it is
  unjust; and the precept of the Apostle takes place; &ldquo;Servants obey your
  Masters in all things;&rdquo; and, &ldquo;Children obey your Parents in all things;&rdquo;
  and the precept of our Saviour, &ldquo;The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses
  Chaire, All therefore they shall say, that observe, and doe.&rdquo; But if the
  command be such, as cannot be obeyed, without being damned to Eternall
  Death, then it were madnesse to obey it, and the Counsell of our Saviour
  takes place, (Mat. 10. 28.) &ldquo;Fear not those that kill the body, but cannot
  kill the soule.&rdquo; All men therefore that would avoid, both the punishments
  that are to be in this world inflicted, for disobedience to their earthly
  Soveraign, and those that shall be inflicted in the world to come for
  disobedience to God, have need be taught to distinguish well between what
  is, and what is not Necessary to Eternall Salvation.

  All That Is Necessary To Salvation Is Contained In Faith And Obedience


  All that is NECESSARY to Salvation, is contained in two Vertues, Faith in
  Christ, and Obedience to Laws. The latter of these, if it were perfect,
  were enough to us. But because wee are all guilty of disobedience to Gods
  Law, not onely originally in Adam, but also actually by our own
  transgressions, there is required at our hands now, not onely Obedience
  for the rest of our time, but also a Remission of sins for the time past;
  which Remission is the reward of our Faith in Christ. That nothing else is
  Necessarily required to Salvation, is manifest from this, that the
  Kingdome of Heaven, is shut to none but to Sinners; that is to say, to the
  disobedient, or transgressors of the Law; nor to them, in case they
  Repent, and Beleeve all the Articles of Christian Faith, Necessary to
  Salvation.

  What Obedience Is Necessary;


  The Obedience required at our hands by God, that accepteth in all our
  actions the Will for the Deed, is a serious Endeavour to Obey him; and is
  called also by all such names as signifie that Endeavour. And therefore
  Obedience, is sometimes called by the names of Charity, and Love, because
  they imply a Will to Obey; and our Saviour himself maketh our Love to God,
  and to one another, a Fulfilling of the whole Law: and sometimes by the
  name of Righteousnesse; for Righteousnesse is but the will to give to
  every one his owne, that is to say, the will to obey the Laws: and
  sometimes by the name of Repentance; because to Repent, implyeth a turning
  away from sinne, which is the same, with the return of the will to
  Obedience. Whosoever therefore unfeignedly desireth to fulfill the
  Commandements of God, or repenteth him truely of his transgressions, or
  that loveth God with all his heart, and his neighbor as himself, hath all
  the Obedience Necessary to his Reception into the Kingdome of God: For if
  God should require perfect Innocence, there could no flesh be saved.

  And To What Laws


  But what Commandements are those that God hath given us? Are all those
  Laws which were given to the Jews by the hand of Moses, the Commandements
  of God? If they bee, why are not Christians taught to obey them? If they
  be not, what others are so, besides the Law of Nature? For our Saviour
  Christ hath not given us new Laws, but Counsell to observe those wee are
  subject to; that is to say, the Laws of Nature, and the Laws of our
  severall Soveraigns: Nor did he make any new Law to the Jews in his Sermon
  on the Mount, but onely expounded the Laws of Moses, to which they were
  subject before. The Laws of God therefore are none but the Laws of Nature,
  whereof the principall is, that we should not violate our Faith, that is,
  a commandement to obey our Civill Soveraigns, which wee constituted over
  us, by mutuall pact one with another. And this Law of God, that commandeth
  Obedience to the Law Civill, commandeth by consequence Obedience to all
  the Precepts of the Bible, which (as I have proved in the precedent
  Chapter) is there onely Law, where the Civill Soveraign hath made it so;
  and in other places but Counsell; which a man at his own perill, may
  without injustice refuse to obey.

  In The Faith Of A Christian, Who Is The Person Beleeved


  Knowing now what is the Obedience Necessary to Salvation, and to whom it
  is due; we are to consider next concerning Faith, whom, and why we
  beleeve; and what are the Articles, or Points necessarily to be beleeved
  by them that shall be saved. And first, for the Person whom we beleeve,
  because it is impossible to beleeve any Person, before we know what he
  saith, it is necessary he be one that wee have heard speak. The Person
  therefore, whom Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the Prophets beleeved,
  was God himself, that spake unto them supernaturally: And the Person, whom
  the Apostles and Disciples that conversed with Christ beleeved, was our
  Saviour himself. But of them, to whom neither God the Father, nor our
  Saviour ever spake, it cannot be said, that the Person whom they beleeved,
  was God. They beleeved the Apostles, and after them the Pastors and
  Doctors of the Church, that recommended to their faith the History of the
  Old and New Testament: so that the Faith of Christians ever since our
  Saviours time, hath had for foundation, first, the reputation of their
  Pastors, and afterward, the authority of those that made the Old and New
  Testament to be received for the Rule of Faith; which none could do but
  Christian Soveraignes; who are therefore the Supreme Pastors, and the
  onely Persons, whom Christians now hear speak from God; except such as God
  speaketh to, in these days supernaturally. But because there be many false
  Prophets &ldquo;gone out into the world,&rdquo; other men are to examine such Spirits
  (as St. John advised us, 1 Epistle, Chap. 4. ver.1.) &ldquo;whether they be of
  God, or not.&rdquo; And therefore, seeing the Examination of Doctrines belongeth
  to the Supreme Pastor, the Person which all they that have no speciall
  revelation are to beleeve, is (in every Common-wealth) the Supreme Pastor,
  that is to say, the Civill Soveraigne.

  The Causes Of Christian Faith


  The causes why men beleeve any Christian Doctrine, are various; For Faith
  is the gift of God; and he worketh it in each severall man, by such wayes,
  as it seemeth good unto himself. The most ordinary immediate cause of our
  beleef, concerning any point of Christian Faith, is, that wee beleeve the
  Bible to be the Word of God. But why wee beleeve the Bible to be the Word
  of God, is much disputed, as all questions must needs bee, that are not
  well stated. For they make not the question to be, &ldquo;Why we Beleeve it,&rdquo;
  but &ldquo;How wee Know it;&rdquo; as if Beleeving and Knowing were all one. And
  thence while one side ground their Knowledge upon the Infallibility of the
  Church, and the other side, on the Testimony of the Private Spirit,
  neither side concludeth what it pretends. For how shall a man know the
  Infallibility of the Church, but by knowing first the Infallibility of the
  Scripture? Or how shall a man know his own Private spirit to be other than
  a beleef, grounded upon the Authority, and Arguments of his Teachers; or
  upon a Presumption of his own Gifts? Besides, there is nothing in the
  Scripture, from which can be inferred the Infallibility of the Church;
  much lesse, of any particular Church; and least of all, the Infallibility
  of any particular man.

  Faith Comes By Hearing


  It is manifest, therefore, that Christian men doe not know, but onely
  beleeve the Scripture to be the Word of God; and that the means of making
  them beleeve which God is pleased to afford men ordinarily, is according
  to the way of Nature, that is to say, from their Teachers. It is the
  Doctrine of St. Paul concerning Christian Faith in generall, (Rom. 10.17.)
  &ldquo;Faith cometh by Hearing,&rdquo; that is, by Hearing our lawfull Pastors. He
  saith also (ver. 14,15. of the same Chapter) &ldquo;How shall they beleeve in
  him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a
  Preacher? and how shall they Preach, except they be sent?&rdquo; Whereby it is
  evident, that the ordinary cause of beleeving that the Scriptures are the
  Word of God, is the same with the cause of the beleeving of all other
  Articles of our Faith, namely, the Hearing of those that are by the Law
  allowed and appointed to Teach us, as our Parents in their Houses, and our
  Pastors in the Churches: Which also is made more manifest by experience.
  For what other cause can there bee assigned, why in Christian
  Common-wealths all men either beleeve, or at least professe the Scripture
  to bee the Word of God, and in other Common-wealths scarce any; but that
  in Christian Common-wealths they are taught it from their infancy; and in
  other places they are taught otherwise?
<br />
  But if Teaching be the cause of Faith, why doe not all beleeve? It is
  certain therefore that Faith is the gift of God, and hee giveth it to whom
  he will. Neverthelesse, because of them to whom he giveth it, he giveth it
  by the means of Teachers, the immediate cause of Faith is Hearing. In a
  School where many are taught, and some profit, others profit not, the
  cause of learning in them that profit, is the Master; yet it cannot be
  thence inferred, that learning is not the gift of God. All good things
  proceed from God; yet cannot all that have them, say they are Inspired;
  for that implies a gift supernaturall, and the immediate hand of God;
  which he that pretends to, pretends to be a Prophet, and is subject to the
  examination of the Church.
<br />
  But whether men Know, or Beleeve, or Grant the Scriptures to be the Word
  of God; if out of such places of them, as are without obscurity, I shall
  shew what Articles of Faith are necessary, and onely necessary for
  Salvation, those men must needs Know, Beleeve, or Grant the same.
<br />
  The Onely Necessary Article Of Christian Faith, The (Unum Necessarium)
  Onely Article of Faith, which the Scripture maketh simply Necessary to
  Salvation, is this, that JESUS IS THE CHRIST. By the name of Christ, is
  understood the King, which God had before promised by the Prophets of the
  Old Testament, to send into the world, to reign (over the Jews, and over
  such of other nations as should beleeve in him) under himself eternally;
  and to give them that eternall life, which was lost by the sin of Adam.
  Which when I have proved out of Scripture, I will further shew when, and
  in what sense some other Articles may bee also called Necessary.

  Proved From The Scope Of The Evangelists


  For Proof that the Beleef of this Article, Jesus Is The Christ, is all the
  Faith required to Salvation, my first Argument shall bee from the Scope of
  the Evangelists; which was by the description of the life of our Saviour,
  to establish that one Article, Jesus Is The Christ. The summe of St.
  Matthews Gospell is this, That Jesus was of the stock of David; Born of a
  Virgin; which are the Marks of the true Christ: That the Magi came to
  worship him as King of the Jews: That Herod for the same cause sought to
  kill him: That John Baptist proclaimed him: That he preached by himselfe,
  and his Apostles that he was that King; That he taught the Law, not as a
  Scribe, but as a man of Authority: That he cured diseases by his Word
  onely, and did many other Miracles, which were foretold the Christ should
  doe: That he was saluted King when he entered into Jerusalem: That he
  fore-warned them to beware of all others that should pretend to be Christ:
  That he was taken, accused, and put to death, for saying, hee was King:
  That the cause of his condemnation written on the Crosse, was JESUS OF
  NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWES. All which tend to no other end than this,
  that men should beleeve, that Jesus Is The Christ. Such therefore was the
  Scope of St. Matthews Gospel. But the Scope of all the Evangelists (as may
  appear by reading them) was the same. Therefore the Scope of the whole
  Gospell, was the establishing of that onely Article. And St. John
  expressely makes it his conclusion, John 20. 31. &ldquo;These things are
  written, that you may know that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living
  God.&rdquo;

  From The Sermons Of The Apostles:


  My second Argument is taken from the Subject of the Sermons of the
  Apostles, both whilest our Saviour lived on earth, and after his
  Ascension. The Apostles in our Saviours time were sent, Luke 9.2. to
  Preach the Kingdome of God: For neither there, nor Mat. 10.7. giveth he
  any Commission to them, other than this, &ldquo;As ye go, Preach, saying, the
  Kingdome of Heaven is at hand;&rdquo; that is, that Jesus is the Messiah, the
  Christ, the King which was to come. That their Preaching also after his
  ascension was the same, is manifest out of Acts 17.6. &ldquo;They drew (saith
  St. Luke) Jason and certain Brethren unto the Rulers of the City, crying,
  These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also, whom
  Jason hath received. And these all do contrary to the Decrees of Caesar,
  saying, that there is another King, one Jesus:&rdquo; And out of the 2.&3.
  verses of the same Chapter, where it is said, that St. Paul &ldquo;as his manner
  was, went in unto them; and three Sabbath dayes reasoned with them out of
  the Scriptures; opening and alledging, that Christ must needs have
  suffered, and risen againe from the dead, and that this Jesus (whom he
  preached) is Christ.&rdquo;

  From The Easinesse Of The Doctrine:


  The third Argument is, from those places of Scripture, by which all the
  Faith required to Salvation is declared to be Easie. For if an inward
  assent of the mind to all the Doctrines concerning Christian Faith now
  taught, (whereof the greatest part are disputed,) were necessary to
  Salvation, there would be nothing in the world so hard, as to be a
  Christian. The Thief upon the Crosse though repenting, could not have been
  saved for saying, &ldquo;Lord remember me when thou commest into thy Kingdome;&rdquo;
  by which he testified no beleefe of any other Article, but this, That
  Jesus Was The King. Nor could it bee said (as it is Mat. 11. 30.) that
  &ldquo;Christs yoke is Easy, and his burthen Light:&rdquo; Nor that &ldquo;Little Children
  beleeve in him,&rdquo; as it is Matth. 18.6. Nor could St. Paul have said (1
  Cor. 1. 21.) &ldquo;It pleased God by the Foolishnesse of preaching, to save
  them that beleeve:&rdquo; Nor could St. Paul himself have been saved, much lesse
  have been so great a Doctor of the Church so suddenly, that never perhaps
  thought of Transsubstantiation, nor Purgatory, nor many other Articles now
  obtruded.

  From Formall And Cleer Texts


  The fourth Argument is taken from places expresse, and such as receive no
  controversie of Interpretation; as first, John 5. 39. &ldquo;Search the
  Scriptures, for in them yee thinke yee have eternall life; and they are
  they that testifie of mee.&rdquo; Our Saviour here speaketh of the Scriptures
  onely of the Old Testament; for the Jews at that time could not search the
  Scriptures of the New Testament, which were not written. But the Old
  Testament hath nothing of Christ, but the Markes by which men might know
  him when hee came; as that he should descend from David, be born at
  Bethlehem, and of a Virgin; doe great Miracles, and the like. Therefore to
  beleeve that this Jesus was He, was sufficient to eternall life: but more
  than sufficient is not Necessary; and consequently no other Article is
  required. Again, (John 11. 26.) &ldquo;Whosoever liveth and beleeveth in mee,
  shall not die eternally,&rdquo; Therefore to beleeve in Christ, is faith
  sufficient to eternall life; and consequently no more faith than that is
  Necessary, But to beleeve in Jesus, and to beleeve that Jesus is the
  Christ, is all one, as appeareth in the verses immediately following. For
  when our Saviour (verse 26.) had said to Martha, &ldquo;Beleevest thou this?&rdquo;
  she answereth (verse 27.) &ldquo;Yea Lord, I beleeve that thou art the Christ,
  the Son of God, which should come into the world;&rdquo; Therefore this Article
  alone is faith sufficient to life eternall; and more than sufficient is
  not Necessary. Thirdly, John 20. 31. &ldquo;These things are written that yee
  might beleeve, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that
  beleeving yee might have life through his name.&rdquo; There, to beleeve that
  Jesus Is The Christ, is faith sufficient to the obtaining of life; and
  therefore no other Article is Necessary. Fourthly, 1 John 4. 2. &ldquo;Every
  Spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God.&rdquo;
  And 1 Joh. 5. 1. &ldquo;whosoever beleeveth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of
  God.&rdquo; And verse 5. &ldquo;Who is hee that overcommeth the world, but he that
  beleeveth that Jesus is the Son of God?&rdquo; Fiftly, Act. 8. ver. 36, 37. &ldquo;See
  (saith the Eunuch) here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? And
  Philip said, If thou beleevest with all thy heart thou mayst. And hee
  answered and said, I beleeve that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.&rdquo;
  Therefore this Article beleeved, Jesus Is The Christ, is sufficient to
  Baptisme, that is to say, to our Reception into the Kingdome of God, and
  by consequence, onely Necessary. And generally in all places where our
  Saviour saith to any man, &ldquo;Thy faith hath saved thee,&rdquo; the cause he saith
  it, is some Confession, which directly, or by consequence, implyeth a
  beleef, that Jesus Is The Christ.

  From That It Is The Foundation Of All Other Articles


  The last Argument is from the places, where this Article is made the
  Foundation of Faith: For he that holdeth the Foundation shall bee saved.
  Which places are first, Mat. 24.23. &ldquo;If any man shall say unto you, Loe,
  here is Christ, or there, beleeve it not, for there shall arise false
  Christs, and false Prophets, and shall shew great signes and wonders,
  &c.&rdquo; Here wee see, this Article Jesus Is The Christ, must bee held,
  though hee that shall teach the contrary should doe great miracles. The
  second place is Gal. 1. 8. &ldquo;Though we, or an Angell from Heaven preach any
  other Gospell unto you, than that wee have preached unto you, let him bee
  accursed.&rdquo; But the Gospell which Paul, and the other Apostles, preached,
  was onely this Article, that Jesus Is The Christ; Therefore for the Beleef
  of this Article, we are to reject the Authority of an Angell from heaven;
  much more of any mortall man, if he teach the contrary. This is therefore
  the Fundamentall Article of Christian Faith. A third place is, 1 Joh. 4.1.
  &ldquo;Beloved, beleeve not every spirit. Hereby yee shall know the Spirit of
  God; every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh,
  is of God.&rdquo; By which it is evident, that this Article, is the measure, and
  rule, by which to estimate, and examine all other Articles; and is
  therefore onely Fundamentall. A fourth is, Matt. 16.18. where after St.
  Peter had professed this Article, saying to our Saviour, &ldquo;Thou art Christ
  the Son of the living God,&rdquo; Our Saviour answered, &ldquo;Thou art Peter, and
  upon this Rock I will build my Church:&rdquo; from whence I inferre, that this
  Article is that, on which all other Doctrines of the Church are built, as
  on their Foundation. A fift is (1 Cor. 3. ver. 11, 12, &c.) &ldquo;Other
  Foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, Jesus is the Christ.
  Now if any man build upon this Foundation, Gold, Silver, pretious Stones,
  Wood, Hay, Stubble; Every mans work shall be made manifest; For the Day
  shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall
  try every mans work, of what sort it is. If any mans work abide, which he
  hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward: If any mans work shall
  bee burnt, he shall suffer losse; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as
  by fire.&rdquo; Which words, being partly plain and easie to understand, and
  partly allegoricall and difficult; out of that which is plain, may be
  inferred, that Pastors that teach this Foundation, that Jesus Is The
  Christ, though they draw from it false consequences, (which all men are
  sometimes subject to,) they may neverthelesse bee saved; much more that
  they may bee saved, who being no Pastors, but Hearers, beleeve that which
  is by their lawfull Pastors taught them. Therefore the beleef of this
  Article is sufficient; and by consequence there is no other Article of
  Faith Necessarily required to Salvation.
<br />
  Now for the part which is Allegoricall, as &ldquo;That the fire shall try every
  mans work,&rdquo; and that &ldquo;They shall be saved, but so as by fire,&rdquo; or &ldquo;through
  fire,&rdquo; (for the originall is dia puros,) it maketh nothing against this
  conclusion which I have drawn from the other words, that are plain.
  Neverthelesse, because upon this place there hath been an argument taken,
  to prove the fire of Purgatory, I will also here offer you my conjecture
  concerning the meaning of this triall of Doctrines, and saving of men as
  by Fire. The Apostle here seemeth to allude to the words of the Prophet
  Zachary, Ch. 13. 8,9. who speaking of the Restauration of the Kingdome of
  God, saith thus, &ldquo;Two parts therein shall be cut off, and die, but the
  third shall be left therein; and I will bring the third part through the
  Fire, and will refine them as Silver is refined, and will try them as Gold
  is tryed; they shall call on the name of the Lord, and I will hear them.&rdquo;
  The day of Judgment, is the day of the Restauration of the Kingdome of
  God; and at that day it is, that St. Peter tells us (2 Pet. 3. v.7, 10,
  12.) shall be the Conflagration of the world, wherein the wicked shall
  perish; but the remnant which God will save, shall passe through that
  Fire, unhurt, and be therein (as Silver and Gold are refined by the fire
  from their drosse) tryed, and refined from their Idolatry, and be made to
  call upon the name of the true God. Alluding whereto St. Paul here saith,
  that The Day (that is, the Day of Judgment, the Great Day of our Saviours
  comming to restore the Kingdome of God in Israel) shall try every mans
  doctrine, by Judging, which are Gold, Silver, Pretious Stones, Wood, Hay,
  Stubble; And then they that have built false Consequences on the true
  Foundation, shall see their Doctrines condemned; neverthelesse they
  themselves shall be saved, and passe unhurt through this universall Fire,
  and live eternally, to call upon the name of the true and onely God. In
  which sense there is nothing that accordeth not with the rest of Holy
  Scripture, or any glimpse of the fire of Purgatory.

  In What Sense Other Articles May Be Called Necessary


  But a man may here aske, whether it bee not as necessary to Salvation, to
  beleeve, that God is Omnipotent; Creator of the world; that Jesus Christ
  is risen; and that all men else shall rise again from the dead at the last
  day; as to beleeve, that Jesus Is The Christ. To which I answer, they are;
  and so are many more Articles: but they are such, as are contained in this
  one, and may be deduced from it, with more, or lesse difficulty. For who
  is there that does not see, that they who beleeve Jesus to be the Son of
  the God of Israel, and that the Israelites had for God the Omnipotent
  Creator of all things, doe therein also beleeve, that God is the
  Omnipotent Creator of all things? Or how can a man beleeve, that Jesus is
  the King that shall reign eternally, unlesse hee beleeve him also risen
  again from the dead? For a dead man cannot exercise the Office of a King.
  In summe, he that holdeth this Foundation, Jesus Is The Christ, holdeth
  Expressely all that hee seeth rightly deduced from it, and Implicitely all
  that is consequent thereunto, though he have not skill enough to discern
  the consequence. And therefore it holdeth still good, that the beleef of
  this one Article is sufficient faith to obtaine remission of sinnes to the
  Penitent, and consequently to bring them into the Kingdome of Heaven.

  That Faith, And Obedience Are Both Of Them Necessary To Salvation


  Now that I have shewn, that all the Obedience required to Salvation,
  consisteth in the will to obey the Law of God, that is to say, in
  Repentance; and all the Faith required to the same, is comprehended in the
  beleef of this Article, Jesus Is The Christ; I will further alledge those
  places of the Gospell, that prove, that all that is Necessary to Salvation
  is contained in both these joined together. The men to whom St. Peter
  preached on the day of Pentecost, next after the Ascension of our Saviour,
  asked him, and the rest of the Apostles, saying, (Act. 2.37.) &ldquo;Men and
  Brethren what shall we doe?&rdquo; to whom St. Peter answered (in the next
  verse) &ldquo;Repent, and be Baptized every one of you, for the remission of
  sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.&rdquo; Therefore
  Repentance, and Baptisme, that is, beleeving that Jesus Is The Christ, is
  all that is Necessary to Salvation. Again, our Saviour being asked by a
  certain Ruler, (Luke 18.18.) &ldquo;What shall I doe to inherit eternall life?&rdquo;
  Answered (verse 20) &ldquo;Thou knowest the Commandements, Doe not commit
  Adultery, Doe not Kill, Doe not Steal, Doe not bear false witnesse, Honor
  thy Father, and thy Mother;&rdquo; which when he said he had observed, our
  Saviour added, &ldquo;Sell all thou hast, give it to the Poor, and come and
  follow me:&rdquo; which was as much as to say, Relye on me that am the King:
  Therefore to fulfill the Law, and to beleeve that Jesus is the King, is
  all that is required to bring a man to eternall life. Thirdly, St. Paul
  saith (Rom. 1.17.) &ldquo;The Just shall live by Faith;&rdquo; not every one, but the
  Just; therefore Faith and Justice (that is, the Will To Be Just, or
  Repentance) are all that is Necessary to life eternall. And (Mark 1.15.)
  our Saviour preached, saying, &ldquo;The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of
  God is at hand, Repent and Beleeve the Evangile,&rdquo; that is, the Good news
  that the Christ was come. Therefore to Repent, and to Beleeve that Jesus
  is the Christ, is all that is required to Salvation.

  What Each Of Them Contributes Thereunto


  Seeing then it is Necessary that Faith, and Obedience (implyed in the word
  Repentance) do both concurre to our Salvation; the question by which of
  the two we are Justified, is impertinently disputed. Neverthelesse, it
  will not be impertinent, to make manifest in what manner each of them
  contributes thereunto; and in what sense it is said, that we are to be
  Justified by the one, and by the other. And first, if by Righteousnesse be
  understood the Justice of the Works themselves, there is no man that can
  be saved; for there is none that hath not transgressed the Law of God. And
  therefore when wee are said to be Justified by Works, it is to be
  understood of the Will, which God doth alwaies accept for the Work it
  selfe, as well in good, as in evill men. And in this sense onely it is,
  that a man is called Just, or Unjust; and that his Justice Justifies him,
  that is, gives him the title, in Gods acceptation, of Just; and renders
  him capable of Living By His Faith, which before he was not. So that
  Justice Justifies in that that sense, in which to Justifie, is the same
  that to Denominate A Man Just; and not in the signification of discharging
  the Law; whereby the punishment of his sins should be unjust.
<br />
  But a man is then also said to be Justified, when his Plea, though in it
  selfe unsufficient, is accepted; as when we Plead our Will, our Endeavour
  to fulfill the Law, and Repent us of our failings, and God accepteth it
  for the Performance it selfe: And because God accepteth not the Will for
  the Deed, but onely in the Faithfull; it is therefore Faith that makes
  good our Plea; and in this sense it is, that Faith onely Justifies: So
  that Faith and Obedience are both Necessary to Salvation; yet in severall
  senses each of them is said to Justifie.

  Obedience To God And To The Civill Soveraign Not Inconsistent


  Whether Christian, Having thus shewn what is Necessary to Salvation; it is
  not hard to reconcile our Obedience to the Civill Soveraign; who is either
  Christian, or Infidel. If he bee a Christian, he alloweth the beleefe of
  this Article, that Jesus Is The Christ; and of all the Articles that are
  contained in, or are evident consequence deduced from it: which is all the
  Faith Necessary to Salvation. And because he is a Soveraign, he requireth
  Obedience to all his owne, that is, to all the Civill Laws; in which also
  are contained all the Laws of Nature, that is, all the Laws of God: for
  besides the Laws of Nature, and the Laws of the Church, which are part of
  the Civill Law, (for the Church that can make Laws is the Common-wealth,)
  there bee no other Laws Divine. Whosoever therefore obeyeth his Christian
  Soveraign, is not thereby hindred, neither from beleeving, nor from
  obeying God. But suppose that a Christian King should from this
  Foundation, Jesus Is The Christ, draw some false consequences, that is to
  say, make some superstructions of Hay, or Stubble, and command the
  teaching of the same; yet seeing St. Paul says, he shal be saved; much
  more shall he be saved, that teacheth them by his command; and much more
  yet, he that teaches not, but onely beleeves his lawfull Teacher. And in
  case a Subject be forbidden by the Civill Soveraign to professe some of
  those his opinions, upon what grounds can he disobey? Christian Kings may
  erre in deducing a Consequence, but who shall Judge? Shall a private man
  Judge, when the question is of his own obedience? or shall any man Judg
  but he that is appointed thereto by the Church, that is, by the Civill
  Soveraign that representeth it? or if the Pope, or an Apostle Judge, may
  he not erre in deducing of a consequence? did not one of the two, St.
  Peter, or St. Paul erre in a superstructure, when St. Paul withstood St.
  Peter to his face? There can therefore be no contradiction between the
  Laws of God, and the Laws of a Christian Common-wealth.

  Or Infidel


  And when the Civill Soveraign is an Infidel, every one of his own Subjects
  that resisteth him, sinneth against the Laws of God (for such as are the
  Laws of Nature,) and rejecteth the counsell of the Apostles, that
  admonisheth all Christians to obey their Princes, and all Children and
  Servants to obey they Parents, and Masters, in all things. And for their
  Faith, it is internall, and invisible; They have the licence that Naaman
  had, and need not put themselves into danger for it. But if they do, they
  ought to expect their reward in Heaven, and not complain of their Lawfull
  Soveraign; much lesse make warre upon him. For he that is not glad of any
  just occasion of Martyrdome, has not the faith be professeth, but pretends
  it onely, to set some colour upon his own contumacy. But what Infidel King
  is so unreasonable, as knowing he has a Subject, that waiteth for the
  second comming of Christ, after the present world shall be burnt, and
  intendeth then to obey him (which is the intent of beleeving that Jesus is
  the Christ,) and in the mean time thinketh himself bound to obey the Laws
  of that Infidel King, (which all Christians are obliged in conscience to
  doe,) to put to death, or to persecute such a Subject?
<br />
  And thus much shall suffice, concerning the Kingdome of God, and Policy
  Ecclesiasticall. Wherein I pretend not to advance any Position of my own,
  but onely to shew what are the Consequences that seem to me deducible from
  the Principles of Christian Politiques, (which are the holy Scriptures,)
  in confirmation of the Power of Civill Soveraigns, and the Duty of their
  Subjects. And in the allegation of Scripture, I have endeavoured to avoid
  such Texts as are of obscure, or controverted Interpretation; and to
  alledge none, but is such sense as is most plain, and agreeable to the
  harmony and scope of the whole Bible; which was written for the
  re-establishment of the Kingdome of God in Christ. For it is not the bare
  Words, but the Scope of the writer that giveth the true light, by which
  any writing is to bee interpreted; and they that insist upon single Texts,
  without considering the main Designe, can derive no thing from them
  cleerly; but rather by casting atomes of Scripture, as dust before mens
  eyes, make every thing more obscure than it is; an ordinary artifice of
  those that seek not the truth, but their own advantage.

  PART IV.<br />
  OF THE KINDOME OF DARKNESSE

  CHAPTER XLIV.<br />OF SPIRITUALL DARKNESSE FROM MISINTERPRETATION OF

SCRIPTURE

  The Kingdome Of Darknesse What


  Besides these Soveraign Powers, Divine, and Humane, of which I have
  hitherto discoursed, there is mention in Scripture of another Power,
  namely, (Eph. 6. 12.), that of &ldquo;the Rulers of the Darknesse of this
  world,&rdquo; (Mat. 12. 26.), &ldquo;the Kingdome of Satan,&rdquo; and, (Mat. 9. 34.), &ldquo;the
  Principality of Beelzebub over Daemons,&rdquo; that is to say, over Phantasmes
  that appear in the Air: For which cause Satan is also called (Eph. 2. 2.)
  &ldquo;the Prince of the Power of the Air;&rdquo; and (because he ruleth in the
  darknesse of this world) (Joh. 16. 11.) &ldquo;The Prince of this world;&rdquo; And in
  consequence hereunto, they who are under his Dominion, in opposition to
  the faithfull (who are the Children Of The Light) are called the Children
  Of Darknesse. For seeing Beelzebub is Prince of Phantasmes, Inhabitants of
  his Dominion of Air and Darknesse, the Children of Darknesse, and these
  Daemons, Phantasmes, or Spirits of Illusion, signifie allegorically the
  same thing. This considered, the Kingdome of Darknesse, as it is set forth
  in these, and other places of the Scripture, is nothing else but a &ldquo;Confederacy
  of Deceivers, that to obtain dominion over men in this present world,
  endeavour by dark, and erroneous Doctrines, to extinguish in them the
  Light, both of Nature, and of the Gospell; and so to dis-prepare them for
  the Kingdome of God to come.&rdquo;

  The Church Not Yet Fully Freed Of Darknesse


  As men that are utterly deprived from their Nativity, of the light of the
  bodily Eye, have no Idea at all, of any such light; and no man conceives
  in his imagination any greater light, than he hath at some time, or other
  perceived by his outward Senses: so also is it of the light of the Gospel,
  and of the light of the Understanding, that no man can conceive there is
  any greater degree of it, than that which he hath already attained unto.
  And from hence it comes to passe, that men have no other means to
  acknowledge their owne Darknesse, but onely by reasoning from the
  un-forseen mischances, that befall them in their ways; The Darkest part of
  the Kingdome of Satan, is that which is without the Church of God; that is
  to say, amongst them that beleeve not in Jesus Christ. But we cannot say,
  that therefore the Church enjoyeth (as the land of Goshen) all the light,
  which to the performance of the work enjoined us by God, is necessary.
  Whence comes it, that in Christendome there has been, almost from the time
  of the Apostles, such justling of one another out of their places, both by
  forraign, and Civill war? such stumbling at every little asperity of their
  own fortune, and every little eminence of that of other men? and such
  diversity of ways in running to the same mark, Felicity, if it be not
  Night amongst us, or at least a Mist? wee are therefore yet in the Dark.

  Four Causes Of Spirituall Darknesse


  The Enemy has been here in the Night of our naturall Ignorance, and sown
  the tares of Spirituall Errors; and that, First, by abusing, and putting
  out the light of the Scriptures: For we erre, not knowing the Scriptures.
  Secondly, by introducing the Daemonology of the Heathen Poets, that is to
  say, their fabulous Doctrine concerning Daemons, which are but Idols, or
  Phantasms of the braine, without any reall nature of their own, distinct
  from humane fancy; such as are dead mens Ghosts, and Fairies, and other
  matter of old Wives tales. Thirdly, by mixing with the Scripture divers
  reliques of the Religion, and much of the vain and erroneous Philosophy of
  the Greeks, especially of Aristotle. Fourthly, by mingling with both
  these, false, or uncertain Traditions, and fained, or uncertain History.
  And so we come to erre, by &ldquo;giving heed to seducing Spirits,&rdquo; and the
  Daemonology of such &ldquo;as speak lies in Hypocrisie,&rdquo; (or as it is in the
  Originall, 1 Tim. 4.1,2. &ldquo;of those that play the part of lyars&rdquo;) &ldquo;with a
  seared conscience,&rdquo; that is, contrary to their own knowledge. Concerning
  the first of these, which is the Seducing of men by abuse of Scripture, I
  intend to speak briefly in this Chapter.

  Errors From Misinterpreting The Scriptures, Concerning The Kingdome Of
  God


  The greatest, and main abuse of Scripture, and to which almost all the
  rest are either consequent, or subservient, is the wresting of it, to
  prove that the Kingdome of God, mentioned so often in the Scripture, is
  the present Church, or multitude of Christian men now living, or that
  being dead, are to rise again at the last day: whereas the Kingdome of God
  was first instituted by the Ministery of Moses, over the Jews onely; who
  were therefore called his Peculiar People; and ceased afterward, in the
  election of Saul, when they refused to be governed by God any more, and
  demanded a King after the manner of the nations; which God himself
  consented unto, as I have more at large proved before, in the 35. Chapter.
  After that time, there was no other Kingdome of God in the world, by any
  Pact, or otherwise, than he ever was, is, and shall be King, of all men,
  and of all creatures, as governing according to his Will, by his infinite
  Power. Neverthelesse, he promised by his Prophets to restore this his
  Government to them again, when the time he hath in his secret counsell
  appointed for it shall bee fully come, and when they shall turn unto him
  by repentance, and amendment of life; and not onely so, but he invited
  also the Gentiles to come in, and enjoy the happinesse of his Reign, on
  the same conditions of conversion and repentance; and hee promised also to
  send his Son into the world, to expiate the sins of them all by his death,
  and to prepare them by his Doctrine, to receive him at his second coming:
  Which second coming not yet being, the Kingdome of God is not yet come,
  and wee are not now under any other Kings by Pact, but our Civill
  Soveraigns; saving onely, that Christian men are already in the Kingdome
  of Grace, in as much as they have already the Promise of being received at
  his comming againe.

  As That The Kingdome Of God Is The Present Church


  Consequent to this Errour, that the present Church is Christs Kingdome,
  there ought to be some one Man, or Assembly, by whose mouth our Saviour
  (now in heaven) speaketh, giveth law, and which representeth his person to
  all Christians, or divers Men, or divers Assemblies that doe the same to
  divers parts of Christendome. This power Regal under Christ, being
  challenged, universally by that Pope, and in particular Common-wealths by
  Assemblies of the Pastors of the place, (when the Scripture gives it to
  none but to Civill Soveraigns,) comes to be so passionately disputed, that
  it putteth out the Light of Nature, and causeth so great a Darknesse in
  mens understanding, that they see not who it is to whom they have engaged
  their obedience.

  And That The Pope Is His Vicar Generall


  Consequent to this claim of the Pope to Vicar Generall of Christ in the
  present Church, (supposed to be that Kingdom of his, to which we are
  addressed in the Gospel,) is the Doctrine, that it is necessary for a
  Christian King, to receive his Crown by a Bishop; as if it were from that
  Ceremony, that he derives the clause of Dei Gratia in his title; and that
  then onely he is made King by the favour of God, when he is crowned by the
  authority of Gods universall Viceregent on earth; and that every Bishop
  whosoever be his Soveraign, taketh at his Consecration an oath of absolute
  Obedience to the Pope, Consequent to the same, is the Doctrine of the
  fourth Councell of Lateran, held under Pope Innocent the third, (Chap. 3.
  De Haereticis.) &ldquo;That if a King at the Popes admonition, doe not purge his
  Kingdome of Haeresies, and being excommunicate for the same, doe not give
  satisfaction within a year, his Subjects are absolved of the bond of their
  obedience.&rdquo; Where, by Haeresies are understood all opinions which the
  Church of Rome hath forbidden to be maintained. And by this means, as
  often as there is any repugnancy between the Politicall designes of the
  Pope, and other Christian Princes, as there is very often, there ariseth
  such a Mist amongst their Subjects, that they know not a stranger that
  thrusteth himself into the throne of their lawfull Prince, from him whom
  they had themselves placed there; and in this Darknesse of mind, are made
  to fight one against another, without discerning their enemies from their
  friends, under the conduct of another mans ambition.

  And That The Pastors Are The Clergy


  From the same opinion, that the present Church is the Kingdome of God, it
  proceeds that Pastours, Deacons, and all other Ministers of the Church,
  take the name to themselves of the Clergy, giving to other Christians the
  name of Laity, that is, simply People. For Clergy signifies those, whose
  maintenance is that Revenue, which God having reserved to himselfe during
  his Reigne over the Israelites, assigned to the tribe of Levi (who were to
  be his publique Ministers, and had no portion of land set them out to live
  on, as their brethren) to be their inheritance. The Pope therefore,
  (pretending the present Church to be, as the Realme of Israel, the
  Kingdome of God) challenging to himselfe and his subordinate Ministers,
  the like revenue, as the Inheritance of God, the name of Clergy was
  sutable to that claime. And thence it is, that Tithes, or other tributes
  paid to the Levites, as Gods Right, amongst the Israelites, have a long
  time been demanded, and taken of Christians, by Ecclesiastiques, Jure
  Divino, that is, in Gods Right. By which meanes, the people every where
  were obliged to a double tribute; one to the State, another to the Clergy;
  whereof, that to the Clergy, being the tenth of their revenue, is double
  to that which a King of Athens (and esteemed a Tyrant) exacted of his
  subjects for the defraying of all publique charges: For he demanded no
  more but the twentieth part; and yet abundantly maintained therewith the
  Commonwealth. And in the Kingdome of the Jewes, during the Sacerdotall
  Reigne of God, the Tithes and Offerings were the whole Publique Revenue.
<br />
  From the same mistaking of the present Church for the Kingdom of God, came
  in the distinction betweene the Civill and the Canon Laws: The civil Law
  being the acts of Soveraigns in their own Dominions, and the Canon Law
  being the Acts of the Pope in the same Dominions. Which Canons, though
  they were but Canons, that is, Rules Propounded, and but voluntarily
  received by Christian Princes, till the translation of the Empire to
  Charlemain; yet afterwards, as the power of the Pope encreased, became
  Rules Commanded, and the Emperours themselves (to avoyd greater
  mischiefes, which the people blinded might be led into) were forced to let
  them passe for Laws.
<br />
  From hence it is, that in all Dominions, where the Popes Ecclesiasticall
  power is entirely received, Jewes, Turkes, and Gentiles, are in the Roman
  Church tolerated in their Religion, as farre forth, as in the exercise and
  profession thereof they offend not against the civill power: whereas in a
  Christian, though a stranger, not to be of the Roman Religion, is
  Capitall; because the Pope pretendeth that all Christians are his
  Subjects. For otherwise it were as much against the law of Nations, to
  persecute a Christian stranger, for professing the Religion of his owne
  country, as an Infidell; or rather more, in as much as they that are not
  against Christ, are with him.
<br />
  From the same it is, that in every Christian State there are certaine men,
  that are exempt, by Ecclesiasticall liberty, from the tributes, and from
  the tribunals of the Civil State; for so are the secular Clergy, besides
  Monks and Friars, which in many places, bear so great a proportion to the
  common people, as if need were, there might be raised out of them alone,
  an Army, sufficient for any warre the Church militant should imploy them
  in, against their owne, or other Princes.

  Error From Mistaking Consecration For Conjuration


  A second generall abuse of Scripture, is the turning of Consecration into
  Conjuration, or Enchantment. To Consecrate, is in Scripture, to Offer,
  Give, or Dedicate, in pious and decent language and gesture, a man, or any
  other thing to God, by separating of it from common use; that is to say,
  to Sanctifie, or make it Gods, and to be used only by those, whom God hath
  appointed to be his Publike Ministers, (as I have already proved at large
  in the 35. Chapter;) and thereby to change, not the thing Consecrated, but
  onely the use of it, from being Profane and common, to be Holy, and
  peculiar to Gods service. But when by such words, the nature of qualitie
  of the thing it selfe, is pretended to be changed, it is not Consecration,
  but either an extraordinary worke of God, or a vaine and impious
  Conjuration. But seeing (for the frequency of pretending the change of
  Nature in their Consecrations,) it cannot be esteemed a work
  extraordinary, it is no other than a Conjuration or Incantation, whereby
  they would have men to beleeve an alteration of Nature that is not,
  contrary to the testimony of mans Sight, and of all the rest of his
  Senses. As for example, when the Priest, in stead of Consecrating Bread
  and Wine to Gods peculiar service in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper,
  (which is but a separation of it from the common use, to signifie, that
  is, to put men in mind of their Redemption, by the Passion of Christ,
  whose body was broken, and blood shed upon the Crosse for our
  transgressions,) pretends, that by saying of the words of our Saviour,
  &ldquo;This is my Body,&rdquo; and &ldquo;This is my Blood,&rdquo; the nature of Bread is no more
  there, but his very Body; notwithstanding there appeared not to the Sight,
  or other Sense of the Receiver, any thing that appeareth not before the
  Consecration. The Egyptian Conjurers, that are said to have turned their
  Rods to Serpents, and the Water into Bloud, are thought but to have
  deluded the senses of the Spectators by a false shew of things, yet are
  esteemed Enchanters: But what should wee have thought of them, if there
  had appeared in their Rods nothing like a Serpent, and in the Water
  enchanted, nothing like Bloud, nor like any thing else but Water, but that
  they had faced down the King, that they were Serpents that looked like
  Rods, and that it was Bloud that seemed Water? That had been both
  Enchantment, and Lying. And yet in this daily act of the Priest, they doe
  the very same, by turning the holy words into the manner of a Charme,
  which produceth nothing now to the Sense; but they face us down, that it
  hath turned the Bread into a Man; nay more, into a God; and require men to
  worship it, as if it were our Saviour himself present God and Man, and
  thereby to commit most grosse Idolatry. For if it bee enough to excuse it
  of Idolatry, to say it is no more Bread, but God; why should not the same
  excuse serve the Egyptians, in case they had the faces to say, the Leeks,
  and Onyons they worshipped, were not very Leeks, and Onyons, but a
  Divinity under their Species, or likenesse. The words, &ldquo;This is my Body,&rdquo;
  are aequivalent to these, &ldquo;This signifies, or represents my Body;&rdquo; and it
  is an ordinary figure of Speech: but to take it literally, is an abuse;
  nor though so taken, can it extend any further, than to the Bread which
  Christ himself with his own hands Consecrated. For hee never said, that of
  what Bread soever, any Priest whatsoever, should say, &ldquo;This is my Body,&rdquo;
  or, &ldquo;This is Christs Body,&rdquo; the same should presently be
  transubstantiated. Nor did the Church of Rome ever establish this
  Transubstantiation, till the time of Innocent the third; which was not
  above 500. years agoe, when the Power of Popes was at the Highest, and the
  Darknesse of the time grown so great, as men discerned not the Bread that
  was given them to eat, especially when it was stamped with the figure of
  Christ upon the Crosse, as if they would have men beleeve it were
  Transubstantiated, not onely into the Body of Christ, but also into the
  Wood of his Crosse, and that they did eat both together in the Sacrament.

  Incantation In The Ceremonies Of Baptisme


  The like incantation, in stead of Consecration, is used also in the
  Sacrament of Baptisme: Where the abuse of Gods name in each severall
  Person, and in the whole Trinity, with the sign of the Crosse at each
  name, maketh up the Charm: As first, when they make the Holy water, the
  Priest saith, &ldquo;I Conjure thee, thou Creature of Water, in the name of God
  the Father Almighty, and in the name of Jesus Christ his onely Son our
  Lord, and in vertue of the Holy Ghost, that thou become Conjured water, to
  drive away all the Powers of the Enemy, and to eradicate, and supplant the
  Enemy, &c.&rdquo; And the same in the Benediction of the Salt to be mingled
  with it; &ldquo;That thou become Conjured Salt, that all Phantasmes, and Knavery
  of the Devills fraud may fly and depart from the place wherein thou art
  sprinkled; and every unclean Spirit bee Conjured by Him that shall come to
  judge the quicke and the dead.&rdquo; The same in the Benediction of the Oyle.
  &ldquo;That all the Power of the Enemy, all the Host of the Devill, all Assaults
  and Phantasmes of Satan, may be driven away by this Creature of Oyle.&rdquo; And
  for the Infant that is to be Baptized, he is subject to many Charms;
  First, at the Church dore the Priest blows thrice in the Childs face, and
  sayes, &ldquo;Goe out of him unclean Spirit, and give place to the Holy Ghost
  the Comforter.&rdquo; As if all Children, till blown on by the Priest were
  Daemoniaques: Again, before his entrance into the Church, he saith as
  before, &ldquo;I Conjure thee, &c. to goe out, and depart from this Servant
  of God:&rdquo; And again the same Exorcisme is repeated once more before he be
  Baptized. These, and some other Incantations, and Consecrations, in
  administration of the Sacraments of Baptisme, and the Lords Supper;
  wherein every thing that serveth to those holy men (except the unhallowed
  Spittle of the Priest) hath some set form of Exorcisme.

  In Marriage, In Visitation Of The Sick, And In Consecration Of Places


  Nor are the other rites, as of Marriage, of Extreme Unction, of Visitation
  of the Sick, of Consecrating Churches, and Church-yards, and the like,
  exempt from Charms; in as much as there is in them the use of Enchanted
  Oyle, and Water, with the abuse of the Crosse, and of the holy word of
  David, &ldquo;Asperges me Domine Hyssopo,&rdquo; as things of efficacy to drive away
  Phantasmes, and Imaginery Spirits.

  Errors From Mistaking Eternall Life, And Everlasting Death


  Another generall Error, is from the Misinterpretation of the words
  Eternall Life, Everlasting Death, and the Second Death. For though we read
  plainly in Holy Scripture, that God created Adam in an estate of Living
  for Ever, which was conditionall, that is to say, if he disobeyed not his
  Commandement; which was not essentiall to Humane Nature, but consequent to
  the vertue of the Tree of Life; whereof hee had liberty to eat, as long as
  hee had not sinned; and that hee was thrust out of Paradise after he had
  sinned, lest hee should eate thereof, and live for ever; and that Christs
  Passion is a Discharge of sin to all that beleeve on him; and by
  consequence, a restitution of Eternall Life, to all the Faithfull, and to
  them onely: yet the Doctrine is now, and hath been a long time far
  otherwise; namely, that every man hath Eternity of Life by Nature, in as
  much as his Soul is Immortall: So that the flaming Sword at the entrance
  of Paradise, though it hinder a man from coming to the Tree of Life,
  hinders him not from the Immortality which God took from him for his Sin;
  nor makes him to need the sacrificing of Christ, for the recovering of the
  same; and consequently, not onely the faithfull and righteous, but also
  the wicked, and the Heathen, shall enjoy Eternall Life, without any Death
  at all; much lesse a Second, and Everlasting Death. To salve this, it is
  said, that by Second, and Everlasting Death, is meant a Second, and
  Everlasting Life, but in Torments; a Figure never used, but in this very
  Case.
<br />
  All which Doctrine is founded onely on some of the obscurer places of the
  New Testament; which neverthelesse, the whole scope of the Scripture
  considered, are cleer enough in a different sense, and unnecessary to the
  Christian Faith. For supposing that when a man dies, there remaineth
  nothing of him but his carkasse; cannot God that raised inanimated dust
  and clay into a living creature by his Word, as easily raise a dead
  carkasse to life again, and continue him alive for Ever, or make him die
  again, by another Word? The Soule in Scripture, signifieth alwaies, either
  the Life, or the Living Creature; and the Body and Soule jointly, the Body
  Alive. In the fift day of the Creation, God said, Let the water produce
  Reptile Animae Viventis, the creeping thing that hath in it a Living
  Soule; the English translate it, &ldquo;that hath Life:&rdquo; And again, God created
  Whales, &ldquo;& omnem animam viventem;&rdquo; which in the English is, &ldquo;every
  living Creature:&rdquo; And likewise of Man, God made him of the dust of the
  earth, and breathed in his face the breath of Life, &ldquo;& factus est Homo
  in animam viventem,&rdquo; that is, &ldquo;and Man was made a Living Creature;&rdquo; And
  after Noah came out of the Arke, God saith, hee will no more smite &ldquo;omnem
  animam viventem,&rdquo; that is &ldquo;every Living Creature;&rdquo; And Deut. 12.23. &ldquo;Eate
  not the Bloud, for the Bloud is the Soule;&rdquo; that is &ldquo;the Life.&rdquo; From which
  places, if by Soule were meant a Substance Incorporeall, with an existence
  separated from the Body, it might as well be inferred of any other living
  Creature, as of Man. But that the Souls of the Faithfull, are not of their
  own Nature, but by Gods speciall Grace, to remaine in their bodies, from
  the Resurrection to all Eternity, I have already I think sufficiently
  proved out of the Scriptures, in the 38. Chapter. And for the places of
  the New Testament, where it is said that any man shall be cast Body and
  Soul into Hell fire, it is no more than Body and Life; that is to say,
  they shall be cast alive into the perpetuall fire of Gehenna.

  As The Doctrine Of Purgatory, And Exorcismes, And Invocation Of Saints


  This window it is, that gives entrance to the Dark Doctrine, first, of
  Eternall Torments; and afterwards of Purgatory, and consequently of the
  walking abroad, especially in places Consecrated, Solitary, or Dark, of
  the Ghosts of men deceased; and thereby to the pretences of Exorcisme and
  Conjuration of Phantasmes; as also of Invocation of men dead; and to the
  Doctrine of Indulgences; that is to say, of exemption for a time, or for
  ever, from the fire of Purgatory, wherein these Incorporeall Substances
  are pretended by burning to be cleansed, and made fit for Heaven. For men
  being generally possessed before the time of our Saviour, by contagion of
  the Daemonology of the Greeks, of an opinion, that the Souls of men were
  substances distinct from their Bodies, and therefore that when the Body
  was dead, the Soule of every man, whether godly, or wicked, must subsist
  somewhere by vertue of its own nature, without acknowledging therein any
  supernaturall gift of Gods; the Doctors of the Church doubted a long time,
  what was the place, which they were to abide in, till they should be
  re-united to their Bodies in the Resurrection; supposing for a while, they
  lay under the Altars: but afterward the Church of Rome found it more
  profitable, to build for them this place of Purgatory; which by some other
  Churches in this later age, has been demolished.

  The Texts Alledged For The Doctrines Aforementioned Have Been Answered
  Before


  Let us now consider, what texts of Scripture seem most to confirm these
  three generall Errors, I have here touched. As for those which Cardinall
  Bellarmine hath alledged, for the present Kingdome of God administred by
  the Pope, (than which there are none that make a better show of proof,) I
  have already answered them; and made it evident, that the Kingdome of God,
  instituted by Moses, ended in the election of Saul: After which time the
  Priest of his own authority never deposed any King. That which the High
  Priest did to Athaliah, was not done in his own right, but in the right of
  the young King Joash her Son: But Solomon in his own right deposed the
  High Priest Abiathar, and set up another in his place. The most difficult
  place to answer, of all those than can be brought, to prove the Kingdome
  of God by Christ is already in this world, is alledged, not by Bellarmine,
  nor any other of the Church of Rome; but by Beza; that will have it to
  begin from the Resurrection of Christ. But whether hee intend thereby, to
  entitle the Presbytery to the Supreme Power Ecclesiasticall in the
  Common-wealth of Geneva, (and consequently to every Presbytery in every
  other Common-wealth,) or to Princes, and other Civill Soveraignes, I doe
  not know. For the Presbytery hath challenged the power to Excommunicate
  their owne Kings, and to bee the Supreme Moderators in Religion, in the
  places where they have that form of Church government, no lesse then the
  Pope challengeth it universally.

  Answer To The Text On Which Beza Infereth


  That The Kingdome Of Christ Began At The Resurrection The words are (Marke
  9.1.) &ldquo;Verily, I say unto you, that there be some of them that stand here,
  which shall not tast of death, till they have seene the Kingdome of God
  come with power.&rdquo; Which words, if taken grammatically, make it certaine,
  that either some of those men that stood by Christ at that time, are yet
  alive; or else, that the Kingdome of God must be now in this present
  world. And then there is another place more difficult: For when the
  Apostles after our Saviours Resurrection, and immediately before his
  Ascension, asked our Saviour, saying, (Acts.1.6.) &ldquo;Wilt thou at this time
  restore again the Kingdome to Israel,&rdquo; he answered them, &ldquo;It is not for
  you to know the times and the seasons, which the Father hath put in his
  own power; But ye shall receive power by the comming of the Holy Ghost
  upon you, and yee shall be my (Martyrs) witnesses both in Jerusalem, &
  in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the Earth:&rdquo;
  Which is as much as to say, My Kingdome is not yet come, nor shall you
  foreknow when it shall come, for it shall come as a theefe in the night;
  But I will send you the Holy Ghost, and by him you shall have power to
  beare witnesse to all the world (by your preaching) of my Resurrection,
  and the workes I have done, and the doctrine I have taught, that they may
  beleeve in me, and expect eternall life, at my comming againe: How does
  this agree with the comming of Christs Kingdome at the Resurrection? And
  that which St. Paul saies (1 Thessal. 1.9, 10.) &ldquo;That they turned from
  Idols, to serve the living and true God, and to waite for his Sonne from
  Heaven:&rdquo; Where to waite for his Sonne from Heaven, is to wait for his
  comming to be King in power; which were not necessary, if this Kingdome
  had beene then present. Againe, if the Kingdome of God began (as Beza on
  that place (Mark 9.1.) would have it) at the Resurrection; what reason is
  there for Christians ever since the Resurrection to say in their prayers,
  &ldquo;Let thy Kingdome Come&rdquo;? It is therefore manifest, that the words of St.
  Mark are not so to be interpreted. There be some of them that stand here
  (saith our Saviour) that shall not tast of death till they have seen the
  Kingdome of God come in power. If then this Kingdome were to come at the
  Resurrection of Christ, why is it said, &ldquo;some of them&rdquo; rather than all?
  For they all lived till after Christ was risen.

  Explication Of The Place In Mark 9.1


  But they that require an exact interpretation of this text, let them
  interpret first the like words of our Saviour to St. Peter concerning St.
  John, (chap. 21.22.) &ldquo;If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to
  thee?&rdquo; upon which was grounded a report that hee should not dye:
  Neverthelesse the truth of that report was neither confirmed, as well
  grounded; nor refuted, as ill grounded on those words; but left as a
  saying not understood. The same difficulty is also in the place of St.
  Marke. And if it be lawfull to conjecture at their meaning, by that which
  immediately followes, both here, and in St. Luke, where the same is againe
  repeated, it is not unprobable, to say they have relation to the
  Transfiguration, which is described in the verses immediately following;
  where it is said, that &ldquo;After six dayes Jesus taketh with him Peter, and
  James, and John (not all, but some of his Disciples) and leadeth them up
  into an high mountaine apart by themselves, and was transfigured before
  them. And his rayment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no
  Fuller on earth can white them. And there appeared unto them Elias with
  Moses, and they were talking with Jesus, &c.&rdquo; So that they saw Christ
  in Glory and Majestie, as he is to come; insomuch as &ldquo;They were sore
  afraid.&rdquo; And thus the promise of our Saviour was accomplished by way of
  Vision: For it was a Vision, as may probably bee inferred out of St. Luke,
  that reciteth the same story (ch. 9. ve. 28.) and saith, that Peter and
  they that were with him, were heavy with sleep; But most certainly out of
  Matth. 17.9. (where the same is again related;) for our Saviour charged
  them, saying, &ldquo;Tell no man the Vision untill the Son of man be Risen from
  the dead.&rdquo; Howsoever it be, yet there can from thence be taken no
  argument, to prove that the Kingdome of God taketh beginning till the day
  of Judgement.

  Abuse Of Some Other Texts In Defence Of The Power Of The Pope


  As for some other texts, to prove the Popes Power over civill Soveraignes
  (besides those of Bellarmine;) as that the two Swords that Christ and his
  Apostles had amongst them, were the Spirituall and the Temporall Sword,
  which they say St. Peter had given him by Christ: And, that of the two
  Luminaries, the greater signifies the Pope, and the lesser the King; One
  might as well inferre out of the first verse of the Bible, that by Heaven
  is meant the Pope, and by Earth the King: Which is not arguing from
  Scripture, but a wanton insulting over Princes, that came in fashion after
  the time the Popes were growne so secure of their greatnesse, as to
  contemne all Christian Kings; and Treading on the necks of Emperours, to
  mocke both them, and the Scripture, in the words of the 91. Psalm, &ldquo;Thou
  shalt Tread upon the Lion and the Adder, the young Lion and the Dragon
  thou shalt Trample under thy feet.&rdquo;

  The Manner Of Consecrations In The Scripture, Was Without Exorcisms


  As for the rites of Consecration, though they depend for the most part
  upon the discretion and judgement of the governors of the Church, and not
  upon the Scriptures; yet those governors are obliged to such direction, as
  the nature of the action it selfe requireth; as that the ceremonies,
  words, and gestures, be both decent, and significant, or at least
  conformable to the action. When Moses consecrated the Tabernacle, the
  Altar, and the Vessels belonging to them (Exod. 40.) he anointed them with
  the Oyle which God had commanded to bee made for that purpose; and they
  were holy; There was nothing Exorcised, to drive away Phantasmes. The same
  Moses (the civill Soveraigne of Israel) when he consecrated Aaron (the
  High Priest,) and his Sons, did wash them with Water, (not Exorcised
  water,) put their Garments upon them, and anointed them with Oyle; and
  they were sanctified, to minister unto the Lord in the Priests office;
  which was a simple and decent cleansing, and adorning them, before hee
  presented them to God, to be his servants. When King Solomon, (the civill
  Soveraigne of Israel) consecrated the Temple hee had built, (2 Kings 8.)
  he stood before all the Congregation of Israel; and having blessed them,
  he gave thanks to God, for putting into the heart of his father, to build
  it; and for giving to himselfe the grace to accomplish the same; and then
  prayed unto him, first, to accept that House, though it were not sutable
  to his infinite Greatnesse; and to hear the prayers of his Servants that
  should pray therein, or (if they were absent) towards it; and lastly, he
  offered a sacrifice of Peace-offering, and the House was dedicated. Here
  was no Procession; the King stood still in his first place; no Exorcised
  Water; no Asperges Me, nor other impertinent application of words spoken
  upon another occasion; but a decent, and rationall speech, and such as in
  making to God a present of his new built House, was most conformable to
  the occasion. We read not that St. John did Exorcise the Water of Jordan;
  nor Philip the Water of the river wherein he baptized the Eunuch; nor that
  any Pastor in the time of the Apostles, did take his spittle, and put it
  to the nose of the person to be Baptized, and say, &ldquo;In odorem suavitatis,&rdquo;
  that is, &ldquo;for a sweet savour unto the Lord;&rdquo; wherein neither the Ceremony
  of Spittle, for the uncleannesse; nor the application of that Scripture
  for the levity, can by any authority of man be justified.

  The Immortality Of Mans Soule, Not Proved By Scripture To Be Of Nature,
  But Of Grace


  To prove that the Soule separated from the Body liveth eternally, not
  onely the Soules of the Elect, by especiall grace, and restauration of the
  Eternall Life which Adam lost by Sinne, and our Saviour restored by the
  Sacrifice of himself, to the Faithfull, but also the Soules of Reprobates,
  as a property naturally consequent to the essence of mankind, without
  other grace of God, but that which is universally given to all mankind;
  there are divers places, which at the first sight seem sufficiently to
  serve the turn: but such, as when I compare them with that which I have
  before (Chapter 38.) alledged out of the 14 of Job, seem to mee much more
  subject to a divers interpretation, than the words of Job.
<br />
  And first there are the words of Solomon (Ecclesiastes 12.7.) &ldquo;Then shall
  the Dust return to Dust, as it was, and the Spirit shall return to God
  that gave it.&rdquo; Which may bear well enough (if there be no other text
  directly against it) this interpretation, that God onely knows, (but Man
  not,) what becomes of a mans spirit, when he expireth; and the same
  Solomon, in the same Book, (Chap. 3. ver. 20,21.) delivereth in the same
  sentence in the sense I have given it: His words are, &ldquo;All goe, (man and
  beast) to the same place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again;
  who knoweth that the spirit of Man goeth upward, and the spirit of the
  Beast goeth downward to the earth?&rdquo; That is, none knows but God; Nor is it
  an unusuall phrase to say of things we understand not, &ldquo;God knows what,&rdquo;
  and &ldquo;God knows where.&rdquo; That of Gen. 5.24. &ldquo;Enoch walked with God, and he
  was not; for God took him;&rdquo; which is expounded Heb. 13.5. &ldquo;He was
  translated, that he should not die; and was not found, because God had
  translated him. For before his Translation, he had this testimony, that he
  pleased God,&rdquo; making as much for the Immortality of the Body, as of the
  Soule, proveth, that this his translation was peculiar to them that please
  God; not common to them with the wicked; and depending on Grace, not on
  Nature. But on the contrary, what interpretation shall we give, besides
  the literall sense of the words of Solomon (Eccles. 3.19.) &ldquo;That which
  befalleth the Sons of Men, befalleth Beasts, even one thing befalleth
  them; as the one dyeth, so doth the other; yea, they have all one breath
  (one spirit;) so that a Man hath no praeeminence above a Beast, for all is
  vanity.&rdquo; By the literall sense, here is no Naturall Immortality of the
  Soule; nor yet any repugnancy with the Life Eternall, which the Elect
  shall enjoy by Grace. And (chap. 4. ver.3.) &ldquo;Better is he that hath not
  yet been, than both they;&rdquo; that is, than they that live, or have lived;
  which, if the Soule of all them that have lived, were Immortall, were a
  hard saying; for then to have an Immortall Soule, were worse than to have
  no Soule at all. And againe,(Chapt. 9.5.) &ldquo;The living know they shall die,
  but the dead know not any thing;&rdquo; that is, Naturally, and before the
  resurrection of the body.
<br />
  Another place which seems to make for a Naturall Immortality of the Soule,
  is that, where our Saviour saith, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are
  living: but this is spoken of the promise of God, and of their certitude
  to rise again, not of a Life then actuall; and in the same sense that God
  said to Adam, that on the day hee should eate of the forbidden fruit, he
  should certainly die; from that time forward he was a dead man by
  sentence; but not by execution, till almost a thousand years after. So
  Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive by promise, then, when Christ spake;
  but are not actually till the Resurrection. And the History of Dives and
  Lazarus, make nothing against this, if wee take it (as it is) for a
  Parable.
<br />
  But there be other places of the New Testament, where an Immortality
  seemeth to be directly attributed to the wicked. For it is evident, that
  they shall all rise to Judgement. And it is said besides in many places,
  that they shall goe into &ldquo;Everlasting fire, Everlasting torments,
  Everlasting punishments; and that the worm of conscience never dyeth;&rdquo; and
  all this is comprehended in the word Everlasting Death, which is
  ordinarily interpreted Everlasting Life In Torments: And yet I can find no
  where that any man shall live in torments Everlastingly. Also, it seemeth
  hard, to say, that God who is the Father of Mercies, that doth in Heaven
  and Earth all that hee will; that hath the hearts of all men in his
  disposing; that worketh in men both to doe, and to will; and without whose
  free gift a man hath neither inclination to good, nor repentance of evill,
  should punish mens transgressions without any end of time, and with all
  the extremity of torture, that men can imagine, and more. We are therefore
  to consider, what the meaning is, of Everlasting Fire, and other the like
  phrases of Scripture.
<br />
  I have shewed already, that the Kingdome of God by Christ beginneth at the
  day of Judgment: That in that day, the Faithfull shall rise again, with
  glorious, and spirituall Bodies, and bee his Subjects in that his
  Kingdome, which shall be Eternall; That they shall neither marry, nor be
  given in marriage, nor eate and drink, as they did in their naturall
  bodies; but live for ever in their individuall persons, without the
  specificall eternity of generation: And that the Reprobates also shall
  rise again, to receive punishments for their sins: As also, that those of
  the Elect, which shall be alive in their earthly bodies at that day, shall
  have their bodies suddenly changed, and made spirituall, and Immortall.
  But that the bodies of the Reprobate, who make the Kingdome of Satan,
  shall also be glorious, or spirituall bodies, or that they shall bee as
  the Angels of God, neither eating, nor drinking, nor engendring; or that
  their life shall be Eternall in their individuall persons, as the life of
  every faithfull man is, or as the life of Adam had been if hee had not
  sinned, there is no place of Scripture to prove it; save onely these
  places concerning Eternall Torments; which may otherwise be interpreted.
<br />
  From whence may be inferred, that as the Elect after the Resurrection
  shall be restored to the estate, wherein Adam was before he had sinned; so
  the Reprobate shall be in the estate, that Adam, and his posterity were in
  after the sin committed; saving that God promised a Redeemer to Adam, and
  such of his seed as should trust in him, and repent; but not to them that
  should die in their sins, as do the Reprobate.

  Eternall Torments What


  These things considered, the texts that mention Eternall Fire, Eternal
  Torments, or the Word That Never Dieth, contradict not the Doctrine of a
  Second, and Everlasting Death, in the proper and naturall sense of the
  word Death. The Fire, or Torments prepared for the wicked in Gehenna,
  Tophet, or in what place soever, may continue for ever; and there may
  never want wicked men to be tormented in them; though not every, nor any
  one Eternally. For the wicked being left in the estate they were in after
  Adams sin, may at the Resurrection live as they did, marry, and give in
  marriage, and have grosse and corruptible bodies, as all mankind now have;
  and consequently may engender perpetually, after the Resurrection, as they
  did before: For there is no place of Scripture to the contrary. For St.
  Paul, speaking of the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15.) understandeth it onely of
  the Resurrection to Life Eternall; and not the Resurrection to Punishment.
  And of the first, he saith that the Body is &ldquo;Sown in Corruption, raised in
  Incorruption; sown in Dishonour, raised in Honour; sown in Weaknesse,
  raised in Power; sown a Naturall body, raised a Spirituall body:&rdquo; There is
  no such thing can be said of the bodies of them that rise to Punishment.
  The text is Luke 20. Verses 34,35,36. a fertile text. &ldquo;The Children of
  this world marry, and are given in marriage; but they that shall be
  counted worthy to obtaine that world, and the Resurrection from the dead,
  neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more;
  for they are equall to the Angells, and are the Children of God, being the
  Children of the Resurrection:&rdquo; The Children of this world, that are in the
  estate which Adam left them in, shall marry, and be given in marriage;
  that is corrupt, and generate successively; which is an Immortality of the
  Kind, but not of the Persons of men: They are not worthy to be counted
  amongst them that shall obtain the next world, and an absolute
  Resurrection from the dead; but onely a short time, as inmates of that
  world; and to the end onely to receive condign punishment for their
  contumacy. The Elect are the onely children of the Resurrection; that is
  to say the sole heirs of Eternall Life: they only can die no more; it is
  they that are equall to the Angels, and that are the children of God; and
  not the Reprobate. To the Reprobate there remaineth after the
  Resurrection, a Second, and Eternall Death: between which Resurrection,
  and their Second, and Eternall death, is but a time of Punishment and
  Torment; and to last by succession of sinners thereunto, as long as the
  kind of Man by propagation shall endure, which is Eternally.

  Answer Of The Texts Alledged For Purgatory


  Upon this Doctrine of the Naturall Eternity of separated Soules, is
  founded (as I said) the Doctrine of Purgatory. For supposing Eternall Life
  by Grace onely, there is no Life, but the Life of the Body; and no
  Immortality till the Resurrection. The texts for Purgatory alledged by
  Bellarmine out of the Canonicall Scripture of the old Testament, are
  first, the Fasting of David for Saul and Jonathan, mentioned (2 Kings, 1.
  12.); and againe, (2 Sam. 3. 35.) for the death of Abner. This Fasting of
  David, he saith, was for the obtaining of something for them at Gods
  hands, after their death; because after he had Fasted to procure the
  recovery of his owne child, assoone as he know it was dead, he called for
  meate. Seeing then the Soule hath an existence separate from the Body, and
  nothing can be obtained by mens Fasting for the Soules that are already
  either in Heaven, or Hell, it followeth that there be some Soules of dead
  men, what are neither in Heaven, nor in Hell; and therefore they must bee
  in some third place, which must be Purgatory. And thus with hard
  straining, hee has wrested those places to the proofe of a Purgatory;
  whereas it is manifest, that the ceremonies of Mourning, and Fasting, when
  they are used for the death of men, whose life was not profitable to the
  Mourners, they are used for honours sake to their persons; and when tis
  done for the death of them by whose life the Mourners had benefit, it
  proceeds from their particular dammage: And so David honoured Saul, and
  Abner, with his Fasting; and in the death of his owne child, recomforted
  himselfe, by receiving his ordinary food.
<br />
  In the other places, which he alledgeth out of the old Testament, there is
  not so much as any shew, or colour of proofe. He brings in every text
  wherein there is the word Anger, or Fire, or Burning, or Purging, or
  Clensing, in case any of the Fathers have but in a Sermon rhetorically
  applied it to the Doctrine of Purgatory, already beleeved. The first verse
  of Psalme, 37. &ldquo;O Lord rebuke me not in thy wrath, nor chasten me in thy
  hot displeasure:&rdquo; What were this to Purgatory, if Augustine had not
  applied the Wrath to the fire of Hell, and the Displeasure, to that of
  Purgatory? And what is it to Purgatory, that of Psalme, 66. 12. &ldquo;Wee went
  through fire and water, and thou broughtest us to a moist place;&rdquo; and
  other the like texts, (with which the Doctors of those times entended to
  adorne, or extend their Sermons, or Commentaries) haled to their purposes
  by force of wit?

  Places Of The New Testament For Purgatory Answered


  But he alledgeth other places of the New Testament, that are not so easie
  to be answered: And first that of Matth. 12.32. &ldquo;Whosoever speaketh a word
  against the Sonne of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh
  against the Holy Ghost, it shall not bee forgiven him neither in this
  world, nor in the world to come:&rdquo; Where he will have Purgatory to be the
  World to come, wherein some sinnes may be forgiven, which in this World
  were not forgiven: notwithstanding that it is manifest, there are but
  three Worlds; one from the Creation to the Flood, which was destroyed by
  Water, and is called in Scripture the Old World; another from the Flood to
  the day of Judgement, which is the Present World, and shall bee destroyed
  by Fire; and the third, which shall bee from the day of Judgement forward,
  everlasting, which is called the World To Come; and in which it is agreed
  by all, there shall be no Purgatory; And therefore the World to come, and
  Purgatory, are inconsistent. But what then can bee the meaning of those
  our Saviours words? I confesse they are very hardly to bee reconciled with
  all the Doctrines now unanimously received: Nor is it any shame, to
  confesse the profoundnesse of the Scripture, to bee too great to be
  sounded by the shortnesse of humane understanding. Neverthelesse, I may
  propound such things to the consideration of more learned Divines, as the
  text it selfe suggesteth. And first, seeing to speake against the Holy
  Ghost, as being the third Person of the Trinity, is to speake against the
  Church, in which the Holy Ghost resideth; it seemeth the comparison is
  made, betweene the Easinesse of our Saviour, in bearing with offences done
  to him while he was on earth, and the Severity of the Pastors after him,
  against those which should deny their authority, which was from the Holy
  Ghost: As if he should say, You that deny my Power; nay you that shall
  crucifie me, shall be pardoned by mee, as often as you turne unto mee by
  Repentance: But if you deny the Power of them that teach you hereafter, by
  vertue of the Holy Ghost, they shall be inexorable, and shall not forgive
  you, but persecute you in this World, and leave you without absolution,
  (though you turn to me, unlesse you turn also to them,) to the punishments
  (as much as lies in them) of the World to come: And so the words may be
  taken as a Prophecy, or Praediction concerning the times, as they have
  along been in the Christian Church: Or if this be not the meaning, (for I
  am not peremptory in such difficult places,) perhaps there may be place
  left after the Resurrection for the Repentance of some sinners: And there
  is also another place, that seemeth to agree therewith. For considering
  the words of St. Paul (1 Cor. 15. 29.) &ldquo;What shall they doe which are
  Baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why also are they
  Baptized for the dead?&rdquo; a man may probably inferre, as some have done,
  that in St. Pauls time, there was a custome by receiving Baptisme for the
  dead, (as men that now beleeve, are Sureties and Undertakers for the Faith
  of Infants, that are not capable of beleeving,) to undertake for the
  persons of their deceased friends, that they should be ready to obey, and
  receive our Saviour for their King, at his coming again; and then the
  forgivenesse of sins in the world to come, has no need of a Purgatory. But
  in both these interpretations, there is so much of paradox, that I trust
  not to them; but propound them to those that are throughly versed in the
  Scripture, to inquire if there be no clearer place that contradicts them.
  Onely of thus much, I see evident Scripture, to perswade men, that there
  is neither the word, nor the thing of Purgatory, neither in this, nor any
  other text; nor any thing that can prove a necessity of a place for the
  Soule without the Body; neither for the Soule of Lazarus during the four
  days he was dead; nor for the Soules of them which the Romane Church
  pretend to be tormented now in Purgatory. For God, that could give a life
  to a peece of clay, hath the same power to give life again to a dead man,
  and renew his inanimate, and rotten Carkasse, into a glorious, spirituall,
  and immortall Body.
<br />
  Another place is that of 1 Cor. 3. where it is said that they which built
  Stubble, Hay, &c. on the true Foundation, their work shall perish; but
  &ldquo;they themselves shall be saved; but as through Fire:&rdquo; This Fire, he will
  have to be the Fire of Purgatory. The words, as I have said before, are an
  allusion to those of Zach. 13. 9. where he saith, &ldquo;I will bring the third
  part through the Fire, and refine them as Silver is refined, and will try
  them as Gold is tryed;&rdquo; Which is spoken of the comming of the Messiah in
  Power and Glory; that is, at the day of Judgment, and Conflagration of the
  present world; wherein the Elect shall not be consumed, but be refined;
  that is, depose their erroneous Doctrines, and Traditions, and have them
  as it were sindged off; and shall afterwards call upon the name of the
  true God. In like manner, the Apostle saith of them, that holding this
  Foundation Jesus Is The Christ, shall build thereon some other Doctrines
  that be erroneous, that they shall not be consumed in that fire which
  reneweth the world, but shall passe through it to Salvation; but so, as to
  see, and relinquish their former Errours. The Builders, are the Pastors;
  the Foundation, that Jesus Is The Christ; the Stubble and Hay, False
  Consequences Drawn From It Through Ignorance, Or Frailty; the Gold,
  Silver, and pretious Stones, are their True Doctrines; and their Refining
  or Purging, the Relinquishing Of Their Errors. In all which there is no
  colour at all for the burning of Incorporeall, that is to say, Impatible
  Souls.

  Baptisme For The Dead, How Understood


  A third place is that of 1 Cor. 15. before mentioned, concerning Baptisme
  for the Dead: out of which he concludeth, first, that Prayers for the Dead
  are not unprofitable; and out of that, that there is a Fire of Purgatory:
  But neither of them rightly. For of many interpretations of the word
  Baptisme, he approveth this in the first place, that by Baptisme is meant
  (metaphorically) a Baptisme of Penance; and that men are in this sense
  Baptized, when they Fast, and Pray, and give Almes: And so Baptisme for
  the Dead, and Prayer of the Dead, is the same thing. But this is a
  Metaphor, of which there is no example, neither in the Scripture, nor in
  any other use of language; and which is also discordant to the harmony,
  and scope of the Scripture. The word Baptisme is used (Mar. 10. 38. &
  Luk. 12. 59.) for being Dipped in ones own bloud, as Christ was upon the
  Cross, and as most of the Apostles were, for giving testimony of him. But
  it is hard to say, that Prayer, Fasting, and Almes, have any similitude
  with Dipping. The same is used also Mat. 3. 11. (which seemeth to make
  somewhat for Purgatory) for a Purging with Fire. But it is evident the
  Fire and Purging here mentioned, is the same whereof the Prophet Zachary
  speaketh (chap. 13. v. 9.) &ldquo;I will bring the third part through the Fire,
  and will Refine them, &c.&rdquo; And St. Peter after him (1 Epist. 1. 7.)
  &ldquo;That the triall of your Faith, which is much more precious than of Gold
  that perisheth, though it be tryed with fire, might be found unto praise,
  and honour, and glory at the Appearing of Jesus Christ;&rdquo; And St. Paul (1
  Cor. 3. 13.) The Fire shall trie every mans work of what sort it is.&rdquo; But
  St. Peter, and St. Paul speak of the Fire that shall be at the Second
  Appearing of Christ; and the Prophet Zachary of the Day of Judgment: And
  therefore this place of S. Mat. may be interpreted of the same; and then
  there will be no necessity of the Fire of Purgatory.
<br />
  Another interpretation of Baptisme for the Dead, is that which I have
  before mentioned, which he preferreth to the second place of probability;
  And thence also he inferreth the utility of Prayer for the Dead. For if
  after the Resurrection, such as have not heard of Christ, or not beleeved
  in him, may be received into Christs Kingdome; it is not in vain, after
  their death, that their friends should pray for them, till they should be
  risen. But granting that God, at the prayers of the faithfull, may convert
  unto him some of those that have not heard Christ preached, and
  consequently cannot have rejected Christ, and that the charity of men in
  that point, cannot be blamed; yet this concludeth nothing for Purgatory,
  because to rise from Death to Life, is one thing; to rise from Purgatory
  to Life is another; and being a rising from Life to Life, from a Life in
  torments to a Life in joy.
<br />
  A fourth place is that of Mat. 5. 25. &ldquo;Agree with thine Adversary quickly,
  whilest thou art in the way with him, lest at any time the Adversary
  deliver thee to the Officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say
  unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou has paid the
  uttermost farthing.&rdquo; In which Allegory, the Offender is the Sinner; both
  the Adversary and the Judge is God; the Way is this Life; the Prison is
  the Grave; the Officer, Death; from which, the sinner shall not rise again
  to life eternall, but to a second Death, till he have paid the utmost
  farthing, or Christ pay it for him by his Passion, which is a full Ransome
  for all manner of sin, as well lesser sins, as greater crimes; both being
  made by the passion of Christ equally veniall.
<br />
  The fift place, is that of Matth. 5. 22. &ldquo;Whosoever is angry with his
  Brother without a cause, shall be guilty in Judgment. And whosoever shall
  say to his Brother, RACHA, shall be guilty in the Councel. But whosoever
  shall say, Thou Foole, shall be guilty to hell fire.&rdquo; From which words he
  inferreth three sorts of Sins, and three sorts of Punishments; and that
  none of those sins, but the last, shall be punished with hell fire; and
  consequently, that after this life, there is punishment of lesser sins in
  Purgatory. Of which inference, there is no colour in any interpretation
  that hath yet been given to them: Shall there be a distinction after this
  life of Courts of Justice, as there was amongst the Jews in our Saviours
  time, to hear, and determine divers sorts of Crimes; as the Judges, and
  the Councell? Shall not all Judicature appertain to Christ, and his
  Apostles? To understand therefore this text, we are not to consider it
  solitarily, but jointly with the words precedent, and subsequent. Our
  Saviour in this Chapter interpreteth the Law of Moses; which the Jews
  thought was then fulfilled, when they had not transgressed the
  Grammaticall sense thereof, howsoever they had transgressed against the
  sentence, or meaning of the Legislator. Therefore whereas they thought the
  Sixth Commandement was not broken, but by Killing a man; nor the Seventh,
  but when a man lay with a woman, not his wife; our Saviour tells them, the
  inward Anger of a man against his brother, if it be without just cause, is
  Homicide: You have heard (saith hee) the Law of Moses, &ldquo;Thou shalt not
  Kill,&rdquo; and that &ldquo;Whosoever shall Kill, shall be condemned before the
  Judges,&rdquo; or before the Session of the Seventy: But I say unto you, to be
  Angry with ones Brother without cause; or to say unto him Racha, or Foole,
  is Homicide, and shall be punished at the day of Judgment, and Session of
  Christ, and his Apostles, with Hell fire: so that those words were not
  used to distinguish between divers Crimes, and divers Courts of Justice,
  and divers Punishments; but to taxe the distinction between sin, and sin,
  which the Jews drew not from the difference of the Will in Obeying God,
  but from the difference of their Temporall Courts of Justice; and to shew
  them that he that had the Will to hurt his Brother, though the effect
  appear but in Reviling, or not at all, shall be cast into hell fire, by
  the Judges, and by the Session, which shall be the same, not different
  Courts at the day of Judgment. This Considered, what can be drawn from
  this text, to maintain Purgatory, I cannot imagine.
<br />
  The sixth place is Luke 16. 9. &ldquo;Make yee friends of the unrighteous
  Mammon, that when yee faile, they may receive you into Everlasting
  Tabernacles.&rdquo; This he alledges to prove Invocation of Saints departed. But
  the sense is plain, That we should make friends with our Riches, of the
  Poore, and thereby obtain their Prayers whilest they live. &ldquo;He that giveth
  to the Poore, lendeth to the Lord. &ldquo;The seventh is Luke 23. 42. &ldquo;Lord
  remember me when thou commest into thy Kingdome:&rdquo; Therefore, saith hee,
  there is Remission of sins after this life. But the consequence is not
  good. Our Saviour then forgave him; and at his comming againe in Glory,
  will remember to raise him againe to Life Eternall.
<br />
  The Eight is Acts 2. 24. where St. Peter saith of Christ, &ldquo;that God had
  raised him up, and loosed the Paines of Death, because it was not possible
  he should be holden of it;&rdquo; Which hee interprets to bee a descent of
  Christ into Purgatory, to loose some Soules there from their torments;
  whereas it is manifest, that it was Christ that was loosed; it was hee
  that could not bee holden of Death, or the Grave; and not the Souls in
  Purgatory. But if that which Beza sayes in his notes on this place be well
  observed, there is none that will not see, that in stead of Paynes, it
  should be Bands; and then there is no further cause to seek for Purgatory
  in this Text.

  CHAPTER XLV.<br />OF DAEMONOLOGY, AND OTHER RELIQUES OF THE RELIGION OF THE
  GENTILES

  The Originall Of Daemonology


  The impression made on the organs of Sight, by lucide Bodies, either in
  one direct line, or in many lines, reflected from Opaque, or refracted in
  the passage through Diaphanous Bodies, produceth in living Creatures, in
  whom God hath placed such Organs, an Imagination of the Object, from
  whence the Impression proceedeth; which Imagination is called Sight; and
  seemeth not to bee a meer Imagination, but the Body it selfe without us;
  in the same manner, as when a man violently presseth his eye, there
  appears to him a light without, and before him, which no man perceiveth
  but himselfe; because there is indeed no such thing without him, but onely
  a motion in the interiour organs, pressing by resistance outward, that
  makes him think so. And the motion made by this pressure, continuing after
  the object which caused it is removed, is that we call Imagination, and
  Memory, and (in sleep, and sometimes in great distemper of the organs by
  Sicknesse, or Violence) a Dream: of which things I have already spoken
  briefly, in the second and third Chapters.
<br />
  This nature of Sight having never been discovered by the ancient
  pretenders to Naturall Knowledge; much lesse by those that consider not
  things so remote (as that Knowledge is) from their present use; it was
  hard for men to conceive of those Images in the Fancy, and in the Sense,
  otherwise, than of things really without us: Which some (because they
  vanish away, they know not whither, nor how,) will have to be absolutely
  Incorporeall, that is to say Immateriall, of Formes without Matter; Colour
  and Figure, without any coloured or figured Body; and that they can put on
  Aiery bodies (as a garment) to make them Visible when they will to our
  bodily Eyes; and others say, are Bodies, and living Creatures, but made of
  Air, or other more subtile and aethereall Matter, which is, then, when
  they will be seen, condensed. But Both of them agree on one generall
  appellation of them, DAEMONS. As if the Dead of whom they Dreamed, were
  not Inhabitants of their own Brain, but of the Air, or of Heaven, or Hell;
  not Phantasmes, but Ghosts; with just as much reason, as if one should
  say, he saw his own Ghost in a Looking-Glasse, or the Ghosts of the Stars
  in a River; or call the ordinary apparition of the Sun, of the quantity of
  about a foot, the Daemon, or Ghost of that great Sun that enlighteneth the
  whole visible world: And by that means have feared them, as things of an
  unknown, that is, of an unlimited power to doe them good, or harme; and
  consequently, given occasion to the Governours of the Heathen
  Common-wealths to regulate this their fear, by establishing that
  DAEMONOLOGY (in which the Poets, as Principal Priests of the Heathen
  Religion, were specially employed, or reverenced) to the Publique Peace,
  and to the Obedience of Subjects necessary thereunto; and to make some of
  them Good Daemons, and others Evill; the one as a Spurre to the
  Observance, the other, as Reines to withhold them from Violation of the
  Laws.

  What Were The Daemons Of The Ancients


  What kind of things they were, to whom they attributed the name of
  Daemons, appeareth partly in the Genealogie of their Gods, written by
  Hesiod, one of the most ancient Poets of the Graecians; and partly in
  other Histories; of which I have observed some few before, in the 12.
  Chapter of this discourse.

  How That Doctrine Was Spread


  The Graecians, by their Colonies and Conquests, communicated their
  Language and Writings into Asia, Egypt, and Italy; and therein, by
  necessary consequence their Daemonology, or (as St. Paul calles it) &ldquo;their
  Doctrines of Devils;&rdquo; And by that meanes, the contagion was derived also
  to the Jewes, both of Judaea, and Alexandria, and other parts, whereinto
  they were dispersed. But the name of Daemon they did not (as the
  Graecians) attribute to Spirits both Good, and Evill; but to the Evill
  onely: And to the Good Daemons they gave the name of the Spirit of God;
  and esteemed those into whose bodies they entred to be Prophets. In summe,
  all singularity if Good, they attributed to the Spirit of God; and if
  Evill, to some Daemon, but a kakodaimen, an Evill Daemon, that is, a
  Devill. And therefore, they called Daemoniaques, that is, possessed by the
  Devill, such as we call Madmen or Lunatiques; or such as had the Falling
  Sicknesse; or that spoke any thing, which they for want of understanding,
  thought absurd: As also of an Unclean person in a notorious degree, they
  used to say he had an Unclean Spirit; of a Dumbe man, that he had a Dumbe
  Devill; and of John Baptist (Math. 11. 18.) for the singularity of his
  fasting, that he had a Devill; and of our Saviour, because he said, hee
  that keepeth his sayings should not see Death In Aeternum, (John 8. 52.)
  &ldquo;Now we know thou hast a Devill; Abraham is dead, and the Prophets are
  dead:&rdquo; And again, because he said (John 7. 20.) &ldquo;They went about to kill
  him,&rdquo; the people answered, &ldquo;Thou hast a Devill, who goeth about to kill
  thee?&rdquo; Whereby it is manifest, that the Jewes had the same opinions
  concerning Phantasmes, namely, that they were not Phantasmes that is,
  Idols of the braine, but things reall, and independent on the Fancy.

  Why Our Saviour Controlled It Not


  Which doctrine if it be not true, why (may some say) did not our Saviour
  contradict it, and teach the Contrary? nay why does he use on diverse
  occasions, such forms of speech as seem to confirm it? To this I answer,
  that first, where Christ saith, &ldquo;A Spirit hath not flesh and bone,&rdquo; though
  hee shew that there be Spirits, yet he denies not that they are Bodies:
  And where St. Paul sais, &ldquo;We shall rise Spirituall Bodies,&rdquo; he
  acknowledgeth the nature of Spirits, but that they are Bodily Spirits;
  which is not difficult to understand. For Air and many other things are
  Bodies, though not Flesh and Bone, or any other grosse body, to bee
  discerned by the eye. But when our Saviour speaketh to the Devill, and
  commandeth him to go out of a man, if by the Devill, be meant a Disease,
  as Phrenesy, or Lunacy, or a corporeal Spirit, is not the speech improper?
  can Diseases heare? or can there be a corporeall Spirit in a Body of Flesh
  and Bone, full already of vitall and animall Spirits? Are there not
  therefore Spirits, that neither have Bodies, nor are meer Imaginations? To
  the first I answer, that the addressing of our Saviours command to the
  Madnesse, or Lunacy he cureth, is no more improper, then was his rebuking
  of the Fever, or of the Wind, and Sea; for neither do these hear: Or than
  was the command of God, to the Light, to the Firmament, to the Sunne, and
  Starres, when he commanded them to bee; for they could not heare before
  they had a beeing. But those speeches are not improper, because they
  signifie the power of Gods Word: no more therefore is it improper, to
  command Madnesse, or Lunacy (under the appellation of Devils, by which
  they were then commonly understood,) to depart out of a mans body. To the
  second, concerning their being Incorporeall, I have not yet observed any
  place of Scripture, from whence it can be gathered, that any man was ever
  possessed with any other Corporeal Spirit, but that of his owne, by which
  his body is naturally moved.

  The Scriptures Doe Not Teach That Spirits Are Incorporeall


  Our Saviour, immediately after the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the
  form of a Dove, is said by St. Matthew (Chapt. 4. 1.) to have been &ldquo;led up
  by the Spirit into the Wildernesse;&rdquo; and the same is recited (Luke 4. 1.)
  in these words, &ldquo;Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost, was led in the Spirit
  into the Wildernesse;&rdquo; Whereby it is evident, that by Spirit there, is
  meant the Holy Ghost. This cannot be interpreted for a Possession: For
  Christ, and the Holy Ghost, are but one and the same substance; which is
  no possession of one substance, or body, by another. And whereas in the
  verses following, he is said &ldquo;to have been taken up by the Devill into the
  Holy City, and set upon a pinnacle of the Temple,&rdquo; shall we conclude
  thence that hee was possessed of the Devill, or carryed thither by
  violence? And again, &ldquo;carryed thence by the Devill into an exceeding high
  mountain, who shewed him them thence all the Kingdomes of the world:&rdquo;
  herein, wee are not to beleeve he was either possessed, or forced by the
  Devill; nor that any Mountaine is high enough, (according to the literall
  sense,) to shew him one whole Hemisphere. What then can be the meaning of
  this place, other than that he went of himself into the Wildernesse; and
  that this carrying of him up and down, from the Wildernesse to the City,
  and from thence into a Mountain, was a Vision? Conformable whereunto, is
  also the phrase of St. Luke, that hee was led into the Wildernesse, not
  By, but In the Spirit: whereas concerning His being Taken up into the
  Mountaine, and unto the Pinnacle of the Temple, hee speaketh as St.
  Matthew doth. Which suiteth with the nature of a Vision.
<br />
  Again, where St. Luke sayes of Judas Iscariot, that &ldquo;Satan entred into
  him, and thereupon that he went and communed with the Chief Priests, and
  Captaines, how he might betray Christ unto them:&rdquo; it may be answered, that
  by the Entring of Satan (that is the Enemy) into him, is meant, the
  hostile and traiterous intention of selling his Lord and Master. For as by
  the Holy Ghost, is frequently in Scripture understood, the Graces and good
  Inclinations given by the Holy Ghost; so by the Entring of Satan, may bee
  understood the wicked Cogitations, and Designes of the Adversaries of
  Christ, and his Disciples. For as it is hard to say, that the Devill was
  entred into Judas, before he had any such hostile designe; so it is
  impertinent to say, he was first Christs Enemy in his heart, and that the
  Devill entred into him afterwards. Therefore the Entring of Satan, and his
  Wicked Purpose, was one and the same thing.
<br />
  But if there be no Immateriall Spirit, nor any Possession of mens bodies
  by any Spirit Corporeall, it may again be asked, why our Saviour and his
  Apostles did not teach the People so; and in such cleer words, as they
  might no more doubt thereof. But such questions as these, are more
  curious, than necessary for a Christian mans Salvation. Men may as well
  aske, why Christ that could have given to all men Faith, Piety, and all
  manner of morall Vertues, gave it to some onely, and not to all: and why
  he left the search of naturall Causes, and Sciences, to the naturall
  Reason and Industry of men, and did not reveal it to all, or any man
  supernaturally; and many other such questions: Of which neverthelesse
  there may be alledged probable and pious reasons. For as God, when he
  brought the Israelites into the Land of Promise, did not secure them
  therein, by subduing all the Nations round about them; but left many of
  them, as thornes in their sides, to awaken from time to time their Piety
  and Industry: so our Saviour, in conducting us toward his heavenly
  Kingdome, did not destroy all the difficulties of Naturall Questions; but
  left them to exercise our Industry, and Reason; the Scope of his
  preaching, being onely to shew us this plain and direct way to Salvation,
  namely, the beleef of this Article, &ldquo;that he was the Christ, the Son of
  the living God, sent into the world to sacrifice himselfe for our Sins,
  and at his comming again, gloriously to reign over his Elect, and to save
  them from their Enemies eternally:&rdquo; To which, the opinion of Possession by
  Spirits, or Phantasmes, are no impediment in the way; though it be to some
  an occasion of going out of the way, and to follow their own Inventions.
  If wee require of the Scripture an account of all questions, which may be
  raised to trouble us in the performance of Gods commands; we may as well
  complaine of Moses for not having set downe the time of the creation of
  such Spirits, as well as of the Creation of the Earth, and Sea, and of
  Men, and Beasts. To conclude, I find in Scripture that there be Angels,
  and Spirits, good and evill; but not that they are Incorporeall, as are
  the Apparitions men see in the Dark, or in a Dream, or Vision; which the
  Latines call Spectra, and took for Daemons. And I find that there are
  Spirits Corporeal, (though subtile and Invisible;) but not that any mans
  body was possessed, or inhabited by them; And that the Bodies of the
  Saints shall be such, namely, Spirituall Bodies, as St. Paul calls them.

  The Power Of Casting Out Devills, Not The Same It Was In The Primitive
  Church


  Neverthelesse, the contrary Doctrine, namely, that there be Incorporeall
  Spirits, hath hitherto so prevailed in the Church, that the use of
  Exorcisme, (that is to say, of ejection of Devills by Conjuration) is
  thereupon built; and (though rarely and faintly practised) is not yet
  totally given over. That there were many Daemoniaques in the Primitive
  Church, and few Mad-men, and other such singular diseases; whereas in
  these times we hear of, and see many Mad-men, and few Daemoniaques,
  proceeds not from the change of Nature; but of Names. But how it comes to
  passe, that whereas heretofore the Apostles, and after them for a time,
  the Pastors of the Church, did cure those singular Diseases, which now
  they are not seen to doe; as likewise, why it is not in the power of every
  true Beleever now, to doe all that the Faithfull did then, that is to say,
  as we read (Mark 16. 17.) &ldquo;In Christs name to cast out Devills, to speak
  with new Tongues, to take up Serpents, to drink deadly Poison without harm
  taking, and to cure the Sick by the laying on of their hands,&rdquo; and all
  this without other words, but &ldquo;in the Name of Jesus,&rdquo; is another question.
  And it is probable, that those extraordinary gifts were given to the
  Church, for no longer a time, than men trusted wholly to Christ, and
  looked for their felicity onely in his Kingdome to come; and consequently,
  that when they sought Authority, and Riches, and trusted to their own
  Subtilty for a Kingdome of this world, these supernaturall gifts of God
  were again taken from them.

  Another Relique Of Gentilisme, Worshipping Images, Left In The Church,
  Not Brought Into It


  Another relique of Gentilisme, is the Worship of Images, neither
  instituted by Moses in the Old, nor by Christ in the New Testament; nor
  yet brought in from the Gentiles; but left amongst them, after they had
  given their names to Christ. Before our Saviour preached, it was the
  generall Religion of the Gentiles, to worship for Gods, those Apparences
  that remain in the Brain from the impression of externall Bodies upon the
  organs of their Senses, which are commonly called Ideas, Idols,
  Phantasmes, Conceits, as being Representations of those externall Bodies,
  which cause them, and have nothing in them of reality, no more than there
  is in the things that seem to stand before us in a Dream: And this is the
  reason why St. Paul says, &ldquo;Wee know that an Idol is Nothing:&rdquo; Not that he
  thought that an Image of Metall, Stone, or Wood, was nothing; but that the
  thing which they honored, or feared in the Image, and held for a God, was
  a meer Figment, without place, habitation, motion, or existence, but in
  the motions of the Brain. And the worship of these with Divine Honour, is
  that which is in the Scripture called Idolatry, and Rebellion against God.
  For God being King of the Jews, and his Lieutenant being first Moses, and
  afterward the High Priest; if the people had been permitted to worship,
  and pray to Images, (which are Representations of their own Fancies,) they
  had had no farther dependence on the true God, of whom there can be no
  similitude; nor on his prime Ministers, Moses, and the High Priests; but
  every man had governed himself according to his own appetite, to the utter
  eversion of the Common-wealth, and their own destruction for want of
  Union. And therefore the first Law of God was, &ldquo;They should not take for
  Gods, ALIENOS DEOS, that is, the Gods of other nations, but that onely
  true God, who vouchsafed to commune with Moses, and by him to give them
  laws and directions, for their peace, and for their salvation from their
  enemies.&rdquo; And the second was, that &ldquo;they should not make to themselves any
  Image to Worship, of their own Invention.&rdquo; For it is the same deposing of
  a King, to submit to another King, whether he be set up by a neighbour
  nation, or by our selves.

  Answer To Certain Seeming Texts For Images


  The places of Scripture pretended to countenance the setting up of Images,
  to worship them; or to set them up at all in the places where God is
  worshipped, are First, two Examples; one of the Cherubins over the Ark of
  God; the other of the Brazen Serpent: Secondly, some texts whereby we are
  commanded to worship certain Creatures for their relation to God; as to
  worship his Footstool: And lastly, some other texts, by which is
  authorized, a religious honoring of Holy things. But before I examine the
  force of those places, to prove that which is pretended, I must first
  explain what is to be understood by Worshipping, and what by Images, and
  Idols.

  What Is Worship


  I have already shewn in the 20 Chapter of this Discourse, that to Honor,
  is to value highly the Power of any person: and that such value is
  measured, by our comparing him with others. But because there is nothing
  to be compared with God in Power; we Honor him not but Dishonour him by
  any Value lesse than Infinite. And thus Honor is properly of its own
  nature, secret, and internall in the heart. But the inward thoughts of
  men, which appeare outwardly in their words and actions, are the signes of
  our Honoring, and these goe by the name of WORSHIP, in Latine, CULTUS.
  Therefore, to Pray to, to Swear by, to Obey, to bee Diligent, and
  Officious in Serving: in summe, all words and actions that betoken Fear to
  Offend, or Desire to Please, is Worship, whether those words and actions
  be sincere, or feigned: and because they appear as signes of Honoring, are
  ordinarily also called Honor.

  Distinction Between Divine And Civill Worship


  The Worship we exhibite to those we esteem to be but men, as to Kings, and
  men in Authority, is Civill Worship: But the worship we exhibite to that
  which we think to bee God, whatsoever the words, ceremonies, gestures, or
  other actions be, is Divine Worship. To fall prostrate before a King, in
  him that thinks him but a Man, is but Civill Worship: And he that but
  putteth off his hat in the Church, for this cause, that he thinketh it the
  House of God, worshippeth with Divine Worship. They that seek the
  distinction of Divine and Civill Worship, not in the intention of the
  Worshipper, but in the Words douleia, and latreia, deceive themselves. For
  whereas there be two sorts of Servants; that sort, which is of those that
  are absolutely in the power of their Masters, as Slaves taken in war, and
  their Issue, whose bodies are not in their own power, (their lives
  depending on the Will of their Masters, in such manner as to forfeit them
  upon the least disobedience,) and that are bought and sold as Beasts, were
  called Douloi, that is properly, Slaves, and their Service, Douleia: The
  other, which is of those that serve (for hire, or in hope of benefit from
  their Masters) voluntarily; are called Thetes; that is, Domestique
  Servants; to whose service the Masters have no further right, than is
  contained in the Covenants made betwixt them. These two kinds of Servants
  have thus much common to them both, that their labour is appointed them by
  another, whether, as a Slave, or a voluntary Servant: And the word Latris,
  is the general name of both, signifying him that worketh for another,
  whether, as a Slave, or a voluntary Servant: So that Latreia signifieth
  generally all Service; but Douleia the service of Bondmen onely, and the
  condition of Slavery: And both are used in Scripture (to signifie our
  Service of God) promiscuously. Douleia, because we are Gods Slaves;
  Latreia, because wee Serve him: and in all kinds of Service is contained,
  not onely Obedience, but also Worship, that is, such actions, gestures,
  and words, as signifie Honor.

  An Image What Phantasmes


  An IMAGE (in the most strict signification of the word) is the Resemblance
  of some thing visible: In which sense the Phantasticall Formes,
  Apparitions, or Seemings of Visible Bodies to the Sight, are onely Images;
  such as are the Shew of a man, or other thing in the Water, by Reflexion,
  or Refraction; or of the Sun, or Stars by Direct Vision in the Air; which
  are nothing reall in the things seen, nor in the place where thy seem to
  bee; nor are their magnitudes and figures the same with that of the
  object; but changeable, by the variation of the organs of Sight, or by
  glasses; and are present oftentimes in our Imagination, and in our Dreams,
  when the object is absent; or changed into other colours, and shapes, as
  things that depend onely upon the Fancy. And these are the Images which
  are originally and most properly called Ideas, and IDOLS, and derived from
  the language of the Graecians, with whom the word Eido signifieth to See.
  They are also called PHANTASMES, which is in the same language,
  Apparitions. And from these Images it is that one of the faculties of mans
  Nature, is called the Imagination. And from hence it is manifest, that
  there neither is, nor can bee any Image made of a thing Invisible.
<br />
  It is also evident, that there can be no Image of a thing Infinite: for
  all the Images, and Phantasmes that are made by the Impression of things
  visible, are figured: but Figure is a quantity every way determined: And
  therefore there can bee no Image of God: nor of the Soule of Man; nor of
  Spirits, but onely of Bodies Visible, that is, Bodies that have light in
  themselves, or are by such enlightened.

  Fictions; Materiall Images


  And whereas a man can fancy Shapes he never saw; making up a Figure out of
  the parts of divers creatures; as the Poets make their Centaures,
  Chimaeras, and other Monsters never seen: So can he also give Matter to
  those Shapes, and make them in Wood, Clay or Metall. And these are also
  called Images, not for the resemblance of any corporeall thing, but for
  the resemblance of some Phantasticall Inhabitants of the Brain of the
  Maker. But in these Idols, as they are originally in the Brain, and as
  they are painted, carved, moulded, or moulten in matter, there is a
  similitude of the one to the other, for which the Materiall Body made by
  Art, may be said to be the Image of the Phantasticall Idoll made by
  Nature.
<br />
  But in a larger use of the word Image, is contained also, any
  Representation of one thing by another. So an earthly Soveraign may be
  called the Image of God: And an inferiour Magistrate the Image of an
  earthly Soveraign. And many times in the Idolatry of the Gentiles there
  was little regard to the similitude of their Materiall Idoll to the Idol
  in their fancy, and yet it was called the Image of it. For a Stone unhewn
  has been set up for Neptune, and divers other shapes far different from
  the shapes they conceived of their Gods. And at this day we see many
  Images of the Virgin Mary, and other Saints, unlike one another, and
  without correspondence to any one mans Fancy; and yet serve well enough
  for the purpose they were erected for; which was no more but by the Names
  onely, to represent the Persons mentioned in the History; to which every
  man applyeth a Mentall Image of his owne making, or none at all. And thus
  an Image in the largest sense, is either the Resemblance, or the
  Representation of some thing Visible; or both together, as it happeneth
  for the most part.
<br />
  But the name of Idoll is extended yet further in Scripture, to signifie
  also the Sunne, or a Starre, or any other Creature, visible or invisible,
  when they are worshipped for Gods.

  Idolatry What


  Having shewn what is Worship, and what an Image; I will now put them
  together, and examine what that IDOLATRY is, which is forbidden in the
  Second Commandement, and other places of the Scripture.
<br />
  To worship an Image, is voluntarily to doe those externall acts, which are
  signes of honoring either the matter of the Image, which is Wood, Stone,
  or Metall, or some other visible creature; or the Phantasme of the brain,
  for the resemblance, or representation whereof, the matter was formed and
  figured; or both together, as one animate Body, composed of the Matter and
  the Phantasme, as of a Body and Soule.
<br />
  To be uncovered, before a man of Power and Authority, or before the Throne
  of a Prince, or in such other places as hee ordaineth to that purpose in
  his absence, is to Worship that man, or Prince with Civill Worship; as
  being a signe, not of honoring the stoole, or place, but the Person; and
  is not Idolatry. But if hee that doth it, should suppose the Soule of the
  Prince to be in the Stool, or should present a Petition to the Stool, it
  were Divine Worship, and Idolatry.
<br />
  To pray to a King for such things, as hee is able to doe for us, though we
  prostrate our selves before him, is but Civill Worship; because we
  acknowledge no other power in him, but humane: But voluntarily to pray
  unto him for fair weather, or for any thing which God onely can doe for
  us, is Divine Worship, and Idolatry. On the other side, if a King compell
  a man to it by the terrour of Death, or other great corporall punishment,
  it is not Idolatry: For the Worship which the Soveraign commandeth to bee
  done unto himself by the terrour of his Laws, is not a sign that he that
  obeyeth him, does inwardly honour him as a God, but that he is desirous to
  save himselfe from death, or from a miserable life; and that which is not
  a sign of internall honor, is no Worship; and therefore no Idolatry.
  Neither can it bee said, that hee that does it, scandalizeth, or layeth
  any stumbling block before his Brother; because how wise, or learned
  soever he be that worshippeth in that manner, another man cannot from
  thence argue, that he approveth it; but that he doth it for fear; and that
  it is not his act, but the act of the Soveraign.
<br />
  To worship God, in some peculiar Place, or turning a mans face towards an
  Image, or determinate Place, is not to worship, or honor the Place, or
  Image; but to acknowledge it Holy, that is to say, to acknowledge the
  Image, or the Place to be set apart from common use: for that is the
  meaning of the word Holy; which implies no new quality in the Place, or
  Image; but onely a new Relation by Appropriation to God; and therefore is
  not Idolatry; no more than it was Idolatry to worship God before the
  Brazen Serpent; or for the Jews when they were out of their owne countrey,
  to turn their faces (when they prayed) toward the Temple of Jerusalem; or
  for Moses to put off his Shoes when he was before the Flaming Bush, the
  ground appertaining to Mount Sinai; which place God had chosen to appear
  in, and to give his Laws to the People of Israel, and was therefore Holy
  ground, not by inhaerent sanctity, but by separation to Gods use; or for
  Christians to worship in the Churches, which are once solemnly dedicated
  to God for that purpose, by the Authority of the King, or other true
  Representant of the Church. But to worship God, is inanimating, or
  inhibiting, such Image, or place; that is to say, an infinite substance in
  a finite place, is Idolatry: for such finite Gods, are but Idols of the
  brain, nothing reall; and are commonly called in the Scripture by the
  names of Vanity, and Lyes, and Nothing. Also to worship God, not as
  inanimating, or present in the place, or Image; but to the end to be put
  in mind of him, or of some works of his, in case the Place, or Image be
  dedicated, or set up by private authority, and not by the authority of
  them that are our Soveraign Pastors, is Idolatry. For the Commandement is,
  &ldquo;Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any graven image.&rdquo; God commanded Moses
  to set up the Brazen Serpent; hee did not make it to himselfe; it was not
  therefore against the Commandement. But the making of the Golden Calfe by
  Aaron, and the People, as being done without authority from God, was
  Idolatry; not onely because they held it for God, but also because they
  made it for a Religious use, without warrant either from God their
  Soveraign, or from Moses, that was his Lieutenant.
<br />
  The Gentiles worshipped for Gods, Jupiter, and others; that living, were
  men perhaps that had done great and glorious Acts; and for the Children of
  God, divers men and women, supposing them gotten between an Immortall
  Deity, and a mortall man. This was Idolatry, because they made them so to
  themselves, having no authority from God, neither in his eternall Law of
  Reason, nor in his positive and revealed Will. But though our Saviour was
  a man, whom wee also beleeve to bee God Immortall, and the Son of God; yet
  this is no Idolatry; because wee build not that beleef upon our own fancy,
  or judgment, but upon the Word of God revealed in the Scriptures. And for
  the adoration of the Eucharist, if the words of Christ, &ldquo;This is my Body,&rdquo;
  signifie, &ldquo;that he himselfe, and the seeming bread in his hand; and not
  onely so, but that all the seeming morsells of bread that have ever since
  been, and any time hereafter shall bee consecrated by Priests, bee so many
  Christs bodies, and yet all of them but one body,&rdquo; then is that no
  Idolatry, because it is authorized by our Saviour: but if that text doe
  not signifie that, (for there is no other that can be alledged for it,)
  then, because it is a worship of humane institution, it is Idolatry. For
  it is not enough to say, God can transubstantiate the Bread into Christs
  Body: For the Gentiles also held God to be Omnipotent; and might upon that
  ground no lesse excuse their Idolatry, by pretending, as well as others,
  as transubstantiation of their Wood, and Stone into God Almighty.
<br />
  Whereas there be, that pretend Divine Inspiration, to be a supernaturall
  entring of the Holy Ghost into a man, and not an acquisition of Gods
  grace, by doctrine, and study; I think they are in a very dangerous
  Dilemma. For if they worship not the men whom they beleeve to be so
  inspired, they fall into Impiety; as not adoring Gods supernaturall
  Presence. And again, if they worship them, they commit Idolatry; for the
  Apostles would never permit themselves to be so worshipped. Therefore the
  safest way is to beleeve, that by the Descending of the Dove upon the
  Apostles; and by Christs Breathing on them, when hee gave them the Holy
  Ghost; and by the giving of it by Imposition of Hands, are understood the
  signes which God hath been pleased to use, or ordain to be used, of his
  promise to assist those persons in their study to Preach his Kingdome, and
  in their Conversation, that it might not be Scandalous, but Edifying to
  others.

  Scandalous Worship Of Images


  Besides the Idolatrous Worship of Images, there is also a Scandalous
  Worship of them; which is also a sin; but not Idolatry. For Idolatry is to
  worship by signes of an internall, and reall honour: but Scandalous
  Worship, is but Seeming Worship; and may sometimes bee joined with an
  inward, and hearty detestation, both of the Image, and of the
  Phantasticall Daemon, or Idol, to which it is dedicated; and proceed onely
  from the fear of death, or other grievous punishment; and is neverthelesse
  a sin in them that so worship, in case they be men whose actions are
  looked at by others, as lights to guide them by; because following their
  ways, they cannot but stumble, and fall in the way of Religion: Whereas
  the example of those we regard not, works not on us at all, but leaves us
  to our own diligence and caution; and consequently are no causes of our
  falling.
<br />
  If therefore a Pastor lawfully called to teach and direct others, or any
  other, of whose knowledge there is a great opinion, doe externall honor to
  an Idol for fear; unlesse he make his feare, and unwillingnesse to it, as
  evident as the worship; he Scandalizeth his Brother, by seeming to approve
  Idolatry. For his Brother, arguing from the action of his teacher, or of
  him whose knowledge he esteemeth great, concludes it to bee lawfull in it
  selfe. And this Scandall, is Sin, and a Scandall given. But if one being
  no Pastor, nor of eminent reputation for knowledge in Christian Doctrine,
  doe the same, and another follow him; this is no Scandall given; for he
  had no cause to follow such example: but is a pretence of Scandall which
  hee taketh of himselfe for an excuse before men: For an unlearned man,
  that is in the power of an idolatrous King, or State, if commanded on pain
  of death to worship before an Idoll, hee detesteth the Idoll in his heart,
  hee doth well; though if he had the fortitude to suffer death, rather than
  worship it, he should doe better. But if a Pastor, who as Christs
  Messenger, has undertaken to teach Christs Doctrine to all nations, should
  doe the same, it were not onely a sinfull Scandall, in respect of other
  Christian mens consciences, but a perfidious forsaking of his charge.
<br />
  The summe of that which I have said hitherto, concerning the Worship of
  Images, is that, that he that worshippeth in an Image, or any Creature,
  either the Matter thereof, or any Fancy of his own, which he thinketh to
  dwell in it; or both together; or beleeveth that such things hear his
  Prayers, or see his Devotions, without Ears, or Eyes, committeth Idolatry:
  and he that counterfeiteth such Worship for fear of punishment, if he bee
  a man whose example hath power amongst his Brethren, committeth a sin: But
  he that worshippeth the Creator of the world before such an Image, or in
  such a place as he hath not made, or chosen of himselfe, but taken from
  the commandement of Gods Word, as the Jewes did in worshipping God before
  the Cherubins, and before the Brazen Serpent for a time, and in, or
  towards the Temple of Jerusalem, which was also but for a time, committeth
  not Idolatry.
<br />
  Now for the Worship of Saints, and Images, and Reliques, and other things
  at this day practised in the Church of Rome, I say they are not allowed by
  the Word of God, not brought into the Church of Rome, from the Doctrine
  there taught; but partly left in it at the first conversion of the
  Gentiles; and afterwards countenanced, and confirmed, and augmented by the
  Bishops of Rome.

  Answer To The Argument From The Cherubins, And Brazen Serpent


  As for the proofs alledged out of Scripture, namely, those examples of
  Images appointed by God to bee set up; They were not set up for the
  people, or any man to worship; but that they should worship God himselfe
  before them: as before the Cherubins over the Ark, and the Brazen Serpent.
  For we read not, that the Priest, or any other did worship the Cherubins;
  but contrarily wee read (2 Kings 18.4.) that Hezekiah brake in pieces the
  Brazen Serpent which Moses had set up, because the People burnt incense to
  it. Besides, those examples are not put for our Imitation, that we also
  should set up Images, under pretence of worshipping God before them;
  because the words of the second Commandement, &ldquo;Thou shalt not make to thy
  selfe any graven Image, &c.&rdquo; distinguish between the Images that God
  commanded to be set up, and those which wee set up to our selves. And
  therefore from the Cherubins, or Brazen Serpent, to the Images of mans
  devising; and from the Worship commanded by God, to the Will-Worship of
  men, the argument is not good. This also is to bee considered, that as
  Hezekiah brake in pieces the Brazen Serpent, because the Jews did worship
  it, to the end they should doe so no more; so also Christian Soveraigns
  ought to break down the Images which their Subjects have been accustomed
  to worship; that there be no more occasion of such Idolatry. For at this
  day, the ignorant People, where Images are worshipped, doe really beleeve
  there is a Divine Power in the Images; and are told by their Pastors, that
  some of them have spoken; and have bled; and that miracles have been done
  by them; which they apprehend as done by the Saint, which they think
  either is the Image it self, or in it. The Israelites, when they
  worshipped the Calfe, did think they worshipped the God that brought them
  out of Egypt; and yet it was Idolatry, because they thought the Calfe
  either was that God, or had him in his belly. And though some man may
  think it impossible for people to be so stupid, as to think the Image to
  be God, or a Saint; or to worship it in that notion; yet it is manifest in
  Scripture to the contrary; where when the Golden Calfe was made, the
  people said, (Exod. 32. 2.) &ldquo;These are thy Gods O Israel;&rdquo; and where the
  Images of Laban (Gen. 31.30.) are called his Gods. And wee see daily by
  experience in all sorts of People, that such men as study nothing but
  their food and ease, are content to beleeve any absurdity, rather than to
  trouble themselves to examine it; holding their faith as it were by
  entaile unalienable, except by an expresse and new Law.

  Painting Of Fancies No Idolatry: Abusing Them To Religious Worship Is


  But they inferre from some other places, that it is lawfull to paint
  Angels, and also God himselfe: as from Gods walking in the Garden; from
  Jacobs seeing God at the top of the ladder; and from other Visions, and
  Dreams. But Visions, and Dreams whether naturall, or supernaturall, are
  but Phantasmes: and he that painteth an Image of any of them, maketh not
  an Image of God, but of his own Phantasm, which is, making of an Idol. I
  say not, that to draw a Picture after a fancy, is a Sin; but when it is
  drawn, to hold it for a Representation of God, is against the second
  Commandement; and can be of no use, but to worship. And the same may be
  said of the Images of Angels, and of men dead; unlesse as Monuments of
  friends, or of men worthy remembrance: For such use of an Image, is not
  Worship of the Image; but a civill honoring of the Person, not that is,
  but that was: But when it is done to the Image which we make of a Saint,
  for no other reason, but that we think he heareth our prayers, and is
  pleased with the honour wee doe him, when dead, and without sense, wee
  attribute to him more than humane power; and therefore it is Idolatry.
<br />
  Seeing therefore there is no authority, neither in the Law of Moses, nor
  in the Gospel, for the religious Worship of Images, or other
  Representations of God, which men set up to themselves; or for the Worship
  of the Image of any Creature in Heaven, or Earth, or under the Earth: And
  whereas Christian Kings, who are living Representants of God, are not to
  be worshipped by their Subjects, by any act, that signifieth a greater
  esteem of his power, than the nature of mortall man is capable of; It
  cannot be imagined, that the Religious Worship now in use, was brought
  into the Church, by misunderstanding of the Scripture. It resteth
  therefore, that it was left in it, by not destroying the Images
  themselves, in the conversion of the Gentiles that worshipped them.

  How Idolatry Was Left In The Church


  The cause whereof, was the immoderate esteem, and prices set upon the
  workmanship of them, which made the owners (though converted, from
  worshipping them as they had done Religiously for Daemons) to retain them
  still in their houses, upon pretence of doing it in the honor of Christ,
  of the Virgin Mary, and of the Apostles, and other the Pastors of the
  Primitive Church; as being easie, by giving them new names, to make that
  an Image of the Virgin Mary, and of her Sonne our Saviour, which before
  perhaps was called the Image of Venus, and Cupid; and so of a Jupiter to
  make a Barnabas, and of Mercury a Paul, and the like. And as worldly
  ambition creeping by degrees into the Pastors, drew them to an endeavour
  of pleasing the new made Christians; and also to a liking of this kind of
  honour, which they also might hope for after their decease, as well as
  those that had already gained it: so the worshipping of the Images of
  Christ and his Apostles, grow more and more Idolatrous; save that somewhat
  after the time of Constantine, divers Emperors, and Bishops, and generall
  Councells observed, and opposed the unlawfulnesse thereof; but too late,
  or too weakly.

  Canonizing Of Saints


  The Canonizing of Saints, is another Relique of Gentilisme: It is neither
  a misunderstanding of Scripture, nor a new invention of the Roman Church,
  but a custome as ancient as the Common-wealth of Rome it self. The first
  that ever was canonized at Rome, was Romulus, and that upon the narration
  of Julius Proculus, that swore before the Senate, he spake with him after
  his death, and was assured by him, he dwelt in Heaven, and was there
  called Quirinius, and would be propitious to the State of their new City:
  And thereupon the Senate gave Publique Testimony of his Sanctity. Julius
  Caesar, and other Emperors after him, had the like Testimony; that is,
  were Canonized for Saints; now defined; and is the same with the
  Apotheosis of the Heathen.

  The Name Of Pontifex


  It is also from the Roman Heathen, that the Popes have received the name,
  and power of PONTIFEX MAXIMUS. This was the name of him that in the
  ancient Common-wealth of Rome, had the Supreme Authority under the Senate
  and People, of regulating all Ceremonies, and Doctrines concerning their
  Religion: And when Augustus Caesar changed the State into a Monarchy, he
  took to himselfe no more but this office, and that of Tribune of the
  People, (than is to say, the Supreme Power both in State, and Religion;)
  and the succeeding Emperors enjoyed the same. But when the Emperour
  Constantine lived, who was the first that professed and authorized
  Christian Religion, it was consonant to his profession, to cause Religion
  to be regulated (under his authority) by the Bishop of Rome: Though it doe
  not appear they had so soon the name of Pontifex; but rather, that the
  succeeding Bishops took it of themselves, to countenance the power they
  exercised over the Bishops of the Roman Provinces. For it is not any
  Priviledge of St. Peter, but the Priviledge of the City of Rome, which the
  Emperors were alwaies willing to uphold; that gave them such authority
  over other Bishops; as may be evidently seen by that, that the Bishop of
  Constantinople, when the Emperour made that City the Seat of the Empire,
  pretended to bee equall to the Bishop of Rome; though at last, not without
  contention, the Pope carryed it, and became the Pontifex Maximus; but in
  right onely of the Emperour; and not without the bounds of the Empire; nor
  any where, after the Emperour had lost his power in Rome; though it were
  the Pope himself that took his power from him. From whence wee may by the
  way observe, that there is no place for the superiority of the Pope over
  other Bishops, except in the territories whereof he is himself the Civill
  Soveraign; and where the Emperour having Soveraign Power Civill, hath
  expressely chosen the Pope for the chief Pastor under himselfe, of his
  Christian Subjects.

  Procession Of Images


  The carrying about of Images in Procession, is another Relique of the
  Religion of the Greeks, and Romans: For they also carried their Idols from
  place to place, in a kind of Chariot, which was peculiarly dedicated to
  that use, which the Latines called Thensa, and Vehiculum Deorum; and the
  Image was placed in a frame, or Shrine, which they called Ferculum: And
  that which they called Pompa, is the same that now is named Procession:
  According whereunto, amongst the Divine Honors which were given to Julius
  Caesar by the Senate, this was one, that in the Pompe (or Procession) at
  the Circaean games, he should have Thensam & Ferculum, a sacred
  Chariot, and a Shrine; which was as much, as to be carried up and down as
  a God: Just as at this day the Popes are carried by Switzers under a
  Canopie.

  Wax Candles, And Torches Lighted


  To these Processions also belonged the bearing of burning Torches, and
  Candles, before the Images of the Gods, both amongst the Greeks, and
  Romans. For afterwards the Emperors of Rome received the same honor; as we
  read of Caligula, that at his reception to the Empire, he was carried from
  Misenum to Rome, in the midst of a throng of People, the wayes beset with
  Altars, and Beasts for Sacrifice, and burning Torches: And of Caracalla
  that was received into Alexandria with Incense, and with casting of
  Flowers, and Dadouchiais, that is, with Torches; for Dadochoi were they
  that amongst the Greeks carried Torches lighted in the Processions of
  their Gods: And in processe of time, the devout, but ignorant People, did
  many times honor their Bishops with the like pompe of Wax Candles, and the
  Images of our Saviour, and the Saints, constantly, in the Church it self.
  And thus came in the use of Wax Candles; and was also established by some
  of the ancient Councells.
<br />
  The Heathens had also their Aqua Lustralis, that is to say, Holy Water.
  The Church of Rome imitates them also in their Holy Dayes. They had their
  Bacchanalia; and we have our Wakes, answering to them: They their
  Saturnalia, and we our Carnevalls, and Shrove-tuesdays liberty of
  Servants: They their Procession of Priapus; wee our fetching in, erection,
  and dancing about May-poles; and Dancing is one kind of Worship: They had
  their Procession called Ambarvalia; and we our Procession about the fields
  in the Rogation Week. Nor do I think that these are all the Ceremonies
  that have been left in the Church, from the first conversion of the
  Gentiles: but they are all that I can for the present call to mind; and if
  a man would wel observe that which is delivered in the Histories,
  concerning the Religious Rites of the Greeks and Romanes, I doubt not but
  he might find many more of these old empty Bottles of Gentilisme, which
  the Doctors of the Romane Church, either by Negligence, or Ambition, have
  filled up again with the new Wine of Christianity, that will not faile in
  time to break them.

  CHAPTER XLVI.<br />OF DARKNESSE FROM VAIN PHILOSOPHY, AND FABULOUS TRADITIONS

  What Philosophy Is


  By Philosophy is understood &ldquo;the Knowledge acquired by Reasoning, from the
  Manner of the Generation of any thing, to the Properties; or from the
  Properties, to some possible Way of Generation of the same; to the end to
  bee able to produce, as far as matter, and humane force permit, such
  Effects, as humane life requireth.&rdquo; So the Geometrician, from the
  Construction of Figures, findeth out many Properties thereof; and from the
  Properties, new Ways of their Construction, by Reasoning; to the end to be
  able to measure Land and Water; and for infinite other uses. So the
  Astronomer, from the Rising, Setting, and Moving of the Sun, and Starres,
  in divers parts of the Heavens, findeth out the Causes of Day, and Night,
  and of the different Seasons of the Year; whereby he keepeth an account of
  Time: And the like of other Sciences.

  Prudence No Part Of Philosophy


  By which Definition it is evident, that we are not to account as any part
  thereof, that originall knowledge called Experience, in which consisteth
  Prudence: Because it is not attained by Reasoning, but found as well in
  Brute Beasts, as in Man; and is but a Memory of successions of events in
  times past, wherein the omission of every little circumstance altering the
  effect, frustrateth the expectation of the most Prudent: whereas nothing
  is produced by Reasoning aright, but generall, eternall, and immutable
  Truth.

  No False Doctrine Is Part Of Philosophy


  Nor are we therefore to give that name to any false Conclusions: For he
  that Reasoneth aright in words he understandeth, can never conclude an
  Error:
<br />
  No More Is Revelation Supernaturall
<br />
  Nor to that which any man knows by supernaturall Revelation; because it is
  not acquired by Reasoning:

  Nor Learning Taken Upon Credit Of Authors


  Nor that which is gotten by Reasoning from the Authority of Books; because
  it is not by Reasoning from the Cause to the Effect, nor from the Effect
  to the Cause; and is not Knowledge, but Faith.

  Of The Beginnings And Progresse Of Philosophy


  The faculty of Reasoning being consequent to the use of Speech, it was not
  possible, but that there should have been some generall Truthes found out
  by Reasoning, as ancient almost as Language it selfe. The Savages of
  America, are not without some good Morall Sentences; also they have a
  little Arithmetick, to adde, and divide in Numbers not too great: but they
  are not therefore Philosophers. For as there were Plants of Corn and Wine
  in small quantity dispersed in the Fields and Woods, before men knew their
  vertue, or made use of them for their nourishment, or planted them apart
  in Fields, and Vineyards; in which time they fed on Akorns, and drank
  Water: so also there have been divers true, generall, and profitable
  Speculations from the beginning; as being the naturall plants of humane
  Reason: But they were at first but few in number; men lived upon grosse
  Experience; there was no Method; that is to say, no Sowing, nor Planting
  of Knowledge by it self, apart from the Weeds, and common Plants of Errour
  and Conjecture: And the cause of it being the want of leasure from
  procuring the necessities of life, and defending themselves against their
  neighbours, it was impossible, till the erecting of great Common-wealths,
  it should be otherwise. Leasure is the mother of Philosophy; and
  Common-wealth, the mother of Peace, and Leasure: Where first were great
  and flourishing Cities, there was first the study of Philosophy. The
  Gymnosophists of India, the Magi of Persia, and the Priests of Chaldea and
  Egypt, are counted the most ancient Philosophers; and those Countreys were
  the most ancient of Kingdomes. Philosophy was not risen to the Graecians,
  and other people of the West, whose Common-wealths (no greater perhaps
  then Lucca, or Geneva) had never Peace, but when their fears of one
  another were equall; nor the Leasure to observe any thing but one another.
  At length, when Warre had united many of these Graecian lesser Cities,
  into fewer, and greater; then began Seven Men, of severall parts of
  Greece, to get the reputation of being Wise; some of them for Morall and
  Politique Sentences; and others for the learning of the Chaldeans and
  Egyptians, which was Astronomy, and Geometry. But we hear not yet of any
  Schools of Philosophy.

  Of The Schools Of Philosophy Amongst The Athenians


  After the Athenians by the overthrow of the Persian Armies, had gotten the
  Dominion of the Sea; and thereby, of all the Islands, and Maritime Cities
  of the Archipelago, as well of Asia as Europe; and were grown wealthy;
  they that had no employment, neither at home, nor abroad, had little else
  to employ themselves in, but either (as St. Luke says, Acts 17.21.) &ldquo;in
  telling and hearing news,&rdquo; or in discoursing of Philosophy publiquely to
  the youth of the City. Every Master took some place for that purpose.
  Plato in certaine publique Walks called Academia, from one Academus:
  Aristotle in the Walk of the Temple of Pan, called Lycaeum: others in the
  Stoa, or covered Walk, wherein the Merchants Goods were brought to land:
  others in other places; where they spent the time of their Leasure, in
  teaching or in disputing of their Opinions: and some in any place, where
  they could get the youth of the City together to hear them talk. And this
  was it which Carneades also did at Rome, when he was Ambassadour: which
  caused Cato to advise the Senate to dispatch him quickly, for feare of
  corrupting the manners of the young men that delighted to hear him speak
  (as they thought) fine things.
<br />
  From this it was, that the place where any of them taught, and disputed,
  was called Schola, which in their Tongue signifieth Leasure; and their
  Disputations, Diatribae, that is to say, Passing of The Time. Also the
  Philosophers themselves had the name of their Sects, some of them from
  these their Schools: For they that followed Plato&rsquo;s Doctrine, were called
  Academiques; The followers of Aristotle, Peripatetiques, from the Walk hee
  taught in; and those that Zeno taught, Stoiques, from the Stoa: as if we
  should denominate men from More-fields, from Pauls-Church, and from the
  Exchange, because they meet there often, to prate and loyter.
<br />
  Neverthelesse, men were so much taken with this custome, that in time it
  spread it selfe over all Europe, and the best part of Afrique; so as there
  were Schools publiquely erected, and maintained for Lectures, and
  Disputations, almost in every Common-wealth.

  Of The Schools Of The Jews


  There were also Schools, anciently, both before, and after the time of our
  Saviour, amongst the Jews: but they were Schools of their Law. For though
  they were called Synagogues, that is to say, Congregations of the People;
  yet in as much as the Law was every Sabbath day read, expounded, and
  disputed in them, they differed not in nature, but in name onely from
  Publique Schools; and were not onely in Jerusalem, but in every City of
  the Gentiles, where the Jews inhabited. There was such a Schoole at
  Damascus, whereinto Paul entred, to persecute. There were others at
  Antioch, Iconium and Thessalonica, whereinto he entred, to dispute: And
  such was the Synagogue of the Libertines, Cyrenians, Alexandrians,
  Cilicians, and those of Asia; that is to say, the Schoole of Libertines,
  and of Jewes, that were strangers in Jerusalem: And of this Schoole they
  were that disputed with Saint Steven.

  The Schoole Of Graecians Unprofitable


  But what has been the Utility of those Schools? what Science is there at
  this day acquired by their Readings and Disputings? That wee have of
  Geometry, which is the Mother of all Naturall Science, wee are not
  indebted for it to the Schools. Plato that was the best Philosopher of the
  Greeks, forbad entrance into his Schoole, to all that were not already in
  some measure Geometricians. There were many that studied that Science to
  the great advantage of mankind: but there is no mention of their Schools;
  nor was there any Sect of Geometricians; nor did they then passe under the
  name of Philosophers. The naturall Philosophy of those Schools, was rather
  a Dream than Science, and set forth in senselesse and insignificant
  Language; which cannot be avoided by those that will teach Philosophy,
  without having first attained great knowledge in Geometry: For Nature
  worketh by Motion; the Wayes, and Degrees whereof cannot be known, without
  the knowledge of the Proportions and Properties of Lines, and Figures.
  Their Morall Philosophy is but a description of their own Passions. For
  the rule of Manners, without Civill Government, is the Law of Nature; and
  in it, the Law Civill; that determineth what is Honest, and Dishonest;
  what is Just, and Unjust; and generally what is Good, and Evill: whereas
  they make the Rules of Good, and Bad, by their own Liking, and Disliking:
  By which means, in so great diversity of taste, there is nothing generally
  agreed on; but every one doth (as far as he dares) whatsoever seemeth good
  in his own eyes, to the subversion of Common-wealth. Their Logique which
  should bee the Method of Reasoning, is nothing else but Captions of Words,
  and Inventions how to puzzle such as should goe about to pose them. To
  conclude there is nothing so absurd, that the old Philosophers (as Cicero
  saith, who was one of them) have not some of them maintained. And I
  beleeve that scarce any thing can be more absurdly said in naturall
  Philosophy, than that which now is called Aristotles Metaphysiques, nor
  more repugnant to Government, than much of that hee hath said in his
  Politiques; nor more ignorantly, than a great part of his Ethiques.

  The Schools Of The Jews Unprofitable


  The Schoole of the Jews, was originally a Schoole of the Law of Moses; who
  commanded (Deut. 31.10.) that at the end of every seventh year, at the
  Feast of the Tabernacles, it should be read to all the people, that they
  might hear, and learn it: Therefore the reading of the Law (which was in
  use after the Captivity) every Sabbath day, ought to have had no other
  end, but the acquainting of the people with the Commandements which they
  were to obey, and to expound unto them the writings of the Prophets. But
  it is manifest, by the many reprehensions of them by our Saviour, that
  they corrupted the Text of the Law with their false Commentaries, and vain
  Traditions; and so little understood the Prophets, that they did neither
  acknowledge Christ, nor the works he did; for which the Prophets
  prophecyed. So that by their Lectures and Disputations in their
  Synagogues, they turned the Doctrine of their Law into a Phantasticall
  kind of Philosophy, concerning the incomprehensible nature of God, and of
  Spirits; which they compounded of the Vain Philosophy and Theology of the
  Graecians, mingled with their own fancies, drawn from the obscurer places
  of the Scripture, and which might most easily bee wrested to their
  purpose; and from the Fabulous Traditions of their Ancestors.

  University What It Is


  That which is now called an University, is a Joyning together, and an
  Incorporation under one Government of many Publique Schools, in one and
  the same Town or City. In which, the principal Schools were ordained for
  the three Professions, that is to say, of the Romane Religion, of the
  Romane Law, and of the Art of Medicine. And for the study of Philosophy it
  hath no otherwise place, then as a handmaid to the Romane Religion: And
  since the Authority of Aristotle is onely current there, that study is not
  properly Philosophy, (the nature whereof dependeth not on Authors,) but
  Aristotelity. And for Geometry, till of very late times it had no place at
  all; as being subservient to nothing but rigide Truth. And if any man by
  the ingenuity of his owne nature, had attained to any degree of perfection
  therein, hee was commonly thought a Magician, and his Art Diabolicall.

  Errors Brought Into Religion From Aristotles Metaphysiques


  Now to descend to the particular Tenets of Vain Philosophy, derived to the
  Universities, and thence into the Church, partly from Aristotle, partly
  from Blindnesse of understanding; I shall first consider their Principles.
  There is a certain Philosophia Prima, on which all other Philosophy ought
  to depend; and consisteth principally, in right limiting of the
  significations of such Appellations, or Names, as are of all others the
  most Universall: Which Limitations serve to avoid ambiguity, and
  aequivocation in Reasoning; and are commonly called Definitions; such as
  are the Definitions of Body, Time, Place, Matter, Forme, Essence, Subject,
  Substance, Accident, Power, Act, Finite, Infinite, Quantity, Quality,
  Motion, Action, Passion, and divers others, necessary to the explaining of
  a mans Conceptions concerning the Nature and Generation of Bodies. The
  Explication (that is, the setling of the meaning) of which, and the like
  Terms, is commonly in the Schools called Metaphysiques; as being a part of
  the Philosophy of Aristotle, which hath that for title: but it is in
  another sense; for there it signifieth as much, as &ldquo;Books written, or
  placed after his naturall Philosophy:&rdquo; But the Schools take them for Books
  Of Supernaturall Philosophy: for the word Metaphysiques will bear both
  these senses. And indeed that which is there written, is for the most part
  so far from the possibility of being understood, and so repugnant to
  naturall Reason, that whosoever thinketh there is any thing to bee
  understood by it, must needs think it supernaturall.

  Errors Concerning Abstract Essences


  From these Metaphysiques, which are mingled with the Scripture to make
  Schoole Divinity, wee are told, there be in the world certaine Essences
  separated from Bodies, which they call Abstract Essences, and Substantiall
  Formes: For the Interpreting of which Jargon, there is need of somewhat
  more than ordinary attention in this place. Also I ask pardon of those
  that are not used to this kind of Discourse, for applying my selfe to
  those that are. The World, (I mean not the Earth onely, that denominates
  the Lovers of it Worldly Men, but the Universe, that is, the whole masse
  of all things that are) is Corporeall, that is to say, Body; and hath the
  dimensions of Magnitude, namely, Length, Bredth, and Depth: also every
  part of Body, is likewise Body, and hath the like dimensions; and
  consequently every part of the Universe, is Body, and that which is not
  Body, is no part of the Universe: And because the Universe is all, that
  which is no part of it, is Nothing; and consequently No Where. Nor does it
  follow from hence, that Spirits are Nothing: for they have dimensions, and
  are therefore really Bodies; though that name in common Speech be given to
  such Bodies onely, as are visible, or palpable; that is, that have some
  degree of Opacity: But for Spirits, they call them Incorporeall; which is
  a name of more honour, and may therefore with more piety bee attributed to
  God himselfe; in whom wee consider not what Attribute expresseth best his
  Nature, which is Incomprehensible; but what best expresseth our desire to
  honour him.
<br />
  To know now upon what grounds they say there be Essences Abstract, or
  Substantiall Formes, wee are to consider what those words do properly
  signifie. The use of Words, is to register to our selves, and make
  manifest to others the Thoughts and Conceptions of our Minds. Of which
  Words, some are the names of the Things conceived; as the names of all
  sorts of Bodies, that work upon the Senses, and leave an Impression in the
  Imagination: Others are the names of the Imaginations themselves; that is
  to say, of those Ideas, or mentall Images we have of all things wee see,
  or remember: And others againe are names of Names; or of different sorts
  of Speech: As Universall, Plurall, Singular, Negation, True, False,
  Syllogisme, Interrogation, Promise, Covenant, are the names of certain
  Forms of Speech. Others serve to shew the Consequence, or Repugnance of
  one name to another; as when one saith, &ldquo;A Man is a Body,&rdquo; hee intendeth
  that the name of Body is necessarily consequent to the name of Man; as
  being but severall names of the same thing, Man; which Consequence is
  signified by coupling them together with the word Is. And as wee use the
  Verbe Is; so the Latines use their Verbe Est, and the Greeks their Esti
  through all its Declinations. Whether all other Nations of the world have
  in their severall languages a word that answereth to it, or not, I cannot
  tell; but I am sure they have not need of it: For the placing of two names
  in order may serve to signifie their Consequence, if it were the custome,
  (for Custome is it, that give words their force,) as well as the words Is,
  or Bee, or Are, and the like.
<br />
  And if it were so, that there were a Language without any Verb answerable
  to Est, or Is, or Bee; yet the men that used it would bee not a jot the
  lesse capable of Inferring, Concluding, and of all kind of Reasoning, than
  were the Greeks, and Latines. But what then would become of these Terms,
  of Entity, Essence, Essentiall, Essentially, that are derived from it, and
  of many more that depend on these, applyed as most commonly they are? They
  are therefore no Names of Things; but Signes, by which wee make known,
  that wee conceive the Consequence of one name or Attribute to another: as
  when we say, &ldquo;a Man, is, a living Body,&rdquo; wee mean not that the Man is one
  thing, the Living Body another, and the Is, or Beeing a third: but that
  the Man, and the Living Body, is the same thing: because the Consequence,
  &ldquo;If hee bee a Man, hee is a living Body,&rdquo; is a true Consequence, signified
  by that word Is. Therefore, to bee a Body, to Walke, to bee Speaking, to
  Live, to See, and the like Infinitives; also Corporeity, Walking,
  Speaking, Life, Sight, and the like, that signifie just the same, are the
  names of Nothing; as I have elsewhere more amply expressed.
<br />
  But to what purpose (may some man say) is such subtilty in a work of this
  nature, where I pretend to nothing but what is necessary to the doctrine
  of Government and Obedience? It is to this purpose, that men may no longer
  suffer themselves to be abused, by them, that by this doctrine of
  Separated Essences, built on the Vain Philosophy of Aristotle, would
  fright them from Obeying the Laws of their Countrey, with empty names; as
  men fright Birds from the Corn with an empty doublet, a hat, and a crooked
  stick. For it is upon this ground, that when a Man is dead and buried,
  they say his Soule (that is his Life) can walk separated from his Body,
  and is seen by night amongst the graves. Upon the same ground they say,
  that the Figure, and Colour, and Tast of a peece of Bread, has a being,
  there, where they say there is no Bread: And upon the same ground they
  say, that Faith, and Wisdome, and other Vertues are sometimes powred into
  a man, sometimes blown into him from Heaven; as if the Vertuous, and their
  Vertues could be asunder; and a great many other things that serve to
  lessen the dependance of Subjects on the Soveraign Power of their
  Countrey. For who will endeavour to obey the Laws, if he expect Obedience
  to be Powred or Blown into him? Or who will not obey a Priest, that can
  make God, rather than his Soveraign; nay than God himselfe? Or who, that
  is in fear of Ghosts, will not bear great respect to those that can make
  the Holy Water, that drives them from him? And this shall suffice for an
  example of the Errors, which are brought into the Church, from the
  Entities, and Essences of Aristotle: which it may be he knew to be false
  Philosophy; but writ it as a thing consonant to, and corroborative of
  their Religion; and fearing the fate of Socrates.
<br />
  Being once fallen into this Error of Separated Essences, they are thereby
  necessarily involved in many other absurdities that follow it. For seeing
  they will have these Forms to be reall, they are obliged to assign them
  some place. But because they hold them Incorporeall, without all dimension
  of Quantity, and all men know that Place is Dimension, and not to be
  filled, but by that which is Corporeall; they are driven to uphold their
  credit with a distinction, that they are not indeed any where
  Circumscriptive, but Definitive: Which Terms being meer Words, and in this
  occasion insignificant, passe onely in Latine, that the vanity of them may
  bee concealed. For the Circumscription of a thing, is nothing else but the
  Determination, or Defining of its Place; and so both the Terms of the
  Distinction are the same. And in particular, of the Essence of a Man,
  which (they say) is his Soule, they affirm it, to be All of it in his
  little Finger, and All of it in every other Part (how small soever) of his
  Body; and yet no more Soule in the Whole Body, than in any one of those
  Parts. Can any man think that God is served with such absurdities? And yet
  all this is necessary to beleeve, to those that will beleeve the Existence
  of an Incorporeall Soule, Separated from the Body.
<br />
  And when they come to give account, how an Incorporeall Substance can be
  capable of Pain, and be tormented in the fire of Hell, or Purgatory, they
  have nothing at all to answer, but that it cannot be known how fire can
  burn Soules.
<br />
  Again, whereas Motion is change of Place, and Incorporeall Substances are
  not capable of Place, they are troubled to make it seem possible, how a
  Soule can goe hence, without the Body to Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory; and
  how the Ghosts of men (and I may adde of their clothes which they appear
  in) can walk by night in Churches, Church-yards, and other places of
  Sepulture. To which I know not what they can answer, unlesse they will
  say, they walke Definitive, not Circumscriptive, or Spiritually, not
  Temporally: for such egregious distinctions are equally applicable to any
  difficulty whatsoever.

  Nunc-stans


  For the meaning of Eternity, they will not have it to be an Endlesse
  Succession of Time; for then they should not be able to render a reason
  how Gods Will, and Praeordaining of things to come, should not be before
  his Praescience of the same, as the Efficient Cause before the Effect, or
  Agent before the Action; nor of many other their bold opinions concerning
  the Incomprehensible Nature of God. But they will teach us, that Eternity
  is the Standing still of the Present Time, a Nunc-stans (as the Schools
  call it;) which neither they, nor any else understand, no more than they
  would a Hic-stans for an Infinite greatnesse of Place.

  One Body In Many Places, And Many Bodies In One Place At Once


  And whereas men divide a Body in their thought, by numbring parts of it,
  and in numbring those parts, number also the parts of the Place it filled;
  it cannot be, but in making many parts, wee make also many places of those
  parts; whereby there cannot bee conceived in the mind of any man, more, or
  fewer parts, than there are places for: yet they will have us beleeve,
  that by the Almighty power of God, one body may be at one and the same
  time in many places; and many bodies at one and the same time in one
  place; as if it were an acknowledgment of the Divine Power, to say, that
  which is, is not; or that which has been, has not been. And these are but
  a small part of the Incongruities they are forced to, from their disputing
  Philosophically, in stead of admiring, and adoring of the Divine and
  Incomprehensible Nature; whose Attributes cannot signifie what he is, but
  ought to signifie our desire to honour him, with the best Appellations we
  can think on. But they that venture to reason of his Nature, from these
  Attributes of Honour, losing their understanding in the very first
  attempt, fall from one Inconvenience into another, without end, and
  without number; in the same manner, as when a man ignorant of the
  Ceremonies of Court, comming into the presence of a greater Person than he
  is used to speak to, and stumbling at his entrance, to save himselfe from
  falling, lets slip his Cloake; to recover his Cloake, lets fall his Hat;
  and with one disorder after another, discovers his astonishment and
  rusticity.

  Absurdities In Naturall Philosophy, As Gravity The Cause Of Heavinesse


  Then for Physiques, that is, the knowledge of the subordinate, and
  secundary causes of naturall events; they render none at all, but empty
  words. If you desire to know why some kind of bodies sink naturally
  downwards toward the Earth, and others goe naturally from it; The Schools
  will tell you out of Aristotle, that the bodies that sink downwards, are
  Heavy; and that this Heavinesse is it that causes them to descend: But if
  you ask what they mean by Heavinesse, they will define it to bee an
  endeavour to goe to the center of the Earth: so that the cause why things
  sink downward, is an Endeavour to be below: which is as much as to say,
  that bodies descend, or ascend, because they doe. Or they will tell you
  the center of the Earth is the place of Rest, and Conservation for Heavy
  things; and therefore they endeavour to be there: As if Stones, and
  Metalls had a desire, or could discern the place they would bee at, as Man
  does; or loved Rest, as Man does not; or that a peece of Glasse were lesse
  safe in the Window, than falling into the Street.

  Quantity Put Into Body Already Made


  If we would know why the same Body seems greater (without adding to it)
  one time, than another; they say, when it seems lesse, it is Condensed;
  when greater, Rarefied. What is that Condensed, and Rarefied? Condensed,
  is when there is in the very same Matter, lesse Quantity than before; and
  Rarefied, when more. As if there could be Matter, that had not some
  determined Quantity; when Quantity is nothing else but the Determination
  of Matter; that is to say of Body, by which we say one Body is greater, or
  lesser than another, by thus, or thus much. Or as if a Body were made
  without any Quantity at all, and that afterwards more, or lesse were put
  into it, according as it is intended the Body should be more, or lesse
  Dense.

  Powring In Of Soules


  For the cause of the Soule of Man, they say, Creatur Infundendo, and
  Creando Infunditur: that is, &ldquo;It is Created by Powring it in,&rdquo; and &ldquo;Powred
  in by Creation.&rdquo;

  Ubiquity Of Apparition


  For the Cause of Sense, an ubiquity of Species; that is, of the Shews or
  Apparitions of objects; which when they be Apparitions to the Eye, is
  Sight; when to the Eare, Hearing; to the Palate, Tast; to the Nostrill,
  Smelling; and to the rest of the Body, Feeling.

  Will, The Cause Of Willing


  For cause of the Will, to doe any particular action, which is called
  Volitio, they assign the Faculty, that is to say, the Capacity in
  generall, that men have, to will sometimes one thing, sometimes another,
  which is called Voluntas; making the Power the cause of the Act: As if one
  should assign for cause of the good or evill Acts of men, their Ability to
  doe them.

  Ignorance An Occult Cause


  And in many occasions they put for cause of Naturall events, their own
  Ignorance, but disguised in other words: As when they say, Fortune is the
  cause of things contingent; that is, of things whereof they know no cause:
  And as when they attribute many Effects to Occult Qualities; that is,
  qualities not known to them; and therefore also (as they thinke) to no Man
  else. And to Sympathy, Antipathy, Antiperistasis, Specificall Qualities,
  and other like Termes, which signifie neither the Agent that produceth
  them, nor the Operation by which they are produced.
<br />
  If such Metaphysiques, and Physiques as this, be not Vain Philosophy,
  there was never any; nor needed St. Paul to give us warning to avoid it.

  One Makes The Things Incongruent, Another The Incongruity


  And for their Morall, and Civill Philosophy, it hath the same, or greater
  absurdities. If a man doe an action of Injustice, that is to say, an
  action contrary to the Law, God they say is the prime cause of the Law,
  and also the prime cause of that, and all other Actions; but no cause at
  all of the Injustice; which is the Inconformity of the Action to the Law.
  This is Vain Philosophy. A man might as well say, that one man maketh both
  a streight line, and a crooked, and another maketh their Incongruity. And
  such is the Philosophy of all men that resolve of their Conclusions,
  before they know their Premises; pretending to comprehend, that which is
  Incomprehensible; and of Attributes of Honour to make Attributes of
  Nature; as this distinction was made to maintain the Doctrine of
  Free-Will, that is, of a Will of man, not subject to the Will of God.

  Private Appetite The Rule Of Publique Good:


  Aristotle, and other Heathen Philosophers define Good, and Evill, by the
  Appetite of men; and well enough, as long as we consider them governed
  every one by his own Law: For in the condition of men that have no other
  Law but their own Appetites, there can be no generall Rule of Good, and
  Evill Actions. But in a Common-wealth this measure is false: Not the
  Appetite of Private men, but the Law, which is the Will and Appetite of
  the State is the measure. And yet is this Doctrine still practised; and
  men judge the Goodnesse, or Wickednesse of their own, and of other mens
  actions, and of the actions of the Common-wealth it selfe, by their own
  Passions; and no man calleth Good or Evill, but that which is so in his
  own eyes, without any regard at all to the Publique Laws; except onely
  Monks, and Friers, that are bound by Vow to that simple obedience to their
  Superiour, to which every Subject ought to think himself bound by the Law
  of Nature to the Civill Soveraign. And this private measure of Good, is a
  Doctrine, not onely Vain, but also Pernicious to the Publique State.

  And That Lawfull Marriage Is Unchastity


  It is also Vain and false Philosophy, to say the work of Marriage is
  repugnant to Chastity, or Continence, and by consequence to make them
  Morall Vices; as they doe, that pretend Chastity, and Continence, for the
  ground of denying Marriage to the Clergy. For they confesse it is no more,
  but a Constitution of the Church, that requireth in those holy Orders that
  continually attend the Altar, and administration of the Eucharist, a
  continuall Abstinence from women, under the name of continuall Chastity,
  Continence, and Purity. Therefore they call the lawfull use of Wives, want
  of Chastity, and Continence; and so make Marriage a Sin, or at least a
  thing so impure, and unclean, as to render a man unfit for the Altar. If
  the Law were made because the use of Wives is Incontinence, and contrary
  to Chastity, then all marriage is vice; If because it is a thing too
  impure, and unclean for a man consecrated to God; much more should other
  naturall, necessary, and daily works which all men doe, render men
  unworthy to bee Priests, because they are more unclean.
<br />
  But the secret foundation of this prohibition of Marriage of Priests, is
  not likely to have been laid so slightly, as upon such errours in Morall
  Philosophy; nor yet upon the preference of single life, to the estate of
  Matrimony; which proceeded from the wisdome of St. Paul, who perceived how
  inconvenient a thing it was, for those that in those times of persecution
  were Preachers of the Gospel, and forced to fly from one countrey to
  another, to be clogged with the care of wife and children; but upon the
  design of the Popes, and Priests of after times, to make themselves the
  Clergy, that is to say, sole Heirs of the Kingdome of God in this world;
  to which it was necessary to take from them the use of Marriage, because
  our Saviour saith, that at the coming of his Kingdome the Children of God
  shall &ldquo;neither Marry, nor bee given in Marriage, but shall bee as the
  Angels in heaven;&rdquo; that is to say, Spirituall. Seeing then they had taken
  on them the name of Spirituall, to have allowed themselves (when there was
  no need) the propriety of Wives, had been an Incongruity.

  And That All Government But Popular, Is Tyranny


  From Aristotles Civill Philosophy, they have learned, to call all manner
  of Common-wealths but the Popular, (such as was at that time the state of
  Athens,) Tyranny. All Kings they called Tyrants; and the Aristocracy of
  the thirty Governours set up there by the Lacedemonians that subdued them,
  the thirty Tyrants: As also to call the condition of the people under the
  Democracy, Liberty. A Tyrant originally signified no more simply, but a
  Monarch: But when afterwards in most parts of Greece that kind of
  government was abolished, the name began to signifie, not onely the thing
  it did before, but with it, the hatred which the Popular States bare
  towards it: As also the name of King became odious after the deposing of
  the Kings in Rome, as being a thing naturall to all men, to conceive some
  great Fault to be signified in any Attribute, that is given in despight,
  and to a great Enemy. And when the same men shall be displeased with those
  that have the administration of the Democracy, or Aristocracy, they are
  not to seek for disgraceful names to expresse their anger in; but call
  readily the one Anarchy, and the other Oligarchy, or the Tyranny Of A Few.
  And that which offendeth the People, is no other thing, but that they are
  governed, not as every one of them would himselfe, but as the Publique
  Representant, be it one Man, or an Assembly of men thinks fit; that is, by
  an Arbitrary government: for which they give evill names to their
  Superiors; never knowing (till perhaps a little after a Civill warre) that
  without such Arbitrary government, such Warre must be perpetuall; and that
  it is Men, and Arms, not Words, and Promises, that make the Force and
  Power of the Laws.

  That Not Men, But Law Governs


  And therefore this is another Errour of Aristotles Politiques, that in a
  wel ordered Common-wealth, not Men should govern, but the Laws. What man,
  that has his naturall Senses, though he can neither write nor read, does
  not find himself governed by them he fears, and beleeves can kill or hurt
  him when he obeyeth not? or that beleeves the Law can hurt him; that is,
  Words, and Paper, without the Hands, and Swords of men? And this is of the
  number of pernicious Errors: for they induce men, as oft as they like not
  their Governours, to adhaere to those that call them Tyrants, and to think
  it lawfull to raise warre against them: And yet they are many times
  cherished from the Pulpit, by the Clergy.

  Laws Over The Conscience


  There is another Errour in their Civill Philosophy (which they never
  learned of Aristotle, nor Cicero, nor any other of the Heathen,) to extend
  the power of the Law, which is the Rule of Actions onely, to the very
  Thoughts, and Consciences of men, by Examination, and Inquisition of what
  they Hold, notwithstanding the Conformity of their Speech and Actions: By
  which, men are either punished for answering the truth of their thoughts,
  or constrained to answer an untruth for fear of punishment. It is true,
  that the Civill Magistrate, intending to employ a Minister in the charge
  of Teaching, may enquire of him, if hee bee content to Preach such, and
  such Doctrines; and in case of refusall, may deny him the employment: But
  to force him to accuse himselfe of Opinions, when his Actions are not by
  Law forbidden, is against the Law of Nature; and especially in them, who
  teach, that a man shall bee damned to Eternall and extream torments, if he
  die in a false opinion concerning an Article of the Christian Faith. For
  who is there, that knowing there is so great danger in an error, when the
  naturall care of himself, compelleth not to hazard his Soule upon his own
  judgement, rather than that of any other man that is unconcerned in his
  damnation?

  Private Interpretation Of Law


  For a Private man, without the Authority of the Common-wealth, that is to
  say, without permission from the Representant thereof, to Interpret the
  Law by his own Spirit, is another Error in the Politiques; but not drawn
  from Aristotle, nor from any other of the Heathen Philosophers. For none
  of them deny, but that in the Power of making Laws, is comprehended also
  the Power of Explaining them when there is need. And are not the
  Scriptures, in all places where they are Law, made Law by the Authority of
  the Common-wealth, and consequently, a part of the Civill Law?
<br />
  Of the same kind it is also, when any but the Soveraign restraineth in any
  man that power which the Common-wealth hath not restrained: as they do,
  that impropriate the Preaching of the Gospell to one certain Order of men,
  where the Laws have left it free. If the State give me leave to preach, or
  teach; that is, if it forbid me not, no man can forbid me. If I find my
  selfe amongst the Idolaters of America, shall I that am a Christian,
  though not in Orders, think it a sin to preach Jesus Christ, till I have
  received Orders from Rome? or when I have preached, shall not I answer
  their doubts, and expound the Scriptures to them; that is shall I not
  Teach? But for this may some say, as also for administring to them the
  Sacraments, the necessity shall be esteemed for a sufficient Mission;
  which is true: But this is true also, that for whatsoever, a dispensation
  is due for the necessity, for the same there needs no dispensation, when
  there is no Law that forbids it. Therefore to deny these Functions to
  those, to whom the Civill Soveraigne hath not denyed them, is a taking
  away of a lawfull Liberty, which is contrary to the Doctrine of Civill
  Government.

  Language Of Schoole-Divines


  More examples of Vain Philosophy, brought into Religion by the Doctors of
  Schoole-Divinity, might be produced; but other men may if they please
  observe them of themselves. I shall onely adde this, that the Writings of
  Schoole-Divines, are nothing else for the most part, but insignificant
  Traines of strange and barbarous words, or words otherwise used, then in
  the common use of the Latine tongue; such as would pose Cicero, and Varro,
  and all the Grammarians of ancient Rome. Which if any man would see
  proved, let him (as I have said once before) see whether he can translate
  any Schoole-Divine into any of the Modern tongues, as French, English, or
  any other copious language: for that which cannot in most of these be made
  Intelligible, is no Intelligible in the Latine. Which Insignificancy of
  language, though I cannot note it for false Philosophy; yet it hath a
  quality, not onely to hide the Truth, but also to make men think they have
  it, and desist from further search.

  Errors From Tradition


  Lastly, for the errors brought in from false, or uncertain History, what
  is all the Legend of fictitious Miracles, in the lives of the Saints; and
  all the Histories of Apparitions, and Ghosts, alledged by the Doctors of
  the Romane Church, to make good their Doctrines of Hell, and purgatory,
  the power of Exorcisme, and other Doctrines which have no warrant, neither
  in Reason, nor Scripture; as also all those Traditions which they call the
  unwritten Word of God; but old Wives Fables? Whereof, though they find
  dispersed somewhat in the Writings of the ancient Fathers; yet those
  Fathers were men, that might too easily beleeve false reports; and the
  producing of their opinions for testimony of the truth of what they
  beleeved, hath no other force with them that (according to the Counsell of
  St. John 1 Epist. chap. 4. verse 1.) examine Spirits, than in all things
  that concern the power of the Romane Church, (the abuse whereof either
  they suspected not, or had benefit by it,) to discredit their testimony,
  in respect of too rash beleef of reports; which the most sincere men,
  without great knowledge of naturall causes, (such as the Fathers were) are
  commonly the most subject to: For naturally, the best men are the least
  suspicious of fraudulent purposes. Gregory the Pope, and S. Bernard have
  somewhat of Apparitions of Ghosts, that said they were in Purgatory; and
  so has our Beda: but no where, I beleeve, but by report from others. But
  if they, or any other, relate any such stories of their own knowledge,
  they shall not thereby confirm the more such vain reports; but discover
  their own Infirmity, or Fraud.

  Suppression Of Reason


  With the Introduction of False, we may joyn also the suppression of True
  Philosophy, by such men, as neither by lawfull authority, nor sufficient
  study, are competent Judges of the truth. Our own Navigations make
  manifest, and all men learned in humane Sciences, now acknowledge there
  are Antipodes: And every day it appeareth more and more, that Years, and
  Dayes are determined by Motions of the Earth. Neverthelesse, men that have
  in their Writings but supposed such Doctrine, as an occasion to lay open
  the reasons for, and against it, have been punished for it by Authority
  Ecclesiasticall. But what reason is there for it? Is it because such
  opinions are contrary to true Religion? that cannot be, if they be true.
  Let therefore the truth be first examined by competent Judges, or confuted
  by them that pretend to know the contrary. Is it because they be contrary
  to the Religion established? Let them be silenced by the Laws of those, to
  whom the Teachers of them are subject; that is, by the Laws Civill: For
  disobedience may lawfully be punished in them, that against the Laws teach
  even true Philosophy. Is it because they tend to disorder in Government,
  as countenancing Rebellion, or Sedition? then let them be silenced, and
  the Teachers punished by vertue of his power to whom the care of the
  Publique quiet is committed; which is the Authority Civill. For whatsoever
  Power Ecclesiastiques take upon themselves (in any place where they are
  subject to the State) in their own Right, though they call it Gods Right,
  is but Usurpation.

  CHAPTER XLVII.<br />OF THE BENEFIT THAT PROCEEDETH FROM SUCH DARKNESSE, AND TO
  WHOM IT ACCREWETH

  He That Receiveth Benefit By A Fact, Is Presumed To Be The Author


  Cicero maketh honorable mention of one of the Cassii, a severe Judge
  amongst the Romans, for a custome he had, in Criminal causes, (when the
  testimony of the witnesses was not sufficient,) to ask the Accusers, Cui
  Bono; that is to say, what Profit, Honor, or other Contentment, the
  accused obtained, or expected by the Fact. For amongst Praesumptions,
  there is none that so evidently declareth the Author, as doth the BENEFIT
  of the Action. By the same rule I intend in this place to examine, who
  they may be, that have possessed the People so long in this part of
  Christendome, with these Doctrines, contrary to the Peaceable Societies of
  Mankind.

  That The Church Militant Is The Kingdome Of God, Was First Taught By The
  Church Of Rome


  And first, to this Error, That The Present Church Now Militant On Earth,
  Is The Kingdome Of God, (that is, the Kingdome of Glory, or the Land of
  Promise; not the Kingdome of Grace, which is but a Promise of the Land,)
  are annexed these worldly Benefits, First, that the Pastors, and Teachers
  of the Church, are entitled thereby, as Gods Publique Ministers, to a
  Right of Governing the Church; and consequently (because the Church, and
  Common-wealth are the same Persons) to be Rectors, and Governours of the
  Common-wealth. By this title it is, that the Pope prevailed with the
  subjects of all Christian Princes, to beleeve, that to disobey him, was to
  disobey Christ himselfe; and in all differences between him and other
  Princes, (charmed with the word Power Spirituall,) to abandon their
  lawfull Soveraigns; which is in effect an universall Monarchy over all
  Christendome. For though they were first invested in the right of being
  Supreme Teachers of Christian Doctrine, by, and under Christian Emperors,
  within the limits of the Romane Empire (as is acknowledged by themselves)
  by the title of Pontifex Maximus, who was an Officer subject to the Civill
  State; yet after the Empire was divided, and dissolved, it was not hard to
  obtrude upon the people already subject to them, another Title, namely,
  the Right of St. Peter; not onely to save entire their pretended Power;
  but also to extend the same over the same Christian Provinces, though no
  more united in the Empire of Rome. This Benefit of an Universall Monarchy,
  (considering the desire of men to bear Rule) is a sufficient Presumption,
  that the popes that pretended to it, and for a long time enjoyed it, were
  the Authors of the Doctrine, by which it was obtained; namely, that the
  Church now on Earth, is the Kingdome of Christ. For that granted, it must
  be understood, that Christ hath some Lieutenant amongst us, by whom we are
  to be told what are his Commandements.
<br />
  After that certain Churches had renounced this universall Power of the
  Pope, one would expect in reason, that the Civill Soveraigns in all those
  Churches, should have recovered so much of it, as (before they had
  unadvisedly let it goe) was their own Right, and in their own hands. And
  in England it was so in effect; saving that they, by whom the Kings
  administred the Government of Religion, by maintaining their imployment to
  be in Gods Right, seemed to usurp, if not a Supremacy, yet an Independency
  on the Civill Power: and they but seemed to usurp it, in as much as they
  acknowledged a Right in the King, to deprive them of the Exercise of their
  Functions at his pleasure.

  And Maintained Also By The Presbytery


  But in those places where the Presbytery took that Office, though many
  other Doctrines of the Church of Rome were forbidden to be taught; yet
  this Doctrine, that the Kingdome of Christ is already come, and that it
  began at the Resurrection of our Saviour, was still retained. But Cui
  Bono? What Profit did they expect from it? The same which the Popes
  expected: to have a Soveraign Power over the People. For what is it for
  men to excommunicate their lawful King, but to keep him from all places of
  Gods publique Service in his own Kingdom? and with force to resist him,
  when he with force endeavoureth to correct them? Or what is it, without
  Authority from the Civill Soveraign, to excommunicate any person, but to
  take from him his Lawfull Liberty, that is, to usurpe an unlawfull Power
  over their Brethren? The Authors therefore of this Darknesse in Religion,
  are the Romane, and the Presbyterian Clergy.

  Infallibility


  To this head, I referre also all those Doctrines, that serve them to keep
  the possession of this spirituall Soveraignty after it is gotten. As
  first, that the Pope In His Publique Capacity Cannot Erre. For who is
  there, that beleeving this to be true, will not readily obey him in
  whatsoever he commands?

  Subjection Of Bishops


  Secondly, that all other Bishops, in what Common-wealth soever, have not
  their Right, neither immediately from God, nor mediately from their Civill
  Soveraigns, but from the Pope, is a Doctrine, by which there comes to be
  in every Christian Common-wealth many potent men, (for so are Bishops,)
  that have their dependance on the Pope, and owe obedience to him, though
  he be a forraign Prince; by which means he is able, (as he hath done many
  times) to raise a Civill War against the State that submits not it self to
  be governed according to his pleasure and Interest.

  Exemptions Of The Clergy


  Thirdly, the exemption of these, and of all other Priests, and of all
  Monkes, and Fryers, from the Power of the Civill Laws. For by this means,
  there is a great part of every Common-wealth, that enjoy the benefit of
  the Laws, and are protected by the Power of the Civill State, which
  neverthelesse pay no part of the Publique expence; nor are lyable to the
  penalties, as other Subjects, due to their crimes; and consequently, stand
  not in fear of any man, but the Pope; and adhere to him onely, to uphold
  his universall Monarchy.

  The Names Of Sacerdotes, And Sacrifices


  Fourthly, the giving to their Priests (which is no more in the New
  Testament but Presbyters, that is, Elders) the name of Sacerdotes, that
  is, Sacrificers, which was the title of the Civill Soveraign, and his
  publique Ministers, amongst the Jews, whilest God was their King. Also,
  the making the Lords Supper a Sacrifice, serveth to make the People
  beleeve the Pope hath the same power over all Christian, that Moses and
  Aaron had over the Jews; that is to say, all power, both Civill and
  Ecclesiasticall, as the High Priest then had.

  The Sacramentation Of Marriage


  Fiftly, the teaching that Matrimony is a Sacrament, giveth to the Clergy
  the Judging of the lawfulnesse of Marriages; and thereby, of what Children
  are Legitimate; and consequently, of the Right of Succession to
  haereditary Kingdomes.

  The Single Life Of Priests


  Sixtly, the Deniall of Marriage to Priests, serveth to assure this Power
  of the pope over Kings. For if a King be a Priest, he cannot Marry, and
  transmit his Kingdome to his Posterity; If he be not a Priest then the
  Pope pretendeth this Authority Ecclesiasticall over him, and over his
  people.

  Auricular Confession


  Seventhly, from Auricular Confession, they obtain, for the assurance of
  their Power, better intelligence of the designs of Princes, and great
  persons in the Civill State, than these can have of the designs of the
  State Ecclesiasticall.

  Canonization Of Saints, And Declaring Of Martyrs


  Eighthly, by the Canonization of Saints, and declaring who are Martyrs,
  they assure their Power, in that they induce simple men into an obstinacy
  against the Laws and Commands of their Civill Soveraigns even to death, if
  by the Popes excommunication, they be declared Heretiques or Enemies to
  the Church; that is, (as they interpret it,) to the Pope.

  Transubstantiation, Penance, Absolution


  Ninthly, they assure the same, by the Power they ascribe to every Priest,
  of making Christ; and by the Power of ordaining Pennance; and of
  Remitting, and Retaining of sins.

  Purgatory, Indulgences, Externall Works


  Tenthly, by the Doctrine of Purgatory, of Justification by externall
  works, and of Indulgences, the Clergy is enriched.

  Daemonology And Exorcism


  Eleventhly, by their Daemonology, and the use of Exorcisme, and other
  things appertaining thereto, they keep (or thinke they keep) the People
  more in awe of their Power.

  School-Divinity


  Lastly, the Metaphysiques, Ethiques, and Politiques of Aristotle, the
  frivolous Distinctions, barbarous Terms, and obscure Language of the
  Schoolmen, taught in the Universities, (which have been all erected and
  regulated by the Popes Authority,) serve them to keep these Errors from
  being detected, and to make men mistake the Ignis Fatuus of Vain
  Philosophy, for the Light of the Gospell.

  The Authors Of Spirituall Darknesse, Who They Be


  To these, if they sufficed not, might be added other of their dark
  Doctrines, the profit whereof redoundeth manifestly, to the setting up of
  an unlawfull Power over the lawfull Soveraigns of Christian People; or for
  the sustaining of the same, when it is set up; or to the worldly Riches,
  Honour, and Authority of those that sustain it. And therefore by the
  aforesaid rule, of Cui Bono, we may justly pronounce for the Authors of
  all this Spirituall Darknesse, the Pope, and Roman Clergy, and all those
  besides that endeavour to settle in the mindes of men this erroneous
  Doctrine, that the Church now on Earth, is that Kingdome of God mentioned
  in the Old and New Testament.
<br />
  But the Emperours, and other Christian Soveraigns, under whose Government
  these Errours, and the like encroachments of Ecclesiastiques upon their
  Office, at first crept in, to the disturbance of their possessions, and of
  the tranquillity of their Subjects, though they suffered the same for want
  of foresight of the Sequel, and of insight into the designs of their
  Teachers, may neverthelesse bee esteemed accessories to their own, and the
  Publique dammage; For without their Authority there could at first no
  seditious Doctrine have been publiquely preached. I say they might have
  hindred the same in the beginning: But when the people were once possessed
  by those spirituall men, there was no humane remedy to be applyed, that
  any man could invent: And for the remedies that God should provide, who
  never faileth in his good time to destroy all the Machinations of men
  against the Truth, wee are to attend his good pleasure, that suffereth
  many times the prosperity of his enemies, together with their ambition, to
  grow to such a height, as the violence thereof openeth the eyes, which the
  warinesse of their predecessours had before sealed up, and makes men by
  too much grasping let goe all, as Peters net was broken, by the struggling
  of too great a multitude of Fishes; whereas the Impatience of those, that
  strive to resist such encroachment, before their Subjects eyes were
  opened, did but encrease the power they resisted. I doe not therefore
  blame the Emperour Frederick for holding the stirrop to our countryman
  Pope Adrian; for such was the disposition of his subjects then, as if hee
  had not doe it, hee was not likely to have succeeded in the Empire: But I
  blame those, that in the beginning, when their power was entire, by
  suffering such Doctrines to be forged in the Universities of their own
  Dominions, have holden the Stirrop to all the succeeding Popes, whilest
  they mounted into the Thrones of all Christian Soveraigns, to ride, and
  tire, both them, and their people, at their pleasure.
<br />
  But as the Inventions of men are woven, so also are they ravelled out; the
  way is the same, but the order is inverted: The web begins at the first
  Elements of Power, which are Wisdom, Humility, Sincerity, and other
  vertues of the Apostles, whom the people converted, obeyed, out of
  Reverence, not by Obligation: Their Consciences were free, and their Words
  and Actions subject to none but the Civill Power. Afterwards the
  Presbyters (as the Flocks of Christ encreased) assembling to consider what
  they should teach, and thereby obliging themselves to teach nothing
  against the Decrees of their Assemblies, made it to be thought the people
  were thereby obliged to follow their Doctrine, and when they refused,
  refused to keep them company, (that was then called Excommunication,) not
  as being Infidels, but as being disobedient: And this was the first knot
  upon their Liberty. And the number of Presbyters encreasing, the
  Presbyters of the chief City or Province, got themselves an authority over
  the parochiall Presbyters, and appropriated to themselves the names of
  Bishops: And this was a second knot on Christian Liberty. Lastly, the
  Bishop of Rome, in regard of the Imperiall City, took upon him an
  Authority (partly by the wills of the Emperours themselves, and by the
  title of Pontifex Maximus, and at last when the Emperours were grown weak,
  by the priviledges of St. Peter) over all other Bishops of the Empire:
  Which was the third and last knot, and the whole Synthesis and
  Construction of the Pontificall Power.
<br />
  And therefore the Analysis, or Resolution is by the same way; but
  beginning with the knot that was last tyed; as wee may see in the
  dissolution of the praeterpoliticall Church Government in England.
<br />
  First, the Power of the Popes was dissolved totally by Queen Elizabeth;
  and the Bishops, who before exercised their Functions in Right of the
  Pope, did afterwards exercise the same in Right of the Queen and her
  Successours; though by retaining the phrase of Jure Divino, they were
  thought to demand it by immediate Right from God: And so was untyed the
  first knot. After this, the Presbyterians lately in England obtained the
  putting down of Episcopacy: And so was the second knot dissolved: And
  almost at the same time, the Power was taken also from the Presbyterians:
  And so we are reduced to the Independency of the Primitive Christians to
  follow Paul, or Cephas, or Apollos, every man as he liketh best: Which, if
  it be without contention, and without measuring the Doctrine of Christ, by
  our affection to the Person of his Minister, (the fault which the Apostle
  reprehended in the Corinthians,) is perhaps the best: First, because there
  ought to be no Power over the Consciences of men, but of the Word it
  selfe, working Faith in every one, not alwayes according to the purpose of
  them that Plant and Water, but of God himself, that giveth the Increase:
  and secondly, because it is unreasonable in them, who teach there is such
  danger in every little Errour, to require of a man endued with Reason of
  his own, to follow the Reason of any other man, or of the most voices of
  many other men; Which is little better, then to venture his Salvation at
  crosse and pile. Nor ought those Teachers to be displeased with this losse
  of their antient Authority: For there is none should know better then
  they, that power is preserved by the same Vertues by which it is acquired;
  that is to say, by Wisdome, Humility, Clearnesse of Doctrine, and
  sincerity of Conversation; and not by suppression of the Naturall
  Sciences, and of the Morality of Naturall Reason; nor by obscure Language;
  nor by Arrogating to themselves more Knowledge than they make appear; nor
  by Pious Frauds; nor by such other faults, as in the Pastors of Gods
  Church are not only Faults, but also scandalls, apt to make men stumble
  one time or other upon the suppression of their Authority.

  Comparison Of The Papacy With The Kingdome Of Fayries


  But after this Doctrine, &ldquo;that the Church now Militant, is the Kingdome of
  God spoken of in the Old and New Testament,&rdquo; was received in the World;
  the ambition, and canvasing for the Offices that belong thereunto, and
  especially for that great Office of being Christs Lieutenant, and the
  Pompe of them that obtained therein the principal Publique Charges, became
  by degrees so evident, that they lost the inward Reverence due to the
  Pastorall Function: in so much as the Wisest men, of them that had any
  power in the Civill State, needed nothing but the authority of their
  Princes, to deny them any further Obedience. For, from the time that the
  Bishop of Rome had gotten to be acknowledged for Bishop Universall, by
  pretence of Succession to St. Peter, their whole Hierarchy, or Kingdome of
  Darknesse, may be compared not unfitly to the Kingdome of Fairies; that
  is, to the old wives Fables in England, concerning Ghosts and Spirits, and
  the feats they play in the night. And if a man consider the originall of
  this great Ecclesiasticall Dominion, he will easily perceive, that the
  Papacy, is no other, than the Ghost of the deceased Romane Empire, sitting
  crowned upon the grave thereof: For so did the Papacy start up on a Sudden
  out of the Ruines of that Heathen Power.
<br />
  The Language also, which they use, both in the Churches, and in their
  Publique Acts, being Latine, which is not commonly used by any Nation now
  in the world, what is it but the Ghost of the Old Romane Language.
<br />
  The Fairies in what Nation soever they converse, have but one Universall
  King, which some Poets of ours call King Oberon; but the Scripture calls
  Beelzebub, Prince of Daemons. The Ecclesiastiques likewise, in whose
  Dominions soever they be found, acknowledge but one Universall King, the
  Pope.
<br />
  The Ecclesiastiques are Spirituall men, and Ghostly Fathers. The Fairies
  are Spirits, and Ghosts. Fairies and Ghosts inhabite Darknesse, Solitudes,
  and Graves. The Ecclesiastiques walke in Obscurity of Doctrine, in
  Monasteries, Churches, and Churchyards.
<br />
  The Ecclesiastiques have their Cathedral Churches; which, in what Towne
  soever they be erected, by vertue of Holy Water, and certain Charmes
  called Exorcismes, have the power to make those Townes, cities, that is to
  say, Seats of Empire. The Fairies also have their enchanted Castles, and
  certain Gigantique Ghosts, that domineer over the Regions round about
  them.
<br />
  The fairies are not to be seized on; and brought to answer for the hurt
  they do. So also the Ecclesiastiques vanish away from the Tribunals of
  Civill Justice.
<br />
  The Ecclesiastiques take from young men, the use of Reason, by certain
  Charms compounded of Metaphysiques, and Miracles, and Traditions, and
  Abused Scripture, whereby they are good for nothing else, but to execute
  what they command them. The Fairies likewise are said to take young
  Children out of their Cradles, and to change them into Naturall Fools,
  which Common people do therefore call Elves, and are apt to mischief.
<br />
  In what Shop, or Operatory the Fairies make their Enchantment, the old
  Wives have not determined. But the Operatories of the Clergy, are well
  enough known to be the Universities, that received their Discipline from
  Authority Pontificall.
<br />
  When the Fairies are displeased with any body, they are said to send their
  Elves, to pinch them. The Ecclesiastiques, when they are displeased with
  any Civill State, make also their Elves, that is, Superstitious, Enchanted
  Subjects, to pinch their Princes, by preaching Sedition; or one Prince
  enchanted with promises, to pinch another.
<br />
  The Fairies marry not; but there be amongst them Incubi, that have
  copulation with flesh and bloud. The Priests also marry not.
<br />
  The Ecclesiastiques take the Cream of the Land, by Donations of ignorant
  men, that stand in aw of them, and by Tythes: So also it is in the Fable
  of Fairies, that they enter into the Dairies, and Feast upon the Cream,
  which they skim from the Milk.
<br />
  What kind of Money is currant in the Kingdome of Fairies, is not recorded
  in the Story. But the Ecclesiastiques in their Receipts accept of the same
  Money that we doe; though when they are to make any Payment, it is in
  Canonizations, Indulgences, and Masses.
<br />
  To this, and such like resemblances between the Papacy, and the Kingdome
  of Fairies, may be added this, that as the Fairies have no existence, but
  in the Fancies of ignorant people, rising from the Traditions of old
  Wives, or old Poets: so the Spirituall Power of the Pope (without the
  bounds of his own Civill Dominion) consisteth onely in the Fear that
  Seduced people stand in, of their Excommunication; upon hearing of false
  Miracles, false Traditions, and false Interpretations of the Scripture.
<br />
  It was not therefore a very difficult matter, for Henry 8. by his
  Exorcisme; nor for Qu. Elizabeth by hers, to cast them out. But who knows
  that this Spirit of Rome, now gone out, and walking by Missions through
  the dry places of China, Japan, and the Indies, that yeeld him little
  fruit, may not return, or rather an Assembly of Spirits worse than he,
  enter, and inhabite this clean swept house, and make the End thereof worse
  than the beginning? For it is not the Romane Clergy onely, that pretends
  the Kingdome of God to be of this World, and thereby to have a Power
  therein, distinct from that of the Civill State. And this is all I had a
  designe to say, concerning the Doctrine of the POLITIQUES. Which when I
  have reviewed, I shall willingly expose it to the censure of my Countrey.

  A REVIEW, AND CONCLUSION


  From the contrariety of some of the Naturall Faculties of the Mind, one to
  another, as also of one Passion to another, and from their reference to
  Conversation, there has been an argument taken, to inferre an
  impossibility that any one man should be sufficiently disposed to all
  sorts of Civill duty. The Severity of Judgment, they say, makes men
  Censorious, and unapt to pardon the Errours and Infirmities of other men:
  and on the other side, Celerity of Fancy, makes the thoughts lesse steddy
  than is necessary, to discern exactly between Right and Wrong. Again, in
  all Deliberations, and in all Pleadings, the faculty of solid Reasoning,
  is necessary: for without it, the Resolutions of men are rash, and their
  Sentences unjust: and yet if there be not powerfull Eloquence, which
  procureth attention and Consent, the effect of Reason will be little. But
  these are contrary Faculties; the former being grounded upon principles of
  Truth; the other upon Opinions already received, true, or false; and upon
  the Passions and Interests of men, which are different, and mutable.
<br />
  And amongst the Passions, Courage, (by which I mean the Contempt of
  Wounds, and violent Death) enclineth men to private Revenges, and
  sometimes to endeavour the unsetling of the Publique Peace; And
  Timorousnesse, many times disposeth to the desertion of the Publique
  Defence. Both these they say cannot stand together in the same person.
<br />
  And to consider the contrariety of mens Opinions, and Manners in generall,
  It is they say, impossible to entertain a constant Civill Amity with all
  those, with whom the Businesse of the world constrains us to converse:
  Which Businesse consisteth almost in nothing else but a perpetuall
  contention for Honor, Riches, and Authority.
<br />
  To which I answer, that these are indeed great difficulties, but not
  Impossibilities: For by Education, and Discipline, they may bee, and are
  sometimes reconciled. Judgment, and Fancy may have place in the same man;
  but by turnes; as the end which he aimeth at requireth. As the Israelites
  in Egypt, were sometimes fastened to their labour of making Bricks, and
  other times were ranging abroad to gather Straw: So also may the Judgment
  sometimes be fixed upon one certain Consideration, and the Fancy at
  another time wandring about the world. So also Reason, and Eloquence,
  (though not perhaps in the Naturall Sciences, yet in the Morall) may stand
  very well together. For wheresoever there is place for adorning and
  preferring of Errour, there is much more place for adorning and preferring
  of Truth, if they have it to adorn. Nor is there any repugnancy between
  fearing the Laws, and not fearing a publique Enemy; nor between abstaining
  from Injury, and pardoning it in others. There is therefore no such
  Inconsistence of Humane Nature, with Civill Duties, as some think. I have
  known cleernesse of Judgment, and largenesse of Fancy; strength of Reason,
  and gracefull Elocution; a Courage for the Warre, and a Fear for the Laws,
  and all eminently in one man; and that was my most noble and honored
  friend Mr. Sidney Godolphin; who hating no man, nor hated of any, was
  unfortunately slain in the beginning of the late Civill warre, in the
  Publique quarrel, by an indiscerned, and an undiscerning hand.
<br />
  To the Laws of Nature, declared in the 15. Chapter, I would have this
  added, &ldquo;That every man is bound by Nature, as much as in him lieth, to
  protect in Warre, the Authority, by which he is himself protected in time
  of Peace.&rdquo; For he that pretendeth a Right of Nature to preserve his owne
  body, cannot pretend a Right of Nature to destroy him, by whose strength
  he is preserved: It is a manifest contradiction of himselfe. And though
  this Law may bee drawn by consequence, from some of those that are there
  already mentioned; yet the Times require to have it inculcated, and
  remembred.
<br />
  And because I find by divers English Books lately printed, that the Civill
  warres have not yet sufficiently taught men, in what point of time it is,
  that a Subject becomes obliged to the Conquerour; nor what is Conquest;
  nor how it comes about, that it obliges men to obey his Laws: Therefore
  for farther satisfaction of men therein, I say, the point of time, wherein
  a man becomes subject of a Conquerour, is that point, wherein having
  liberty to submit to him, he consenteth, either by expresse words, or by
  other sufficient sign, to be his Subject. When it is that a man hath the
  liberty to submit, I have showed before in the end of the 21. Chapter;
  namely, that for him that hath no obligation to his former Soveraign but
  that of an ordinary Subject, it is then, when the means of his life is
  within the Guards and Garrisons of the Enemy; for it is then, that he hath
  no longer Protection from him, but is protected by the adverse party for
  his Contribution. Seeing therefore such contribution is every where, as a
  thing inevitable, (notwithstanding it be an assistance to the Enemy,)
  esteemed lawfull; as totall Submission, which is but an assistance to the
  Enemy, cannot be esteemed unlawfull. Besides, if a man consider that they
  who submit, assist the Enemy but with part of their estates, whereas they
  that refuse, assist him with the whole, there is no reason to call their
  Submission, or Composition an Assistance; but rather a Detriment to the
  Enemy. But if a man, besides the obligation of a Subject, hath taken upon
  him a new obligation of a Souldier, then he hath not the liberty to submit
  to a new Power, as long as the old one keeps the field, and giveth him
  means of subsistence, either in his Armies, or Garrisons: for in this
  case, he cannot complain of want of Protection, and means to live as a
  Souldier: But when that also failes, a Souldier also may seek his
  Protection wheresoever he has most hope to have it; and may lawfully
  submit himself to his new Master. And so much for the Time when he may do
  it lawfully, if hee will. If therefore he doe it, he is undoubtedly bound
  to be a true Subject: For a Contract lawfully made, cannot lawfully be
  broken.
<br />
  By this also a man may understand, when it is, that men may be said to be
  Conquered; and in what the nature of Conquest, and the Right of a
  Conquerour consisteth: For this Submission is it implyeth them all.
  Conquest, is not the Victory it self; but the Acquisition by Victory, of a
  Right, over the persons of men. He therefore that is slain, is Overcome,
  but not Conquered; He that is taken, and put into prison, or chaines, is
  not Conquered, though Overcome; for he is still an Enemy, and may save
  himself if hee can: But he that upon promise of Obedience, hath his Life
  and Liberty allowed him, is then Conquered, and a Subject; and not before.
  The Romanes used to say, that their Generall had Pacified such a Province,
  that is to say, in English, Conquered it; and that the Countrey was
  Pacified by Victory, when the people of it had promised Imperata Facere,
  that is, To Doe What The Romane People Commanded Them: this was to be
  Conquered. But this promise may be either expresse, or tacite: Expresse,
  by Promise: Tacite, by other signes. As for example, a man that hath not
  been called to make such an expresse Promise, (because he is one whose
  power perhaps is not considerable;) yet if he live under their Protection
  openly, hee is understood to submit himselfe to the Government: But if he
  live there secretly, he is lyable to any thing that may bee done to a
  Spie, and Enemy of the State. I say not, hee does any Injustice, (for acts
  of open Hostility bear not that name); but that he may be justly put to
  death. Likewise, if a man, when his Country is conquered, be out of it, he
  is not Conquered, nor Subject: but if at his return, he submit to the
  Government, he is bound to obey it. So that Conquest (to define it) is the
  Acquiring of the Right of Soveraignty by Victory. Which Right, is
  acquired, in the peoples Submission, by which they contract with the
  Victor, promising Obedience, for Life and Liberty.
<br />
  In the 29th Chapter I have set down for one of the causes of the
  Dissolutions of Common-wealths, their Imperfect Generation, consisting in
  the want of an Absolute and Arbitrary Legislative Power; for want whereof,
  the Civill Soveraign is fain to handle the Sword of Justice unconstantly,
  and as if it were too hot for him to hold: One reason whereof (which I
  have not there mentioned) is this, That they will all of them justifie the
  War, by which their Power was at first gotten, and whereon (as they think)
  their Right dependeth, and not on the Possession. As if, for example, the
  Right of the Kings of England did depend on the goodnesse of the cause of
  William the Conquerour, and upon their lineall, and directest Descent from
  him; by which means, there would perhaps be no tie of the Subjects
  obedience to their Soveraign at this day in all the world: wherein whilest
  they needlessely think to justifie themselves, they justifie all the
  successefull Rebellions that Ambition shall at any time raise against
  them, and their Successors. Therefore I put down for one of the most
  effectuall seeds of the Death of any State, that the Conquerours require
  not onely a Submission of mens actions to them for the future, but also an
  Approbation of all their actions past; when there is scarce a
  Common-wealth in the world, whose beginnings can in conscience be
  justified.
<br />
  And because the name of Tyranny, signifieth nothing more, nor lesse, than
  the name of Soveraignty, be it in one, or many men, saving that they that
  use the former word, are understood to bee angry with them they call
  Tyrants; I think the toleration of a professed hatred of Tyranny, is a
  Toleration of hatred to Common-wealth in general, and another evill seed,
  not differing much from the former. For to the Justification of the Cause
  of a Conqueror, the Reproach of the Cause of the Conquered, is for the
  most part necessary: but neither of them necessary for the Obligation of
  the Conquered. And thus much I have thought fit to say upon the Review of
  the first and second part of this Discourse.
<br />
  In the 35th Chapter, I have sufficiently declared out of the Scripture,
  that in the Common-wealth of the Jewes, God himselfe was made the
  Soveraign, by Pact with the People; who were therefore called his Peculiar
  People, to distinguish them from the rest of the world, over whom God
  reigned not by their Consent, but by his own Power: And that in this
  Kingdome Moses was Gods Lieutenant on Earth; and that it was he that told
  them what Laws God appointed to doe Execution; especially in Capitall
  Punishments; not then thinking it a matter of so necessary consideration,
  as I find it since. Wee know that generally in all Common-wealths, the
  Execution of Corporeall Punishments, was either put upon the Guards, or
  other Souldiers of the Soveraign Power; or given to those, in whom want of
  means, contempt of honour, and hardnesse of heart, concurred, to make them
  sue for such an Office. But amongst the Israelites it was a Positive Law
  of God their Soveraign, that he that was convicted of a capitall Crime,
  should be stoned to death by the People; and that the Witnesses should
  cast the first Stone, and after the Witnesses, then the rest of the
  People. This was a Law that designed who were to be the Executioners; but
  not that any one should throw a Stone at him before Conviction and
  Sentence, where the Congregation was Judge. The Witnesses were
  neverthelesse to be heard before they proceeded to Execution, unlesse the
  Fact were committed in the presence of the Congregation it self, or in
  sight of the lawfull Judges; for then there needed no other Witnesses but
  the Judges themselves. Neverthelesse, this manner of proceeding being not
  throughly understood, hath given occasion to a dangerous opinion, that any
  man may kill another, is some cases, by a Right of Zeal; as if the
  Executions done upon Offenders in the Kingdome of God in old time,
  proceeded not from the Soveraign Command, but from the Authority of
  Private Zeal: which, if we consider the texts that seem to favour it, is
  quite contrary.
<br />
  First, where the Levites fell upon the People, that had made and
  worshipped the Golden Calfe, and slew three thousand of them; it was by
  the Commandement of Moses, from the mouth of God; as is manifest, Exod.
  32.27. And when the Son of a woman of Israel had blasphemed God, they that
  heard it, did not kill him, but brought him before Moses, who put him
  under custody, till God should give Sentence against him; as appears,
  Levit. 25.11, 12. Again, (Numbers 25.6, 7.) when Phinehas killed Zimri and
  Cosbi, it was not by right of Private Zeale: Their Crime was committed in
  the sight of the Assembly; there needed no Witnesse; the Law was known,
  and he the heir apparent to the Soveraignty; and which is the principall
  point, the Lawfulnesse of his Act depended wholly upon a subsequent
  Ratification by Moses, whereof he had no cause to doubt. And this
  Presumption of a future Ratification, is sometimes necessary to the safety
  [of] a Common-wealth; as in a sudden Rebellion, any man that can suppresse
  it by his own Power in the Countrey where it begins, may lawfully doe it,
  and provide to have it Ratified, or Pardoned, whilest it is in doing, or
  after it is done. Also Numb. 35.30. it is expressely said, &ldquo;Whosoever
  shall kill the Murtherer, shall kill him upon the word of Witnesses:&rdquo; but
  Witnesses suppose a formall Judicature, and consequently condemn that
  pretence of Jus Zelotarum. The Law of Moses concerning him that enticeth
  to Idolatry, (that is to say, in the Kingdome of God to a renouncing of
  his Allegiance) (Deut. 13.8.) forbids to conceal him, and commands the
  Accuser to cause him to be put to death, and to cast the first stone at
  him; but not to kill him before he be Condemned. And (Deut. 17. ver.4, 5,
  6.) the Processe against Idolatry is exactly set down: For God there
  speaketh to the People, as Judge, and commandeth them, when a man is
  Accused of Idolatry, to Enquire diligently of the Fact, and finding it
  true, then to Stone him; but still the hand of the Witnesse throweth the
  first stone. This is not Private Zeal, but Publique Condemnation. In like
  manner when a Father hath a rebellious Son, the Law is (Deut. 21. 18.)
  that he shall bring him before the Judges of the Town, and all the people
  of the Town shall Stone him. Lastly, by pretence of these Laws it was,
  that St. Steven was Stoned, and not by pretence of Private Zeal: for
  before hee was carried away to Execution, he had Pleaded his Cause before
  the High Priest. There is nothing in all this, nor in any other part of
  the Bible, to countenance Executions by Private Zeal; which being
  oftentimes but a conjunction of Ignorance and Passion, is against both the
  Justice and Peace of a Common-wealth.
<br />
  In the 36th Chapter I have said, that it is not declared in what manner
  God spake supernaturally to Moses: Not that he spake not to him sometimes
  by Dreams and Visions, and by a supernaturall Voice, as to other Prophets:
  For the manner how he spake unto him from the Mercy-seat, is expressely
  set down (Numbers 7.89.) in these words, &ldquo;From that time forward, when
  Moses entred into the Tabernacle of the Congregation to speak with God, he
  heard a Voice which spake unto him from over the Mercy-Seate, which is
  over the Arke of the Testimony, from between the Cherubins he spake unto
  him.&rdquo; But it is not declared in what consisted the praeeminence of the
  manner of Gods speaking to Moses, above that of his speaking to other
  Prophets, as to Samuel, and to Abraham, to whom he also spake by a Voice,
  (that is, by Vision) Unlesse the difference consist in the cleernesse of
  the Vision. For Face to Face, and Mouth to Mouth, cannot be literally
  understood of the Infinitenesse, and Incomprehensibility of the Divine
  Nature.
<br />
  And as to the whole Doctrine, I see not yet, but the principles of it are
  true and proper; and the Ratiocination solid. For I ground the Civill
  Right of Soveraigns, and both the Duty and Liberty of Subjects, upon the
  known naturall Inclinations of Mankind, and upon the Articles of the Law
  of Nature; of which no man, that pretends but reason enough to govern his
  private family, ought to be ignorant. And for the Power Ecclesiasticall of
  the same Soveraigns, I ground it on such Texts, as are both evident in
  themselves, and consonant to the Scope of the whole Scripture. And
  therefore am perswaded, that he that shall read it with a purpose onely to
  be informed, shall be informed by it. But for those that by Writing, or
  Publique Discourse, or by their eminent actions, have already engaged
  themselves to the maintaining of contrary opinions, they will not bee so
  easily satisfied. For in such cases, it is naturall for men, at one and
  the same time, both to proceed in reading, and to lose their attention, in
  the search of objections to that they had read before: Of which, in a time
  wherein the interests of men are changed (seeing much of that Doctrine,
  which serveth to the establishing of a new Government, must needs be
  contrary to that which conduced to the dissolution of the old,) there
  cannot choose but be very many.
<br />
  In that part which treateth of a Christian Common-wealth, there are some
  new Doctrines, which, it may be, in a State where the contrary were
  already fully determined, were a fault for a Subject without leave to
  divulge, as being an usurpation of the place of a Teacher. But in this
  time, that men call not onely for Peace, but also for Truth, to offer such
  Doctrines as I think True, and that manifestly tend to Peace and Loyalty,
  to the consideration of those that are yet in deliberation, is no more,
  but to offer New Wine, to bee put into New Cask, that bothe may be
  preserved together. And I suppose, that then, when Novelty can breed no
  trouble, nor disorder in a State, men are not generally so much inclined
  to the reverence of Antiquity, as to preferre Ancient Errors, before New
  and well proved Truth.
<br />
  There is nothing I distrust more than my Elocution; which neverthelesse I
  am confident (excepting the Mischances of the Presse) is not obscure. That
  I have neglected the Ornament of quoting ancient Poets, Orators, and
  Philosophers, contrary to the custome of late time, (whether I have done
  well or ill in it,) proceedeth from my judgment, grounded on many reasons.
  For first, all Truth of Doctrine dependeth either upon Reason, or upon
  Scripture; both which give credit to many, but never receive it from any
  Writer. Secondly, the matters in question are not of Fact, but of Right,
  wherein there is no place for Witnesses. There is scarce any of those old
  Writers, that contradicteth not sometimes both himself, and others; which
  makes their Testimonies insufficient. Fourthly, such Opinions as are taken
  onely upon Credit of Antiquity, are not intrinsically the Judgment of
  those that cite them, but Words that passe (like gaping) from mouth to
  mouth. Fiftly, it is many times with a fraudulent Designe that men stick
  their corrupt Doctrine with the Cloves of other mens Wit. Sixtly, I find
  not that the Ancients they cite, took it for an Ornament, to doe the like
  with those that wrote before them. Seventhly, it is an argument of
  Indigestion, when Greek and Latine Sentences unchewed come up again, as
  they use to doe, unchanged. Lastly, though I reverence those men of
  Ancient time, that either have written Truth perspicuously, or set us in a
  better way to find it out our selves; yet to the Antiquity it self I think
  nothing due: For if we will reverence the Age, the Present is the Oldest.
  If the Antiquity of the Writer, I am not sure, that generally they to whom
  such honor is given, were more Ancient when they wrote, than I am that am
  Writing: But if it bee well considered, the praise of Ancient Authors,
  proceeds not from the reverence of the Dead, but from the competition, and
  mutuall envy of the Living.
<br />
  To conclude, there is nothing in this whole Discourse, nor in that I writ
  before of the same Subject in Latine, as far as I can perceive, contrary
  either to the Word of God, or to good Manners; or to the disturbance of
  the Publique Tranquillity. Therefore I think it may be profitably printed,
  and more profitably taught in the Universities, in case they also think
  so, to whom the judgment of the same belongeth. For seeing the
  Universities are the Fountains of Civill, and Morall Doctrine, from whence
  the Preachers, and the Gentry, drawing such water as they find, use to
  sprinkle the same (both from the Pulpit, and in their Conversation) upon
  the People, there ought certainly to be great care taken, to have it pure,
  both from the Venime of Heathen Politicians, and from the Incantation of
  Deceiving Spirits. And by that means the most men, knowing their Duties,
  will be the less subject to serve the Ambition of a few discontented
  persons, in their purposes against the State; and be the lesse grieved
  with the Contributions necessary for their Peace, and Defence; and the
  Governours themselves have the lesse cause, to maintain at the Common
  charge any greater Army, than is necessary to make good the Publique
  Liberty, against the Invasions and Encroachments of forraign Enemies.
<br />
  And thus I have brought to an end my Discourse of Civill and
  Ecclesiasticall Government, occasioned by the disorders of the present
  time, without partiality, without application, and without other designe,
  than to set before mens eyes the mutuall Relation between Protection and
  Obedience; of which the condition of Humane Nature, and the Laws Divine,
  (both Naturall and Positive) require an inviolable observation. And though
  in the revolution of States, there can be no very good Constellation for
  Truths of this nature to be born under, (as having an angry aspect from
  the dissolvers of an old Government, and seeing but the backs of them that
  erect a new;) yet I cannot think it will be condemned at this time, either
  by the Publique Judge of Doctrine, or by any that desires the continuance
  of Publique Peace. And in this hope I return to my interrupted Speculation
  of Bodies Naturall; wherein, (if God give me health to finish it,) I hope
  the Novelty will as much please, as in the Doctrine of this Artificiall
  Body it useth to offend. For such Truth, as opposeth no man profit, nor
  pleasure, is to all men welcome.
<br />
  FINIS <br /> <br />

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

www.gutenberg.org

1651

Contents