An examination of the political part of Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan.: By George Lawson, rector of More in the county of Salop.

CAP. IV. Of the Second Part, the twentieth of the Book, of Pae∣ternal and Despotical Dominion. (Book 4)

THE method of Politicks is miserably perverted by the Author. For whereas power is first ac∣quired before a Common-wealth can be constituted, he first informs us of the several kinds of Constituti∣ons, which arise from the different manner of dis∣posing the power acquired, and after that of several waies how the power is acquired. And further to be∣wray his ignorance of the rules of Government, he confounds Oeconomical power with Political, so that I may truly say, that he is one of the worst that ever wrote either of Civil or Ecclesiastical Politicks.

In this Chapter he undertakes,

• 1. To define a Common-wealth by acquisition, and to shew the difference between it, and that by constitution.
• 2. To declare how dominion is acquired.
• 3. To prove the Soveraign rights out of Scri∣pture.

• 4. From thence to demonstrate that all Sove∣raign power is absolute.

T. H.

A Common-wealth by acquisition, is that where the Soveraign power is acquired by force — And the difference of this from that of constitution is, that in the former, men subject themselves for fear of the Sove∣raign. in the latter for fear of one another.

G. L.

This is the substance, though not all his words, where we must observe, That this is no distinction of a Common-wealth, but of the manner how the power, whereby any is made a Soveraign, is acquired: and that all Soveraigns do one way or other acquire their power: for its meerly accidental, no waies es∣sential to any man, for to be invested with power. And howsoever the Soveraignty civil be obtained, it makes no difference in the Common-wealth. For in every state the power is acquired, and so there is no Common-wealth but its both by acquisition and constitution too. So that he hath made a distinction without a difference.

T. H.

Dominion is acquired two waies, by Generation and Conquest: The first is Paternal, the latter is De∣spotical.

G. L.

This is very defective, as in this place its heteroge∣neous and impertinent. What have we to do with Family-power in a Common-wealth? For Familes as they make vicinities, and vicinities a Community civil, are but a remote material part of Politicks. In a Family there is a threefold power acquired; the power of an husband over his wife by marriage, co∣venant or contract, the power of parents over their children, by generation; the power of Masters over their servants, acquired several waies; for some ser∣vants are slaves, some are free; Slaves are vernae, servants born in the Family: or emptitii, bought with money: such as are free be conductitii: The two former are more subject then the last; and the Master hath more power over the former sort who are born and bought, then over the latter, who are only hired. So that there is a difference of Despoti∣cal power even in a Family; the one is more absolute, the other more limited.

Soveraignty civil is acquired several waies, and all may be reduced to two. For men come unto this power either justly or unjustly. Justly, and that ei∣ther in an extraordinary way, as by special unction and designation from God: thus Saul, and David, and Davids lawful Successors of his Family were made (the two first by particular nomination, the other by ageneral entail) or in an ordinary manner, and that is either by the Law of Nature, or by insti∣tution. By the Law of Nature, when a multitude sufficient for their own protection and government,

associate and by union and communion become a Community, the Soveraignty is virtually and emi∣nently in themselves, and in the whole body of the people being free: and this is so natural a subject, that upon the defect of succession, it returns unto them again. By institution and more formal con∣tract; and that is by a free and full election, or by a submission to a Conquerer, which is so far volun∣tary, that if they had power to protect themselves, they would not submit. Unjustly by usurpation, when he or they who have no right, yet take the possession into their own hands in a way contrary to the Laws of God, and the consent of men: yet such an Usurper cannot be a Soveraign without some kind of consent of God and man. In this case fraud or force gets the advantage over the people so far, as that they must submit or do worse. When any ascend the Throne by Marriage, Succession; Election, they are made Governors by institution, with free and full consent. In all this I speak of the supreme, not the subordinate power, which is by Commission derived from the supreme. In all these waies of ac∣quiring power, we must distinguish between power of constitution in constitution, and in administrati∣on; and also take special notice that there is no power which can govern without consent not only of man, but also and especially of God, who either in justice and severity, or in mercy doth change and alter the Kingdoms of the world at will and pleasure. For he alone doth rule in heaven and earth at all times.

Thus far concerning the acquisition of power, and of the [jura majestatis] rights of Soveraigns, which he conceives to have made clear by reason, and

now in the next place undertakes to prove out of Scripture, yet in such a loose and implous abusive manner, that I verily perswade my self, he doth not believe them to be revealed and written from heaven, or that Jesus Christ was an ordinary just man, much less the Eternal Son of God incarnate.

T. H. pag. 105.

Lets now consider what the Scripture teacheth in the same point: To Moses the children of Israel say thus, Speak thou to us, and we will hear thee: but let not God speak to us, lest we die. This is absolute obe∣dience to Moses.

G. L.

This is the first Scripture alledged by him; we read it in Exod. 20.19. To understand these words, we must consider,

• 1. That cap. 19.8. That all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath said, that will we do. This was an absolute sub∣jection of themselves to God, and a promise to obey him.
• 2. That the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever, Verse 9. This was to procure authority and credit unto Moses, as a Messenger between God and Israel.
• 3. That the words of Exod. 20.19. quoted by the Author, are expounded, Deut. 5.27. For thus there we read, Go thou near, and hear all that the Lord our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak to thee, and we will

• hear it and do it.

From all which it is apparent,

• 1. That the people had formerly before they spake these words, subjected themselves to God: and he was their Soveraign, not Moses.
• 2. That they promise to obey the words of God declared by Moses, not as they were the words and Laws of Moses, but of God, they will do them.
• 3. That they promise to believe Moses as a Messenger be∣tween God and them, not obey him as their supreme Lord.

Its one thing to believe Moses as a Prophet from God, and to yield him absolute obedience as a King. Believe him as a Prophet they might, obey him as their King they must not. God was their King, and Moses his Messenger and servant. How grosly therefore doth he abuse the place? how ab∣surdly and falsly doth he thence infer the peoples pro∣mise of absolute obedience to Moses, which was on∣ly due and promised unto God?

T. H.

Concerning the right of Kings, God himself by the mouth of Samuel saith, This shall be the right of the King you will have to raign over you, he shall take your sons, &c. 1 Sam. 8.11, 12, &c.

G. L.

• 1. The translation, which he confessed is allowed by his Soveraign and the Church of England, is per∣verted. For instead of This will be the manner of the King, he turns it, This shall be the right of the King. There is a great difference between right which is alwaies just, and manner or custom, which

• is many times unjust.
• 2. If this be a prerogative of Soveraigns, then its a very great misery to be subject to a King; and that in two respects.
  • 1. Because he will take away from his subjects unjustly, that which justly is their own, even the best things.
  • 2. Because by doing thus, he will oppress them so grievously, that having no remedy or redress from man, they will cry unto God for deliverance from a King, as a great and intolerable mischief.
• 3. If it be the right of a King, yet it is but the right of hea∣then Despotical Princes, and not of the Kings of Israel. But how can it be the right of heathen Kings, seeing they had no power to oppress and do wrong?
• 4. It could not be the right of the Kings of Israel; for they were bound to act and judge according to the Laws God had made; yet these acts here men∣tioned, are directly contrary to those Laws and Rules of Regal Government, delivered by God himself. For he must have a copy of the Laws, and read in it all his life, that he may fear God, keep his Laws, not exalt himself above his Brethren, &c. Deut. 17.18, 19, 20. Neither did the Kings of Judah or Israel, no not wicked Ahab practise or make use of this power, as is evident in the case of Naboths Vine∣yard.
• 5. To do according to this power pretended in this place, is directly contrary to the very end of all Government civil, which is to do justice and judgement, to preserve to every one his own, to pro∣tect the good, and punish the bad. How shall he pu∣nish the Oppressor, when he is the great Oppressor himself? How can he do justice upon thieves, when he is the greatest thief in his Kingdom?
• 6. If this should be the right of the Kings of Israel, and of

• all Soveraigns, then though the people of Israel were a free people, yet if a King was once set over them, they were meer slaves: neither their Lands, nor their goods, nor their children, nor their servants were their own; and also by this reason, there can be no subjects in any state under heaven, that can have propriety or liberty, but all are meer and absolute servants and slaves. Kings may have potentiam, but not potestatem, force and fraud, but no just power to oppress their subjects, and do such things as are here mentioned. Whereas some say, That God in this place teacheth us what Kings may do, and in Deut. 17.18, 19, 20. what they ought to do, is to little purpose, as being more acute then solid. For id quis∣que potest, quod jure potest. And no man, no not the greatest Princes in the world, have any power to do that which is unjust.
• 7. Its a question whether they had such a King as they desired. For they de∣sired a King which would offend God, and oppress them: but God gave them such a King as had no power to make Laws, but such as were bound to Judge according to the civil or judicial Laws made by himself; and even in the time of Kings, he reserved the Soveraign Rights in his own hand.

It seems they understood not well, what kind of King they had de∣sired; for to maintain the state and pomp of a great Court, and an army in constant pay, was a vast charge, and required such a revenue as could no waies be raised without the great oppression of the people. And this they did not consider, neither would understand till it was too late, and the yoak was upon their necks, and the burden pressed them very sore. When Princes are trusted with an absolute

power to raise men and moneys at their will and pleasure, they will not be content with the ordinary Revenue of their Crowns, but what they cannot ob∣tain justly by the Laws, and the constitution of the State, they will force by the sword, and so the Go∣vernment proves military, and in the end meerly ar∣bitrary. Whereas Mr. Hobbs conceives, That to go in and out before them, and Judge the people, con∣tains as absolute a power of the Militia and Judica∣ture, as one man can possibly transfer unto another, he is much deceived. For both these may be had in a de∣spotical, or a Regal way, or by Commission. The first is absolute, the two latter are not so. The Kings of Sparta, Poland, Arraegon, might have both these, and yet be no absolute Soveraigns.

T. H.

Solomon prayed that God would give him under∣standing to judge his people, and discern between good and evil, 1 Kings 3.8. therefore he had the Judicial and Legislative power supreme and absolute.

G. L.

This is his meaning, and thus he understands these words, wherein we may observe,

• 1. Solomons place and duty as King of Israel, and that was to judge that people.
• 2. That this duty could not be well performed without wisdom.
• 3. God doth give wis∣dom for that purpose: These things are implyed.
• 4. Solomon prases for wisdom to that end. Neither from his place or prayer will it follow that he had the

• supreme, absolute, legislative power in himself alone: Neither indeed had he any such thing at all, for God had made the Laws both Civil and Ecclesiastical.

And he could neither alter or abrogate them, but was bound precisely and strictly to judge according to them, and neither depart unto the right hand or the left. And suppose Solomon had been invested with this power, doth it therefore follow that all other Kings have the like?

The rest which follow are not worthy any answer. He instanceth,

• 1. In Saul, whom being their Lords annointed, David did not slay, though he was in his power. And what follows hence, but only thus much, That no man in Davids case, and of Davids conscience, dare secretly put to death a King an∣nointed by Gods special and immediate Word.
• 2. Servants must obey their Masters, and Children their Parents in all things. And what is this to pur∣pose? Doth it hence follow, that all Kings have ab∣solute power? what impertinent and absurd illations are these? But,
• 3. Christs Disciples must observe and do all that the Scribes and Pharisees bid them, as sitting in Moses Chair. From hence it cannot be concluded, that they had Soveraign power civil, no more then Ministers of the Gospel have it, because the people must observe and do all that they bid them out of the Gospel.
• 4. Paul chargeth Titus, cap. 3.2. to warn the people of Creet, that they subject themselves to Princes, and to those that are in autho∣rity, and obey them. And his gloss is, this is simple obedience. What is this to absolute and supreme power? By this may be as easily proved, that every petty Officer hath supreme power, as well as any

• other; for an Officer must be obeyed, because he is in Authority.
• 5. Christ commands to give to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and paid taxes himself. All that can be inferred from hence is, That tribute is to be paid, to whom tribute is due: and that it is due from Provinces to their supreme Governors.

The summ of all these places amounts to thus much in. Politicks, That the chief commands in war, just Judgement in peace, or the exercise of Jurisdi∣ction belonged unto the Kings of Judah, and tri∣bute to the Roman Emperour. How many plain and express places of Scripture might have been produced to prove that there is a Legislative, Judicial, Execu∣tive power in every State, and that it is to be exer∣cised by some certain persons designed for that pur∣pose? And the Author had no need to lay the weight of his praise for these things, upon such places as do but tacitly and by way of intimation, point at some of them. But why he should falsifie the tran∣slation, abuse so many texts, make such woful illati∣ons from some of them, and so impertinently al∣ledge them, I know no reason: and it seems to me intolerable, that in the last example he should make Christ Jesus the civil Soveraign of the Jews in the time of his humiliation, and by vertue of that civil power, to take another mans Ass as his own, which he did but desire to borrow, and use for a little jour∣ney with the consent of the owner. That the sin of our first parents, in desiring to be as Gods, knowing good and evil, was an ambition to become civil Sove∣raigns, he may perswade us to believe, when he can prove it.

T. H. pag. 106.

Soveraign power ought in all Common-wealths to be absolute.

G. L.

This I read in the margent; and to his understand∣ing, its plain both from reason and Scripture, that its as great as possibly a man can be imagined to make it: This is plainly ridiculous. For what can∣not men imagine; seeing their imaginations can reach to wonders, impossibilities, and many things far above a civil Soveraign power? And here is a sit oc∣casion offered, to examine what absolute power is, and in what respect Soveraignty is absolute. There is no power, as there is no being absolute, but that of Gods, whose power is his being. Civil supreme power is said to be absolute, because its soluta legibus, free from the Laws, and not limited and obliged by them. Yet the Laws from which they are free, as be∣ing above them, are only civil Laws made by them∣selves, for the administration of the States where they are Soveraign. For they are so strictly bound by the Law of Reason, Nature, God, which are but all one divine Law, as they have not the least power to do any thing either as private persons, or publike Soveraigns against them, except they will dethrone themselves, provoke the wrath of God, and bring his Judgements upon them. They are besides, subject to the Law of Nature, which is above any parti∣cular Soveraign, though never so great. They are

indeed above their own Laws, and may not only al∣ter many things in them, but abrogate them. Yet so as all this tends to the publick good. They may act upon occasion, above and besides them, as the ge∣neral good shall require it. They are not bound un∣to formalities, but may omit them. Yet all this is but little, and confined to the narrow compass of things indifferent, as they are subordinate to pure morals. Its true, that their power is in some respect arbitrary; yet if they do any thing which either in it self, or in the circumstances only is unjust, they of∣fend and transgress the bounds God hath put unto their power. And here we must distinguish between the Soveraign for the Constitution, and the Soveraign for Administration. The former hath more power then the later, who only is above the Laws of ad∣ministration, yet both must be just; for they have no power to be unjust. Its certain that Princes desire to be Gods, absolute, independent, above all Laws, and to have a priviledge to do what they list, and a right to do wrong; and its a dangerous thing to flatter them, and make them believe their power to be greater, then indeed it is; for this is the very high-way unto ruine. Wise men have advised all Princes to observe their own Laws made by them∣selves, and by their example encourage their subjects to obedience. And this is an effectual means to pro∣cure their safety, and confirm them in their power, and the love of their subjects.