B. Methinks a Parliament of England, if upon any occasion, should furnish the King with money now, in a war against the Scots, out of an inveterate disaffection to that nation that had always anciently taken part with their enemies the French, and which always esteemed the glory of England for an abatement of their own.
A. It is indeed commonly seen that neighbour nations envy one another's honour, and that the less potent bears the greater malice; but that hinders them not from agreeing in those things which their common ambition leads them to. And therefore the King found not the more, but the less help from this Parliament: and most of the members there- of, in their ordinary discourses, seemed to wonder why the King should make a war upon Scotland; and in that Parliament sometimes called them their brethren the Scots. But instead of taking the King's business, which was the raising of money, into their consideration, they fell upon the redressing of grievances, and especially such ways of levying money as in the late intermission of Parliaments the King had been forced to use; such as were ship-money, for knighthood, and such other vails (as one may call them) of the regal office, which lawyers had found justifiable by the ancient records of the kingdom. Besides, they fell upon the actions of divers ministers of state, though done by the King's own command and warrant. Insomuch, that before they were to come to the business for which they were called, the money which was necessary for this war (if they had given any, as they never meant to do) had come too late. It is true, there was mention of a sum of money to be given the King, by way of bargain, for the relinquishing of his right to ship-money, and some other of his prerogatives, but so seldom, and without determining any sum, that it was in Dialogue i. BEHEMOTH. 33 vain for the King to hope for any success; and therefore upon the 5th of May following he dissolved it.
B. Where then had the King money to raise and pay his army?
A. He was forced the second time to make use of the nobility and gentry, who contributed some more, some less, according to the greatness of their estates; but amongst them all they made up a very sufficient army.
B. It seems then that the same men, that crossed his business in the Parliament, now out of Parliament advanced it all they could. What was the reason of that?
A. The greatest part of the Lords in Parliament, and of the gentry throughout England, were more affected to monarchy than to a popular government, but so as not to endure to hear of the King's absolute power; which made them in time of Parliament easily to condescend to abridge it, and bring the government to a mixed monarchy, as they called it; wherein the absolute sovereignty should be divided between the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.
B. But how, if they cannot agree?
A. I think they never thought of that; but I am sure they never meant the sovereignty should be wholly either in one or both the houses. Besides, they were loath to desert the King, when he was invaded by foreigners; for the Scotch were esteemed by them as a foreign nation.
B. It is strange to me, that England and Scotland being but one island, and their language almost the same, and being governed by one King, should be thought foreigners to one another. — The Romans were masters of many nations, and to oblige them the more to obey the edicts and laws sent unto them from the city of Rome, they thought fit to make them all Romans; and out of divers nations, as Spain, Germany, Italy, and France, to advance some, that they thought worthy, even to be senators of Rome, and to give every one of the common people the privileges of the city of Rome, by which they were protected from the contumelies 4 BEHEMOTH. Dialogue i.
of other nations where they resided. Why were not the Scotch and English united in like manner into one people?
A. King James at his first coming to the crown of England did endeavour it, but could not prevail. But for all that, I believe the Scots have now as many privileges in England as any nation had in Rome, of those which were so as you say made Romans. For they are all naturalized, and have right to buy land in England to themselves and their heirs.
B. It is true of them, that were born in Scotland after the time that King James was in possession of the kingdom of England.
A. There be very few now that were born before. But why have they a better right that were born after, than they that were born before?
B. Because they were born subjects to the King of England, and the rest not.
A. Were not the rest born subjects to King James? And was not he King of England?
B. Yes, but not then.
A. I understand not the subtilty of that distinction. But upon what law is that distinction grounded? Is there any statute to that purpose?
B. I cannot tell; I think not; but it is grounded upon equity.
A. I see little equity in this: that those nations that are bound to equal obedience to the same King, should not have equal privileges. And now seeing there be so very few born before King James's coming in, what greater privilege had those ingrafted Romans by their naturalization in the state of Rome, or in the state of England the English themselves, more than the Scots?
B. Those Romans, when any of them were in Rome, had their voice in the making of laws.
A. And the Scots have their Parliaments, wherein their assent is required to the laws there made, which is as good. Have not many of the provinces of France their several Dialogue i. BEHEMOTH. 35 parliaments and several constitutions? And yet they are all equally natural subjects of the King of France. And therefore for my part I think they were mistaken, both English and Scots, in calling one another foreigners. How- soever that be, the King had a very sufficient army, where- with he marched towards Scotland; and by the time he was come to York, the Scotch army was drawn up to the frontiers and ready to march into England; which also they presently did; giving out all the way, that their march should be without damage to the country, and that their errand was only to deliver a petition to the King, for the redress of many pretended injuries they had received from such of the court, whose counsel the King most followed. So they passed through Northumberland quietly, till they came to a ford in the river of Tyne, a little above Newcastle, where they found some little opposition, from a party of the King's army sent thither to stop them; whom the Scots easily mastered; and as soon as they were over, seized upon New- castle, and coming further on, upon the city of Durham; and sent to the King to desire a treaty, which was granted; and the commissioners on both sides met at Ripon. The conclusion was, that all should be referred to the Parlia- ment, which the King should call to meet at Westminster on the 3rd of November following, being in the same year 1640; and thereupon the King returned to London. B. So the armies were disbanded?
A. No; the Scotch army was to be defrayed by the counties of Northumberland and Durham, and the King was to pay his own, till the disbanding of both should be agreed upon in Parliament.
B. So in effect both the armies were maintained at the King's charge, and the whole controversy to be decided by a Parliament almost wholly Presbyterian, and as partial to the Scotch as themselves could have wished.
A. And yet for all this they durst not presently make war upon the King: there was so much yet left of reverence to him in the hearts of the people, as to have made them 36 BEHEMOTH. Dialogue i.
odious, if they had declared what they intended. They must have some colour or other to make it believed that the King made war first upon the Parliament. And besides, they had not yet sufficiently disgraced him and his actions in sermons and pamphlets, nor removed from about him those they thought could best counsel him. Therefore they resolved to proceed with him like skilful hunters; first to single him out, by men disposed in all parts to drive him into the open field *with their noise,* and then in case he should but seem to turn head, to call that a making of war against the Parliament.
And first they called in question such as had either preached or written in defence of any of those rights, which, belonging to the Crown, they meant to usurp, and take from the King to themselves: whereupon some few preachers and writers were imprisoned. 1 The King not protecting these, they proceeded to call in question some of the King's own actions in his ministers, whereof they imprisoned some, and some went beyond sea. And whereas certain persons, having endeavoured by books and sermons to raise sedition, and committed other crimes of high nature, had therefore been censured by the King's council in the Star-chamber, and imprisoned; the Parliament by their own authority, to try, it seems, how the King and the people would take it (for their persons were inconsiderable), ordered their setting at liberty; which was accordingly done, with great applause of the people, that flocked about them in London, in manner of a triumph. This being done, without resistance, *they called in question* the King's right to ship-money — A. The Kings of England, for the defence of the sea, had power to tax all the counties of England, whether they were maritime or not, for the building and furnishing of ships; which tax the King had then lately found cause to impose, and the Parliament exclaimed against it as an oppression.
1 After " imprisoned " follows in Edd. "or forced to fly." These ■words have been erased in the MS. by the amanuensis.
Dialogue i. BEHEMOTH.
And by one of their members that had been taxed but 20s. (mark the oppression; a Parliament-man of 500/. a year, land-taxed at 20.J.!) they were forced to bring it to a trial at law, he refused payment, and was cast. Again, when all the judges of Westminster were demanded their opinions concerning the legality of it, of twelve that there were, it was judged legal by ten; for which though they were not punished, they were affrighted by the Parliament.
B. What did the Parliament mean, when they did ex- claim against it as illegal? Did they mean it was against statute-law, or against the judgments of lawyers given here- tofore, which are commonly called reports; or did they mean it was against equity, which I take to be the same with the law of nature?
A. It is a hard matter, or rather impossible, to know what other men mean, especially if they be crafty; but sure I am, equity was not their ground for this pretence of im- munity from contributing to the King but at their own plea- sure. For when they have laid the burthen of defending the whole kingdom, and governing it, upon any person whatsoever, there is very little equity he should depend on others for the means of performing it; or if he do, they are his Sovereign, not he theirs. And as for the common law contained in. reports, they have no force but what the King gives them. Besides, it were unreasonable, that a corrupt or foolish judge's unjust sentence should by any time, how long soever, obtain the authority and force of a law. But amongst Statute Laws there is one, called Magna Charta, or the Great Charter of the liberties of Englishmen, in which there is one article, wherein a King heretofore hath granted that no man shall be distrained, that is, have his goods taken from him, otherwise than by the law of the land.
B. Is not that a sufficient ground for their purpose?
A. No; that leaves us in the same doubt, which you think it clears. For where was that law of the land then? Did they mean another Magna Charta, that was made by some King more ancient yet? No; that statute was made, BEHEMOTH. Dialogue I.
not to exempt any man from payments to the public, but for securing every man from such as abused the King's power, by surreptitiously obtaining the King's warrants, to the oppressing of those against whom he had any suit in law. But it was conducing to the ends of some rebellious spirits in this Parliament, to have it interpreted in the wrong sense, and suitable enough to the understanding of the rest, or most part of them, to let it pass.
B. You make the members of that Parliament very simple men; and yet the people chose them for the wisest of the land.
A. If craft be wisdom, they were wise enough. But wise, as I define it, is he that knows how to bring his business to pass (without the assistance of knavery and ignoble shifts) by the sole strength of his good contrivance. A fool may win from a better gamester, by the advantage of false dice, and packing of cards.
B. According to your definition, there be few wise men now-a-days. Such wisdom is a kind of gallantry, that few are brought up to, and most think folly. Fine clothes, great feathers, civility towards men that will not swallow injuries, and injury towards them that will, is the present gallantry. But when the Parliament afterwards, having gotten the power into their hands, levied money for their own use; what said the people to that?
A. What else, but that it was legal and to be paid, as being imposed by consent of Parliament?
B. I have heard often that they ought to pay what was imposed by consent of Parliament to the use of the King, but to their own use never before. I see by this, it is easier to gull the multitude, than any one man amongst them. For what one man, that has not his natural judgment de- praved by accident, could be so easily cozened in a matter that concerns his purse, had he not been passionately carried away by the rest to change of government, or rather to a liberty of every one to govern himself?
A. Judge then, what kind of men such a multitude of Dialogue I. BEHEMOTH.
ignorant people were like to elect for their burgesses and knights of shires.
B. I can make no other judgment, but that they who were then elected, were just such as had been elected for former Parliaments, and as likely to be elected for Parlia- ments to come. For people always have been, and always will be, ignorant of their duty to the public, as never medi- tating anything but their particular interest; in other things following their immediate leaders; which are either the preachers, or the most potent of the gentlemen that dwell amongst them: as common soldiers for the most part follow their immediate captains, if they like them. If you think the late miseries have made them wiser, that will quickly be forgot, and then we shall be no wiser than we were.
A. Why may not men be taught their duty, that is, the science of just and unjust, as divers other sciences have been taught, from true principles and evident demonstra- tion; and much more easily than any of those preachers and democratical gentlemen could teach rebellion and treason?
B. But who can teach what none have learned? Or, if any man have been so singular, as to have studied the science of justice and equity; how can he teach it safely, when it is against the interest of those that are in possession of the power to hurt him?
A. The rules of just and unjust sufficiently demonstrated, and from principles evident to the meanest capacity, have not been wanting; and notwithstanding the obscurity of their author, have shined, not only in this, but also in foreign countries, to men of good education. But they are few, in respect of the rest of the men, whereof many cannot read: many, though they can, have no leisure; and of them that have leisure, the greatest part have their minds wholly employed and taken up by their private businesses or plea- sures. So that it is impossible that the multitude should ever learn their duty, but from the pulpit and upon holi- days; but then, and from thence, it is, that they learned 4o BEHEMOTH. Dialogue i.
their disobedience. And, therefore, the light of that doc- trine has been hitherto covered and kept under here by a cloud of adversaries, which no private man's reputation can break through, without the authority of the Universities. But out of the Universities, came all those preachers that taught the contrary. The Universities have been to this nation, as the wooden horse was to the Trojans. 1 B. What was the Pope's design in setting up the Uni- versities? 2 A. What other design was he like to have, but (what you heard before) the advancement of his own authority in the countries where the Universities were erected? There they learned to dispute for him, and with unintelligible dis- tinctions to blind men's eyes, whilst they encroached upon the rights of kings. And it was an evident argument of that design, that they fell in hand with the work so quickly. For the first Rector of the University of Paris (as I have read somewhere) was Peter Lombard, who first brought in them the learning called School-divinity; and was seconded by John Scot of Duns, who lived in, or near the same time; whom any ingenious reader, not knowing it was the de- 1 B. Can you tell me why and when the Universities here, and in other places, first began?
A. It seems (for the time) they began in the rei.n of the Emperor Charles the Great. Before which time, I doubt not, but that there were many grammar schools for the Latin tongue, which was the natural language of the Roman Church; but for Universities, that is to say, schools for the sciences in general, and especially for divinity, it is manifest that the institution of them was recommended by the Pope's letter to the Emperor Charles the Great, and recommended further by a Council held in his time, I think, at Chalons-sur-Saone; and not long after was erected an University at Paris, and the college called University College at Oxford. And so by degrees several bishops, noblemen, and rich men, and some Kings and Queens, con- tributing thereunto, the Universities obtained at last their present splendour.
This question and answer, exhibited by former edd. have been erased in MS. by the amanuensis as a repetition from p. 17.
3 But what was the Pope's design in it? Edd.
Dialogue I. BEHEMOTH. 41 sign, would judge to have been two of the most egregious blockheads in the world, so obscure and senseless are their writings. And from these the schoolmen that succeeded, learnt the trick of imposing what they list upon their readers, and declining the force of true reason by verbal forks; I mean, distinctions that signify nothing, but serve only to astonish the multitude of ignorant men. As for the under- standing readers, they were so few, that these new sublime doctors cared not what they thought. These schoolmen were to make good all the articles of faith, which the Popes from time to time should command to be believed: amongst which, there were very many inconsistent with the rights of kings, and other civil sovereigns, asserting to the Pope all authority whatsoever they should declare to be necessary in ordine ad spiritualia, that is to say, in order to religion.
From the Universities also it was, that all preachers pro- ceeded, and were poured out into city and country, to terrify the people into an absolute obedience to the Pope's canons and commands, which, for fear of weakening kings and princes too much, they durst not yet call laws.
From the Universities it was, that the philosophy of Aris- totle was made an ingredient in religion, as serving for a salve to a great many absurd articles, concerning the nature of Christ's body, and the estate of angels and saints in heaven; which articles they thought fit to have believed, because they brought some of them profit, and others reve- rence to the clergy, even to the meanest of them. For when they shall have made the people believe that the meanest of them can make the body of Christ; who is there that will not both show them reverence, and be liberal to them or to the Church, especially in the time of their sickness, when they think they make and bring unto them their Saviour?
B. But, what advantage to them, in these impostures, was the doctrine of Aristotle?
A. They have made more use of his obscurity than of his doctrine. For none of the ancient philosophers' writings are comparable to those of Aristotle, for their aptness to 42 BEHEMOTH. Dialogue i.
puzzle and entangle men with words, and to breed dis- putation, which must at last be ended in the determination of the Church of Rome. And yet in the doctrine of Aris- totle, they made use of many points; as, first, the doctrine of Separated Essences.
B. What are Separated Essences 1 A. Separated beings.
B. Separated from what?
A. From every thing that is.
B. I cannot understand the being of any thing, which I understand not to be. But what can they make of that?
A. Very much, in questions concerning the nature of God, and concerning the estate of man's soul after death, in heaven, hell, and purgatory; by which you and every man know, how great obedience, and how much money they gain from the common people. — Whereas Aristotle holdeth the soul of man to be the first giver of motion to the body, and consequently to itself; they make use of that in the doctrine oifree will. What, and how they gain by that, I will not say. — He holdeth further, that there be many things that come to pass in this world from no necessity of causes, but mere contingency, casuality, and fortune.
B. Methinks, in this they make God stand idle, and to be a mere spectator of the games of Fortune. For what God is the cause of, must needs come to pass, and (in my opinion) nothing else. But, because there must be some ground for the justice of the eternal torment of the damned; perhaps it is this, that men's wills and propensions are not (they think) in the hands of God, but of themselves; and in this also I see somewhat conducing to the authority of the Church.
A. This is not much; nor was Aristotle of such credit with them, but that when his opinion was against theirs, they could slight him. Whatsoever he says is impossible in nature, they can prove well enough to be possible, from the Almighty power of God, who can make many bodies to be in one and the self-same place, and one body to be in many Dialogtu i. BEHEMOTH. 43 places at the same time, if the doctrine of transubstantiation require it, though Aristotle deny it. I like not the design of drawing religion into an art, whereas it ought to be a law; and though not the same in all countries, yet in every country indisputable; nor that they teach it not, as arts ought to be taught, by showing first the meaning of their terms, and then deriving from them the truth they would have us believe: nor that their terms are for the most part unin- telligible; though, to make it seem rather want of learning in the reader, than want of fair dealing in themselves, they are, for the most part, Latin and Greek words, wryed a little at the point, towards the native language of the several coun- tries where they are used. But that which is most intoler- able is, that all clerks are forced to make as if they believed them, if they mean to have any Church preferment, the keys whereof are in the Pope's hands; and the common people, whatsoever they believe of those subtile doctrines, are never esteemed better sons of the Church for their learning. There is but one way there to salvation; that is, extraordinary devotion and liberality to the Church, and readiness for the Church's sake, if it be required, to fight against their natural and lawful sovereigns.
B. I see what use they make of Aristotle's logic, physics, and metaphysics; but I see not yet how his politics can serve their turn.
A. Nor I. It has, I think, done them no good, though it has done us here much hurt by accident. For men, grown weary at last of the insolence of the priests, and examining the truth of those doctrines that were put upon them, began to search the sense of the Scriptures, as they are in the learned languages; and consequently (studying Greek and Latin) became acquainted with the democratical principles of Aristotle and Cicero, and from the love of their eloquence fell in love with their politics, and that more and more, till it grew into the rebellion we now talk of, without any other advantage to the Roman Church but that it was a weakening to us, whom, since we broke out of their net 44 BEHEMOTH. Dialogue i.
in the time of Henry VIII., they have continually en- deavoured to recover.
B. What have they gotten by the teaching of Aristotle's ethics?
A. It is some advantage to them, that neither the morals of Aristotle, nor of any other, have done them any harm, nor us any good. Their doctrines have caused a great deal of dispute concerning virtue and vice, but no knowledge of what they are, nor any method of attaining virtue nor of avoiding vice. — The end of moral philosophy is, to teach men of all sorts their duty, both to the public and to one another. They estimate virtue, partly by a mediocrity of the passions of men, and partly by that that they are praised. Whereas, it is not the Much or Little that makes an action virtuous, but the cause; nor Much or Little that makes an action vicious, but its being unconform- able to the laws in such men as are subject to the law, or its being unconformable to equity or charity in all men whatsoever.
B. It seems you make a difference between the ethics of subjects and the ethics of sovereigns.
A. So I do. The virtue of a subject is comprehended wholly in obedience to the laws of the commonwealth. To obey the laws, is justice and equity, which is the law of nature, and, consequently, is civil law in all nations of the world; and nothing is injustice or iniquity, otherwise, than it is against the law. Likewise, to obey the laws, is the prudence of a subject; for without such obedience the commonwealth (which is every subject's safety and pro- tection) cannot subsist. And though it be prudence also in private men, justly and moderately to enrich themselves, yet craftily to withhold from the public or defraud it of such part of their wealth, as is by law required, is no sign of prudence, but of want of knowledge of what is necessary for their own defence.
The virtues of sovereigns are such as tend to the main- tenance of peace at home, and to the resistance of foreign Dialogue i. BEHEMOTH.
enemies. Fortitude is a royal virtue; and though it be necessary in such private men as shall be soldiers, yet, for other men, the less they dare, the better it is both for the commonwealth and for themselves. Frugality (though perhaps you will think it strange) is also a royal virtue: for it increases the public stock, which cannot be too great for the public use, norjmy manjoo sparing of jwhat hejmsjin tr ust fo r Jhe good of others. Liberality also is a royal virtue: for the commonwealth cannot be well served with- out extraordinary diligence and service of ministers, and great fidelity to their Sovereign; who ought therefore to be encouraged, and especially those that do him service in the wars. In sum, all actions and habits are to be esteemed good or evil by their causes and usefulness in reference to the ^omjnomyealth, and not by their mediocrity, nor by their being commended. For several men praise several customs, and that which is virtue with one, is blamed by others; and, contrarily, what one calls vice, another calls virtue, as their present affections lead them.
B. Methinks you should have placed among the virtues that, which, in my opinion, is the greatest of all virtues, religion.
A. So I have; though, it seems, you did not observe it. But whither do we digress from the way we were in?
B. I think you have not digressed at all; for I suppose, your purpose was, to acquaint me with the history, not so much of those actions that passed in the time of the late troubles, as of their causes, and of the councils and artifice by which they were brought to pass. There be divers men that have written the history, out of whom I might have learned what they did, and somewhat also of the contrivance; but I find little in them of what I would ask. Therefore, since you were pleased to enter into this discourse at my request, be pleased also to inform me after my own method; and for the danger of confusion that may arise from that, I will take care to bring you back to the place from whence I drew you; for I well remember where it was.
46 BEHEMOTH. Dialogue i.
A. Well then, to your question concerning religion, inas- much as I told you, that all virtue is comprehended in obedience to the laws of the commonwealth, whereof re- ligion is one, I have placed religion amongst the virtues.
B. Is religion then the law of a commonwealth?
A. There is no nation in the world, whose religion is not established, and receives not its authority from the laws of that nation. It is true, that the law of God receives no evidence from the laws of men. But because men can never by their own wisdom come to the knowledge of what God hath spoken and commanded to be observed, nor be obliged to obey the laws whose author they know not, they are to acquiesce in some human authority or other. So that the question will be, whether a man ought in matter of religion, that is to say, when there is question of his duty to God and the King, to rely upon the preaching of his fellow- subjects or of a stranger, or upon the voice of the law?
B. There is no great difficulty in that point. For there are none that preach here or anywhere else, or at least ought to preach, but such as have authority so to do from him or them that have the sovereign power. So that if the King give us leave, you or I may as lawfully preach as any of them; and I believe we should perform that office a great deal better, than they that preached us into the rebellion.
A. The Church morals are in many points very different from these, that I have here set down, for the doctrine of virtue and vice; and yet without any conformity with that of Aristotle. For in the Church of Rome, the principal' virtues are, to obey their doctrine, though it be treason, and that is to be religious; to be beneficial to the clergy, that is their piety and liberality; and to believe upon their word that which a man knows in his conscience to be false, which is the faith they require. I could name a great many more such points of their morals, but that I know you know them already, being so well versed in the cases of conscience written by their schoolmen, who measure the goodness and Dialogue I. BEHEMOTH. 47 wickedness of all actions, by their congruity with the doctrine of the Roman clergy.
B. But what is the moral philosophy of the Protestant clergy in England?
A. So much as they show of it in their life and con- versation, is for the most part very good, and of very good example; much better than their writings.
B. It happens many times that men live honestly for fear, who, if they had power, would live according to their own opinions; that is, if their opinions be not right, un- righteously.
A. Do the clergy in England pretend, as the Pope does, or as the Presbyterians do, to have a right from God im- mediately, to govern the King and his subjects in all points of religion and manners? If they do, you cannot doubt but that if they had number and strength, which they are never like to have, they would attempt to obtain that power, as the others have done.
B. I would be glad to see a system of the present morals, written by some divine of good reputation and learning, of the late King's party.