2. The inconvenience arising from government in general to him that governeth, consisteth partly in the continual care and trouble about the business of other men, that are his subjects; and partly, in the danger of his person. For the head always is that part, not only where the care resideth, but also against which the stroke of an enemy most commonly is directed. To balance this incommodity, the sovereignty, together with the necessity of this care and danger, comprehendeth so much honour, riches, and means, whereby to delight the mind, as no private man’s wealth can attain unto. The inconveniences of government in general to a subject are none at all, if well considered, but in appearance. There be two things that may trouble his mind, or two general grievances; the one is, loss of liberty; the other, the uncertainty of _meum_ and _tuum_. For the first, it consisteth in this, that a subject may no more govern his own actions according to his own discretion and judgment, or, which is all one, conscience, as the present occasions from time to time shall dictate to him; but must be tied to do according to that will only, which once for all he had long ago laid up, and involved in the wills of the major part of an assembly, or in the will of some one man. But this is really no inconvenience. For, as it hath been showed before, it is the only means, by which we have any possibility of preserving ourselves. For if every man were allowed this liberty of following his conscience, in such difference of consciences, they would not live together in peace an hour. But it appeareth a great inconvenience to every man in particular, to be debarred of this liberty, because every one apart considereth it as in himself, and not as in the rest; by which means, liberty appeareth in the likeness of rule and government over others. For where one man is at liberty, and the rest bound, there that one hath government; which honour, he that understandeth not so much, demanding by the name simply of liberty, thinketh it a great grievance and injury to be denied it. For the second grievance concerning _meum_ and _tuum_, it is also none, but in appearance only; it consisteth in this, that the sovereign power taketh from him that which he used to enjoy, knowing no other propriety, but use and custom. But without such sovereign power, the right of men is not propriety to anything, but a community, no better than to have no right at all, as hath been showed, Part I. chapter I. section 10. Propriety therefore being derived from the sovereign power, is not to be pretended against the same, especially, when by it every subject hath his propriety against every other subject, which when sovereignty ceaseth, he hath not, because in that case they return to war amongst themselves. Those levies therefore which are made upon men’s estates, by the sovereign authority, are no more but the price of that peace and defence which the sovereignty maintaineth for them. If this were not so, no money nor forces for the wars, nor any other public occasion, could justly be levied in the world. For neither king, nor democracy, nor aristocracy, nor the estates of any land, could do it, if the sovereignty could not. For in all those cases, it is levied by virtue of the sovereignty. Nay more, by the three estates here, the land of one man may be transferred to another, without crime of him from whom it was taken, and without pretence of public benefit, as hath been done; and this without injury, because done by the sovereign power. For the power whereby it is done, is no less than sovereign, and cannot be greater. Therefore this grievance for _meum_ and _tuum_ is not real, unless more be exacted than is necessary; but it seemeth a grievance, because to them that either know not the right of sovereignty, or to whom that right belongeth, it seemeth an injury; and injury, how little soever the damage, is always grievous, as putting us in mind of our disability to help ourselves, and into envy of the power to do us wrong.
[Sidenote: Monarchy approved by, &c.]
3. Having spoken of the inconveniences of the subject, by government in general, let us consider the same in the three several sorts thereof, namely, _democracy_, _aristocracy_ and _monarchy_; whereof the two former are in effect but one. For, as I have showed before, democracy is but the government of a few orators. The comparison therefore will be between monarchy and aristocracy: and to omit that the world, as it was created, so also it is governed by one God Almighty; and that all the ancients have preferred monarchy before other governments, both in opinion, because they feigned a monarchical government amongst their gods, and also by their custom; for that in the most ancient times all people were so governed: and that paternal government, which is monarchy, was instituted in the beginning from the creation; and that other governments have proceeded from the dissolution thereof, caused by the rebellious nature of mankind, and be but pieces of broken monarchies cemented by human wit, I will insist only on this comparison, upon the inconveniences that may happen to the subjects in consequence to each of these governments.
[Sidenote: Monarchy less subject to passion, &c.]
4. And first, it seemeth inconvenient there should be committed so great a power to one man, as that it might be lawful to no other man or men to resist the same; and some think it inconvenient _eo nomine_, because he hath the power. But this reason we may not by any means admit, for it maketh it inconvenient to be ruled by Almighty God, who without question hath more power over every man, than can be conferred upon any monarch. This inconvenience therefore must be derived not from the power, but from the affections and passions which reign in every one, as well monarch as subject, by which the monarch may be swayed to use that power amiss: and because an aristocracy consisteth of men, if the passions of many men be more violent when they are assembled together, than the passions of one man alone, it will follow, that the inconvenience arising from passions will be greater in an _aristocracy_, than a _monarchy_. But there is no doubt, when things are debated in great assemblies, but every man delivering his opinion at large without interruption, endeavoureth to make whatsoever he is to set forth for good, better; and what he would have apprehended as evil, worse, as much as is possible, to the end his counsel may take place; which counsel also is never without aim at his own benefit, or honour; every man’s end being some good to himself. Now this cannot be done without working on the passions of the rest. And thus the passions of these that are singly moderate, are altogether vehement; even as a great many coals, though but warm asunder, being put together, inflame one another.
[Sidenote: Subjects in monarchy, &c.]
5. Another inconvenience of monarchy, is this, that the monarch, besides the riches necessary for the defence of the commonwealth, may take so much more from the subjects, as may enrich his children, kindred and favourites, to what degree he pleaseth; which though it be indeed an inconvenience, if he should so do, yet is the same both greater in an aristocracy, and also more likely to come to pass, for there not one only, but many have children, kindred, and friends to raise. And in that point they are as twenty monarchs for one, and likely to set forward one another’s designs mutually, to the oppression of all the rest. The same also happeneth in a democracy, if they all do agree; otherwise they bring a worse inconvenience; to wit, sedition.
6. Another inconvenience of monarchy, is the power of dispensing with the execution of justice, whereby the family and friends of the monarch, may, with impunity, commit outrages upon the people, or oppress them with extortion. But in aristocracies, not only one, but many have power of taking men out of the hands of justice, and no man is willing his kindred or friends should be punished according to their demerits. And therefore they understand amongst themselves without further speaking, as a tacit covenant, _hodie mihi, cras tibi_.
[Sidenote: Laws in monarchy less changeable, &c.]
7. Another inconvenience of monarchy, is the power of altering laws. Concerning which, it is necessary that such a power be, that laws may be altered, according as men’s manners change, or as the conjuncture of all circumstances within and without the commonwealth shall require; the change of law being then inconvenient, when it proceedeth from the change, not of the occasion, but of the minds of him or them, by whose authority the laws are made. Now it is manifest enough of itself, that the mind of one man is not so variable in that point, as are the decrees of an assembly. For not only they have all their natural changes, but the change of any one man may be enough, with eloquence and reputation, or by solicitation and faction, to make that law to-day, which another by the very same means, shall abrogate to-morrow.
[Sidenote: Monarchies less subject to dissolution.]
8. Lastly, the greatest inconvenience that can happen to a commonwealth, is the aptitude to dissolve into civil war; and to this are monarchies much less subject, than any other governments. For where the union, or band of a commonwealth, is one man, there is no distraction; whereas in assemblies, those that are of different opinions, and give different counsel, are apt to fall out amongst themselves, and to cross the designs of the commonwealth for one another’s sake: and when they cannot have the honour of making good their own devices, they yet seek the honour to make the counsels of their adversaries prove vain. And in this contention, when the opposite factions happen to be anything equal in strength, they presently fall to war. Wherein necessity teacheth both sides, that an absolute monarch, to wit, a general, is necessary both for their defence against one another, and also for the peace of each faction within itself. But this aptitude to dissolution, is to be understood for an inconvenience in such aristocracies only where the affairs of state are debated in great and numerous assemblies, as they were anciently in Athens, and in Rome; and not in such as do nothing else in great assemblies, but choose magistrates and counsellors, and commit the handling of state affairs to a few; such as is the aristocracy of Venice at this day. For these are no more apt to dissolve from this occasion, than monarchies, the counsel of state being both in the one and the other alike.
------- CHAPTER VI.
1. A difficulty concerning absolute subjection to man, arising from our absolute subjection to God Almighty, propounded. 2. That this difficulty is only amongst those Christians that deny the interpretation of the Scripture to depend upon the sovereign authority of the commonwealth. 3. That human laws are not made to govern the consciences of men, but their words and actions. 4. Places of Scripture to prove obedience due from Christians to their sovereign in all things. 5. A distinction propounded between a fundamental point of faith, and a superstruction. 6. An explication of the points of faith, that be fundamental. 7. That the belief of those fundamental points, is all that is required to salvation, as of faith. 8. That other points not fundamental, are not necessary to salvation as matter of faith; and that no more is required by way of faith to the salvation of one man, than to the salvation of another. 9. That superstructions are not points of the faith necessary to a Christian. 10. How faith and justice concur to salvation. 11. That in Christian commonwealths, obedience to God and man stand well together. 12. This tenet, whatsoever is against the conscience, is sin, interpreted. 13. That all men do confess the necessity of submitting of controversies to some human authority. 14. That Christians under an infidel are discharged of the injustice of disobeying him, in that which concerneth the faith necessary to salvation, by not resisting.
[Sidenote: A difficulty concerning absolute subjection to man, arising from our absolute subjection to God Almighty, propounded.]
1. Having showed, that in all commonwealths whatsoever, the necessity of peace and government requireth, that there be existent some power, either in one man, or in one assembly of men, by the name of the power sovereign, which it is not lawful for any member of the same commonwealth to disobey; there occurreth now a difficulty, which, if it be not removed, maketh it unlawful for a man to put himself under the command of such absolute sovereignty as is required thereto. And the difficulty is this; we have amongst us the Word of God for the rule of our actions: now if we shall subject ourselves to men also, obliging ourselves to do such actions as shall be by them commanded, when the commands of God and man shall differ, we are to obey God, rather than man; and consequently, the covenant of general obedience to man is unlawful.
[Sidenote: That this difficulty is only amongst those Christians that deny the interpretation of Scripture to depend upon the sovereign authority of the commonwealth.]
2. This difficulty hath not been of very great antiquity in the world. There was no such _dilemma_ amongst the Jews; for their civil law, and divine law, was one and the same law of Moses; the interpreters whereof were the priests, whose power was subordinate to the power of the king; as was the power of Aaron, to the power of Moses. Nor is it a controversy that was ever taken notice of amongst the Grecians, Romans, or other Gentiles: for amongst these their several civil laws were the rules whereby not only righteousness and virtue, but also religion, and the external worship of God, was ordered and approved; that being esteemed the true worship of God, which was κατὰ τὰ νόμιμα, according to the laws civil. Also those Christians that dwell under the temporal dominion of the bishop of Rome, are free from this question; for that they allow unto him, their sovereign, to interpret the Scriptures, which are the law of God, as he in his own judgment shall think right. This difficulty therefore remaineth amongst, and troubleth those Christians only, to whom it is allowed, to take for the sense of the Scripture, that which they make thereof, either by their own private interpretation, or by the interpretation of such as are not called thereunto by public authority; they that follow their own interpretation continually, demanding liberty of conscience; and those that follow the interpretation of others not ordained thereunto by the sovereign of the commonwealth, requiring a power in matters of religion either above the power civil, or at least not depending on it.
[Sidenote: That human laws are not made to govern the consciences of men, but their words & actions.]
3. To take away this scruple of conscience, concerning obedience to human laws, amongst those that interpret to themselves the word of God in the Holy Scriptures, I propound to their consideration, first, that no human law is intended to oblige the conscience of a man, unless it break out into action, either of the tongue, or other part of the body. The law made thereupon would be of none effect, because no man is able to discern, but by word or other action whether such law be kept or broken. Nor did the apostles themselves pretend dominion over men’s consciences, concerning the faith they preached, but only persuasion and instruction. And therefore St. Paul saith (2 Cor. i. 24), writing to the Corinthians, concerning their controversies, that he and the rest of the apostles had no dominion over their faith, but were helpers of their joy.
[Sidenote: Places of Scripture to prove obedience due from Christians to their sovereign in all things.]
4. And for the actions of men which proceed from their consciences, the regulating of which actions is the only means of peace, if they might not stand with justice, it were impossible that justice towards God, and peace amongst men, should stand together in that religion that teacheth us, that _justice and peace shall kiss each other_, and in which we have so many precepts of absolute obedience to human authority; as Matth. xxiii. 2, 3, we have this precept: _The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat; all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do_. And yet were the Scribes and Pharisees not priests, but men of temporal authority. Again Luke xi. 17: _Every kingdom divided against itself shall be desolate_; and is not that kingdom divided against itself, where the actions of every one shall be ruled by his private opinion, or conscience, and yet those actions such as give occasion of offence and breach of peace? Again Rom. xiii. 5: _Wherefore you must be subject, not because of wrath only, but also for conscience sake_. Titus iii. 1: _Put them in remembrance, that they be subject to principalities and powers_. 1 Peter ii. 13, 14: _Submit yourselves unto all manner of ordinance of man, for the Lord’s sake, whether it be unto the king, as unto the superior, or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers_. Jude, verse 8: _These dreamers also that defile the flesh, and despise government, and speak evil of them that are in authority_. And forasmuch as all subjects in commonwealths are in the nature of children and servants, that which is a command to them, is a command to all subjects. But to these St. Paul saith (Colos. iii. 20, 22): _Children, obey your parents in all things; servants, be obedient to your masters according to the flesh in all things_. And verse 23: _Do it heartily as to the Lord_. These places considered, it seemeth strange to me, that any man in a Christian commonwealth, should have any occasion to deny his obedience to public authority, upon this ground, that _it is better to obey God than man_. For though St. Peter and the apostles did so answer the council of the Jews, that forbad them to preach Christ, there appeareth no reason that Christians should allege the same against their Christian governors, that command them to preach Christ. To reconcile this seeming contradiction of simple obedience to God, and simple obedience to man, we are to consider a Christian subject, as under a Christian sovereign, or under an infidel.
[Sidenote: A distinction propounded between a fundamental point of faith and a superstruction.]
5. And under a Christian sovereign we are to consider, what actions we are forbidden by God Almighty to obey them in, and what not. The actions we are forbidden to obey them in, are such only, as imply a denial of that faith which is necessary to our salvation: for otherwise there can be no pretence of disobedience; for why should a man incur the danger of a temporal death, by displeasing of his superior, if it were not for fear of eternal death hereafter? It must therefore be enquired, what those propositions and articles be, the belief whereof our Saviour or his apostles have declared to be such, as without believing them, a man cannot be saved; and then all other points, that are now controverted, and made distinction of sects, Papists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminians, &c. (as in old time, the like made Paulists, Apollonians, and Cephasians), must needs be such, as a man needeth not for the holding thereof, deny obedience to his superiors. And for the points of faith necessary to salvation, I shall call them _fundamental_, and every other point a _superstruction_.
[Sidenote: An explication of the points of faith, that be fundamental.]
6. And without all controversy, there is not any more necessary point to be believed for man’s salvation than this, that _Jesus is the Messiah_, that is, _the Christ_; which proposition is explicated in sundry sorts, but still the same in effect; as, that _he is God’s anointed_; for that is signified by the word Christ: that _he was the true and lawful king of Israel, the son of David, the Saviour of the world, the redeemer of Israel, the salvation of God, he that should come into the world, the son of God_, and, which I desire by the way to have noted, against the now sect of Arians, _the begotten Son of God_, Acts iii. 13; Heb. v. 5: _The only begotten Son of God_, John i. 14, 18; John iii. 16, 18; 1 John iv. 9: _That he was God_, John i. 1; John xx. 28: _That the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily_, Coloss. ii. 9: Moreover, _the Holy One, the Holy One of God, the forgiver of sins, that he is risen from the dead_. These are explications, and parts of that general article, that _Jesus is the Christ_. This point therefore, and all the explications thereof are fundamental: as also all such as be evidently inferred from thence; as, BELIEF IN GOD THE FATHER: John xii. 44: _He that believeth in me, believeth not in me, but in him that sent me_; 1 John ii. 23: _He that denieth the Son, hath not the Father_: BELIEF IN GOD THE HOLY GHOST, of whom Christ saith, John xiv. 26: _But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name_: and John xv. 26: _But when the Comforter shall come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth_: BELIEF OF THE SCRIPTURES, by which we believe those points and of the immortality of the soul, without which we cannot believe he is a Saviour.
[Sidenote: That the belief of those fundamental points, is all that is required to salvation, as of faith.]
7. And as these are the fundamental points of faith necessary to salvation; so also are they only necessary as matter of faith, and only essential to the calling of a Christian; as may appear by many evident places of Holy Scripture: John v. 39: _Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me_. Now, forasmuch as by the _Scripture_, is meant there the Old Testament (the New being then not written), the belief of that which was written concerning our Saviour in the Old Testament, was sufficient belief for the obtaining of eternal life: but in the Old Testament, there is nothing revealed concerning Christ, but that he is the Messiah, and such things as belong to the fundamental points thereupon depending. And therefore those _fundamental_ points are sufficient to salvation as of faith. And John vi. 28, 29: _Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them. This is the work of God, that ye believe in him, whom he hath sent._ So that the point to be believed is, _That Jesus Christ came forth from God, and he which believeth it, worketh the works of God_. John xi. 26, 27: _Whosoever liveth and believeth in me, shall never die. Believest thou this? She said unto him, Yea, Lord, I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world._ Hence followeth, _He that believeth this, shall never die_.
John xx. 31: _But these things are written, that ye might believe, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name_. By which appeareth, that this _fundamental_ point is all that is required, as of faith to our salvation. 1 John iv. 2: _Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God_: 1 John v. 1: _Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God_; and (verse 5) _Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth, that Jesus is the Son of God_: and verse 13: _These things have I written unto you that believe in the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life_. Acts, viii. 36, 37: _The eunuch said, Here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said unto him, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. He answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God._ This point therefore was sufficient for the reception of man into baptism, that is to say, to Christianity. And Acts, xvi. 29-31: _The keeper of the prison fell down before Paul and Silas, and said, Sirs, what shall I do to be saved? And they said, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ._ And the sermon of St. Peter, upon the day of Pentecost, was nothing else but an explication, that _Jesus was the Christ. And when they had heard him, they asked him, What shall we do? He said unto them_, (Acts, ii. 38): _Amend your lives, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins_. Rom. x. 9: _If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart, that God raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved_. To these places may be added, that wheresoever our Saviour Christ doth approve the faith of any man, the proposition believed, if the same be to be collected out of the text, is always some of these fundamental points before mentioned, or something equivalent: as the faith of the centurion (Matth. viii. 8): _Speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed_; believing he was omnipotent: the faith of the woman, which had an issue of blood, (Matth. ix. 21): _If I may but touch the hem of his garment_; implying, he was the Messiah: the faith required of the blind men, (Matth. ix. 28): _Believe you that I am able to do this?_ the faith of the Canaanitish woman, (Matth. xv. 22), that he was the _Son of David_, implying the same. And so it is in every one of those places, none excepted, where our Saviour commendeth any man’s faith, which because they are too many to insert here, I omit, and refer them to his inquisition that is not otherwise satisfied. And as there is no other faith required, so there was no other preaching: for the prophets of the Old Testament preached no other; and John the Baptist preached only the approach of the kingdom of heaven, that is to say, of the kingdom of Christ. The same was the commission of the apostles (Matth. x. 7): _Go preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand_. And Paul preaching amongst the Jews, (Acts, xviii. 5), did but testify unto the Jews, that _Jesus was the Christ_. And the heathens took notice of Christians no otherwise, but by this name, that they believed _Jesus to be a king_, crying out, (Acts, xvii. 6, 7): _These are they that have subverted the state of the world, and here they are, whom Jason hath received. And these all do against the decrees of Cæsar, saying, that there is another king, one Jesus._ And this was the sum of the predictions, the sum of the confessions of them that believed, as well men as devils. This was the title of his cross, _Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews_; this the occasion of the crown of thorns, sceptre of reed, and a man to carry his cross; this was the subject of the _Hosannas_; and this was the title, by which our Saviour, commanding to take another man’s goods, bade them say, _The Lord hath need_; and by this title he purged the temple of the profane market kept there. Nor did the apostles themselves believe any more than that _Jesus was the Messiah_, nor understand so much; for they understood the Messiah to be no more than a temporal king, till after our Saviour’s resurrection. Furthermore, this point, that _Christ is the Messiah_, is particularly set forth for _fundamental_ by that word, or some other equivalent thereunto in divers places. Upon the confession of Peter (Matth. xvi. 16): _Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God_, our Saviour (verse 18) saith, _Upon this rock will I build my church_. This point therefore is the whole foundation of Christ’s church. St. Paul saith, (Rom. xv. 20) _I so enforced myself to preach the Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should have built upon another man’s foundation_. St. Paul, (1 Cor. iii. 10) when he had reprehended the Corinthians for their sects, and curious doctrines and questions, he distinguisheth between _fundamental_ points, and _superstruction_; and saith, _I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereupon; but let every man take heed how he buildeth upon it. For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ._ Coloss. ii. 6, 7: _As you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and builded in him, and stablished in the faith_.
[Sidenote: That other points not fundamental, are not necessary to salvation as matters of faith; and that no more is required by way of faith to the salvation of one man than to the salvation of another.]