I am one of them that admire your writings; and having read over your _Hobbius Heauton-timorumenos_, I cannot hold from giving you some account of the causes why I admire it. And first I considered how you handle him for his disloyalty, in these words (page 5): _His great_ Leviathan, _wherein he placed his main strength, is now somewhat out of season; which, upon deserting his royal master in distress, (for he pretends to have been the King’s tutor, though yet, from those who have most reason to know it, I can find but little ground for such a pretence), was written in defence of Oliver’s title, or whoever, by whatsoever means, can get to be upmost; placing the whole right of government merely in strength, and absolving all his Majesty’s subjects from their allegiance, whenever he is not in a present capacity to force obedience_.
That which I observe and admire here, first, is, that you left not this passage out, for two reasons; one, because Mr. Hobbes could long for nothing more than such an occasion to tell the world his own and your little stories, during the time of the late rebellion.
When the Parliament sat, that began in April 1640, and was dissolved in May following, and in which many points of the regal power, which were necessary for the peace of the kingdom, and the safety of his Majesty’s person, were disputed and denied, Mr. Hobbes wrote a little treatise in English, wherein he did set forth and demonstrate, that the said power and rights were inseparably annexed to the sovereignty; which sovereignty they did not then deny to be in the King; but it seems understood not, or would not understand that inseparability. Of this treatise, though not printed, many gentlemen had copies, which occasioned much talk of the author; and had not his Majesty dissolved the Parliament, it had brought him into danger of his life.
He was the first that had ventured to write in the King’s defence; and one, amongst very few, that upon no other ground but knowledge of his duty and principles of equity, without special interest, was in all points perfectly loyal.
The third of November following, there began a new Parliament, consisting for the greatest part of such men as the people had elected only for their averseness to the King’s interest. These proceeded so fiercely in the very beginning, against those that had written or preached in the defence of any part of that power, which they also intended to take away, and in gracing those whom the King had disgraced for sedition, that Mr. Hobbes, doubting how they would use him, went over into France, the first of all that fled, and there continued eleven years, to his damage some thousands of pounds deep. This, Doctor, was your time of harvest: you were in their favour, and that, as you have made it since appear, for no goodness.
Being at Paris, he wrote and published his book _De Cive_, in Latin, to the end that all nations which should hear what you and your Con-Covenanters were doing in England, might detest you, which I believe they do; for I know no book more magnified than this is beyond the seas.
When his Majesty, that now is, came to Paris, Mr. Hobbes had the honour to initiate him in the mathematics; but never was so impudent or ignorant as to call, or to think himself the King’s tutor, as you, that understand not what that word, out of the University, signifies, do falsely charge him with; or ever to say, that he was one of his Majesty’s domestic servants. While upon this occasion he staid about Paris, and had neither encouragement nor desire to return into England, he wrote and published his _Leviathan_, far from the intention either of disadvantage to his Majesty, or to flatter Oliver, who was not made Protector till three or four years after, on purpose to make way for his return. For there is scarce a page in it that does not upbraid both him, and you, and others such as you, with your abominable hypocrisy and villainy.
Nor did he desert his Majesty, as you falsely accuse him, as his Majesty himself knows. Nor was his Majesty, as you unmannerly term it, _in distress_. He had the title, right, and reverence of a King, and maintained his faithful servants with him. It is true that Mr. Hobbes came home, but it was because he would not trust his safety with the French clergy.
Do you know that ever he sought any benefit either from Oliver, or from any of his party, or was any way familiar with any of his ministers, before or after his return; or curried favour with any of them, as you did by dedicating a book to his vice-chancellor, Owen?
Did you ever hear that he took anything done to him by his Majesty in evil part, or spake of him otherwise than the best of his servants would do; or that he was sullen, silent, or sparing, in praising his Majesty in any company, upon any occasion?
He knew who were his enemies, and upon what ground they misconstrued his writings.
But your indiscretion appears more manifestly in giving him occasion to repeat what you have done, and to _consider_ you, as you professedly have considered him. For with what equity can it be denied him to repeat your manifest and horrible crimes, for all you have been pardoned; when you publish falsely pretended faults of his, and comprehended in the same pardon?
If he should say and publish, that you deciphered the letters of the King and his party, and thereby delivered his Majesty’s secrets to the enemy, and his best friends to the scaffold, and boasted of it in your book of arithmetic, written in Latin, to all the world, as of a monument of your wit, worthy to be preserved in the University Library: how will you justify yourself, if you be reproached for having been a rebel and a traitor? It may be you, or some for you, will now say, you deciphered those letters to the King’s advantage: but then you were unfaithful to your masters of the Parliament: a very honest pretence, and full of gallantry, to excuse _treason_ with _treachery_, and to be a double spy. Besides, who will believe it? Who enabled you to do the King that favour? Why herded you with his enemies? Who brought the King into a need of such a fellow’s favour, but they that first deserted him, and then made war upon him, and which were your friends and Mr. Hobbes his enemies? Nay more, I know not one enemy Mr. Hobbes then had, but such as were first the King’s enemies, and, because the King’s, therefore his. Your being of that party, without your deciphering, amounts to no more than a desertion. Of the bishops that then were, and for whose sakes, in part, you raised the war, there was not one that followed the King out of the land, though they loved him, but lived quietly under the protection, first of the Parliament, and then of Oliver, (whose titles and actions were equally unjust) without treachery. Is not this as bad as if they had gone over, and (which was Mr. Hobbes his case) been driven back again? I hope you will not call them all deserters, or, because by their stay here openly they accepted of the Parliament’s and of Oliver’s protection, defenders either of Oliver’s or of the Parliament’s title to the sovereign power.
How many were there in that Parliament at first that did indeed and voluntarily desert the King, in consenting to many of their unjust actions? Many of these afterwards, either upon better judgment, or because they pleased not the faction, (for it was a hard matter for such as were not of Pym’s cabal to please the Parliament), or for some other private ends deserted the Parliament, and did some of them more hurt to the King than if they had stayed where they were; for they had been so affrighted by such as you, with a panic fear of tyranny, that seeking to help him by way of composition and sharing, they abated the just and necessary indignation of his armies, by which only his right was to be recovered.
That very entering into the Covenant with the Scottish nation against the King, is by itself a very great crime, and you guilty of it. And so was the imposing of the Engagement, and you guilty of that also, as being done by the then Parliament, whose democratical principles you approved of.
You were also assisting to the Assembly of Divines that made the _Directory_, and which were afterwards put down by Oliver for counterfeiting themselves ambassadors. And this was when the King was living, and at the head of an army, which with your own endeavour might have protected you. What crime it is, the King being head of the Church of England, to make _Directories_, to alter the _Church-government_, and to set up new forms of God’s service, upon your own fancies, without the King’s authority, the lawyers could have told you; and what punishment you were to expect from it, you might have seen in the statute printed before the _Book of Common Prayer_.
Further he may say, and truly, that you were guilty of all the treasons, murders, and spoil committed by Oliver, or by any upon Oliver’s or the Parliament’s authority: for, during the late trouble, who made both Oliver and the people mad, but the preachers of your principles? But besides the wickedness, see the folly of it. You thought to make them mad, but just to such a degree as should serve your own turn; that is to say, mad, and yet just as wise as yourselves. Were you not very imprudent to think to govern madness? Paul they knew, but who were you? You were they, that put the army into Oliver’s hands, who before, as mad as he was, was too weak, and too obscure to do any great mischief; with which army he executed upon such as you, both here and in Scotland, that which the justice of God required.
Therefore of all the crimes, the great one not excepted, done in that rebellion, you were guilty; you, I say, Doctor, how little force or wit soever you contributed, for your good-will to their cause. The King was hunted as a partridge in the mountains; and though the hounds have been hanged, yet the hunters were as guilty as they, and deserved no less punishment. And the decipherers, and all that blew the horn, are to be reckoned amongst the hunters. Perhaps you would not have had the prey killed, but rather have kept it tame. And yet who can tell? I have read of few kings deprived of their power by their own subjects, that have lived any long time after it, for reasons that every man is able to conjecture.
All this is so manifest, as it needs no witnesses. In the meantime Mr. Hobbes his behaviour was such, that of them who appeared in that scene, he was the only man I know, except a few that had the same principles with him, that has not something more or less to blush for; as having either assisted that rebellious Parliament, without necessity (when they might have had protection from the King, if they had resorted to him for it in the field), by covenanting, or by action, or with money or plate, or by voting against his Majesty’s interest, in himself or his friends; though some of them have since by extraordinary service deserved to be received into favour; but what is that to you? You are none of them; and yet you dare to reproach the guiltless, as if after so ill fruits of your sermons, it were not impudence enough to preach.
I admire further, that having been forgiven these so transcendant crimes, so great a debt to the gallows, you take Mr. Hobbes by the throat for a word in his _Leviathan_, made a fault by malicious or over-hasty construction: for you have thereby, like the unmerciful debtor in the Gospel, in my opinion, forfeited your pardon, and so, without a new one, may be hanged yet.
To that other charge, _that he writ his Leviathan in defence of Oliver’s title_, he will say, that you in your own conscience know it is false. What was Oliver, when that book came forth? It was in 1650, and Mr. Hobbes returned before 1651. Oliver was then but General under your masters of the Parliament, nor had yet cheated them of their usurped power. For that was not done till two or three years after, in 1653, which neither he nor you could foresee. What title then of Oliver’s could he pretend to justify? But you will say, he placed the right of government there, wheresoever should be the strength; and so by consequence he placed it in Oliver. Is that all? Then primarily his _Leviathan_ was intended for your masters of the Parliament, because the strength was then in them. Why did they not thank him for it, both they and Oliver in their turns? There, Doctor, you deciphered ill. For it was written in the behalf of those many and faithful servants and subjects of his Majesty, that had taken his part in the war, or otherwise done their utmost endeavour to defend his Majesty’s right and person against the rebels: whereby, having no other means of protection, nor, for the most part, of subsistence, they were forced to compound with your masters, and to promise obedience for the saving of their lives and fortunes; which in his book he hath affirmed they might lawfully do, and consequently not lawfully bear arms against the victors. They that had done their utmost endeavour to perform their obligation to the King, had done all that they could be obliged unto; and were consequently at liberty to seek the safety of their lives and livelihood wheresoever, and without treachery. But there is nothing in that book to justify the submission of you, or such as you, to the Parliament, after the King’s being driven from them, or to Oliver; for you were the King’s enemies, and cannot pretend want of that protection which you yourselves refused, denied, fought against, and destroyed. If a man owe you money, and you by robbing him, or other injury, disable him to pay you, the fault is your own; nor needs this exception, _unless the creditor rob him_, be put into the condition of the bond. Protection and obedience are relative. He that says a man may submit to an enemy for want of protection, can never be construed, but that he meant it of the obedient. But let us consider his words, when he puts for a law of nature, (vol. iii. p. 703) _that every man is bound, as much as in him lieth, to protect in war the authority by which he is himself protected in time of peace_; which I think is no ungodly or unreasonable principle. For confirmation of it, he defines in what point of time it is, that a subject becomes obliged to obey an unjust conqueror; and defines it thus: _it is that point wherein having liberty to submit to the conqueror, he consenteth either by express words, or by other sufficient signs, to be his subject_.
I cannot see, Doctor, how a man can be at liberty to submit to his new, that has not first done all he could for his old master: nor if he have done all he could, why that liberty should be refused him. If a man be taken by the Turk, and brought by terror to fight against his former master, I see how he may be killed for it as an enemy, but not as a criminal; nor can I see how he that hath liberty to submit, can at the same time be bound not to submit.
But you will say, perhaps, that he defines the time of that liberty to the advantage of Oliver, in that he says, _that for an ordinary subject, it is then, when the means of his life are within the guards and garrisons of the enemy; for it is then, that he hath no protection but from the enemy for his contribution_. It was not necessary for him to explain it to men of so great understanding, as you and other his enemies pretend to be, by putting in the exception, _unless they came into those guards and garrisons by their own treason_. Do you think that Oliver’s party, for their submission to Oliver, could pretend the want of that protection?
The words therefore by themselves, without that exception, do signify no more than this; _that whosoever had done as much as in him did lie, to protect the King in war, had liberty afterwards to provide themselves of such protection as they could get_; which to those whose means of life were within the guards and garrisons of Oliver, was Oliver’s protection.
Do you think, when a battle is lost, and you at the mercy of an enemy, it is unlawful to receive quarter with condition of obedience? Or if you receive it on that condition, do you think it honesty to break promise, and treacherously murder him that gave you your life? If that were good doctrine, he were a foolish enemy that would give quarter to any man.
You see, then, that this submission to Oliver, or to your then masters, is allowed by Mr. Hobbes his doctrine only to the King’s faithful party, and not to any that fought against him, howsoever they coloured it, by saying they fought for the King and Parliament; nor to any that writ or preached against his cause, or encouraged his adversaries; nor to any that betrayed his counsels, or that intercepted or deciphered any letters of his, or of his officers, or of any of his party; nor to any that by any way had contributed to the diminution of his Majesty’s power, ecclesiastical or civil; nor does it absolve any of them from their allegiance. You that make it so heinous a crime for a man to save himself from violent death, by a forced submission to a usurper, should have considered what crime it was to submit voluntarily to the usurping Parliament.
I can tell you besides, why those words were put into his last chapter, which he calls the review. It happened at that time that there were many honourable persons, that having been faithful and unblemished servants to the King, and soldiers in his army, had their estates then sequestered; of whom some were fled, but the fortunes of them all were at the mercy, not of Oliver, but of the Parliament. Some of these were admitted to composition, some not. They that compounded, though they helped the Parliament less by their composition, than they should have done, if they had stood out, by their confiscation, yet they were ill-spoken of, especially by those that had no estates to lose, nor hope to compound. And it was for this that he added to what he had written before, this caution, that if they would compound, they were to do it _bona fide_, without intention of treachery. Wherein he justified their submission by their former obedience, and present necessity; but condemned treachery. Whereas you that pretend to abhor atheism, condemn that which was done upon necessity, and justify the treachery: and you had reason for it, that cannot otherwise justify yourselves. Those strugglings which happened afterwards, lost his Majesty many a good and able subject, and strengthened Oliver with the confiscation of their estates; which if they had attended the discord of their enemies, might have been saved.
Perhaps you will take for a sign of Mr. Hobbes his ill meaning, that his Majesty was displeased with him. And truly I believe he was displeased for a while, but not very long. They that complained of, and misconstrued his writings, were his Majesty’s good subjects, and reputed wise and learned men, and thereby obtained to have their misconstruction believed for some little time: but the very next summer after his coming away, two honourable persons of the Court, that came over into England, assured him, that his Majesty had a good opinion of him; and others since have told me, that his Majesty said openly, that he thought Mr. Hobbes never meant him hurt. Besides, his Majesty hath used him more graciously than is ordinary to so humble a person as he is, and so great a delinquent as you would make him; and testified his esteem of him in his bounty. What argument now can you draw from hence more than this, that his Majesty understood his writings better than his accusers did?
I admire in the next place, upon what ground you accuse him, and with him all those that have approved his _Leviathan_, with atheism. I thought once, that that slander had had some, though not firm, ground, in that you call his a new divinity: but for that point he will allege these words of his Leviathan (p. 438): _By which it seemeth to me (with submission nevertheless, both in this and all other questions whereof the determination dependeth on the Scriptures, to the interpretation of the Bible authorized by the commonwealth, whose subject I am), that, &c._ What is there in these words, but modesty and obedience? But you were at this time in actual rebellion. Mr. Hobbes, that holds religion to be a law, did in order thereto condemn the maintenance of any of his opinions against the law; and you that reproach him for them, upon your own account should also have shown by your own learning, wherein the Scripture, which was his sole proof, was miscited or misconstrued by him; (for he submitted to the laws, that is to say, to the King’s doctrine, not to yours); and not have insulted for the victory won by the power of the law, to which you were then an enemy.
Another argument of atheism you take from his denying _immaterial_ or _incorporeal substances_. Let any man impartially now compare his religion with yours, by this very measure, and judge which of the two savours most of atheism.
It is by all Christians confessed, that God is _incomprehensible_; that is to say, that there is nothing can arise in our fancy from the naming of him, to resemble him either in _shape_, _colour_, _stature_, or _nature_; there is no idea of him; he is like nothing that we can think on. What then ought we to say of him? What attributes are to be given him (not speaking otherwise than we think, nor otherwise than is fit,) by those who mean to honour him? None but such as Mr. Hobbes hath set down, namely, expressions of reverence, such as are in use amongst men for signs of honour, and consequently signify _goodness_, _greatness_, and _happiness_; and either absolutely put, as _good_, _holy_, _mighty_, _blessed_, _just_, _wise_, _merciful_, &c., or superlative, as _most good_, _most great_, _most mighty_, _almighty_, _most holy_, &c., or negative of whatsoever is not perfect, as _infinite_, _eternal_, and the like: and not such as neither reason nor Scripture hath approved for honourable. This is the doctrine that Mr. Hobbes hath written, both in his _Leviathan_, and in his book _De Cive_, and when occasion serves, maintains. What kind of attribute, I pray you, is, _immaterial_, or _incorporeal substance_? Where do you find it in the Scripture? Whence came it hither, but from Plato and Aristotle, heathens, who mistook those thin inhabitants of the brain they see in sleep, for so many _incorporeal_ men; and yet allowed them motion, which is proper only to things _corporeal_? Do you think it an honour to God to be one of these? And would you learn Christianity from Plato and Aristotle? But seeing there is no such word in the Scripture, how will you warrant it from natural reason? Neither Plato nor Aristotle did ever write of, or mention, an _incorporeal spirit_. For they could not conceive how a spirit, which in their language was πνεῦμα, in ours _a wind_, could be _incorporeal_. Do you understand the connexion of _substance_ and _incorporeal_? If you do, explain it in English; for the words are Latin. It is something, you will say, that being _without body, stands under_——. Stands under what? Will you say, _under accidents_? Almost all the Fathers of the Church will be against you; and then you are an atheist. Is not Mr. Hobbes his way of attributing to God, that only which the Scriptures attribute to him, or what is never any where taken but for honour, much better than this bold undertaking of yours, to consider and decipher God’s _nature_ to us?
For a third argument of atheism, you put, that he says: _besides the creation of the world, there is no argument to prove a Deity_: and, _that it cannot be evinced by any argument that the world had a beginning_; and, _that whether it had or no, is to be decided not by argument, but by the magistrate’s authority_. That it may be decided by the Scriptures, he never denied; therefore in that also you slander him. And as for arguments from natural reason, neither you, nor any other, have hitherto brought any, except the creation, that has not made it more doubtful to many men than it was before. That which he hath written concerning such arguments, in his book _De Corpore_: _opinions_, saith he (vol. I. p. 412), _concerning the nature of infinite and eternal, as the chiefest of the fruits of wisdom, God hath reserved to himself, and made judges of them those men whose ministry he meant to use in the ordering of religion; and therefore I cannot praise those men that brag of demonstration of the beginning of the world from natural reason_: and again (vol. I. p. 414), _wherefore I pass by those questions of infinite and eternal, contenting myself with such doctrine concerning the beginning and magnitude of the world, as I have learned from the Scripture, confirmed by miracles, and from the use of my country, and from the reverence I owe to the law_. This, Doctor, is not ill said, and yet it is all you ground your slander on, which you make to sneak vilely under a crooked paraphrase.
These opinions, I said, were to be judged by those to whom God has committed the ordering of religion; that is, to the supreme governors of the church, that is, in England, to the King: by his authority, I say, it ought to be decided, not what men shall think, but what they shall say in those questions. And methinks you should not dare to deny it; for it is a manifest relapse into your former crimes.
But why do you style the King by the name of _magistrate_? Do you find _magistrate_ to signify any where the person that hath the sovereign power, or not every where the sovereign’s officers. And I think you knew that; but you and your fellows (your fellows I call all those that are so besmeared all over with the filth of the same crime, as not to be distinguished) meant to make your Assembly the sovereign, and the King your _magistrate_. I pray God you do not mean so still, if opportunity be presented.
There has hitherto appeared in Mr. Hobbes his doctrine, no sign of atheism; and whatsoever can be inferred from the denying of _incorporeal substances_, makes Tertullian, one of the ancientest of the Fathers, and most of the doctors of the Greek Church, as much atheists as he. For Tertullian, in his treatise _De Carne Christi_, says plainly: _omne quod est, corpus est sui generis. Nihil est incorporale, nisi quod non est_: that is to say, _whatsoever is anything, is a body of its kind. Nothing is incorporeal, but that which has no being._ There are many other places in him to the same purpose: for that doctrine served his turn to confute the heresy of them that held that Christ had no body, but was a _ghost_; also of the soul he speaks, as of an invisible body. And there is an epitome of the doctrine of the Eastern Church, wherein is this, that they thought angels and souls were _corporeal_, and only called _incorporeal_, because their bodies were not like ours. And I have heard that a Patriarch of Constantinople, in a Council held there, did argue for the lawfulness of painting angels, from this, that they were _corporeal_. You see what fellows in atheism you join with Mr. Hobbes.
How unfeigned your own religion is, may be argued strongly, demonstratively, from your behaviour, that I have already recited. Do you think, you that have committed so abominable sins, not through infirmity, or sudden transport of passion, but premeditately, wilfully, for twenty years together, that any rational man can think you believe yourselves, when you preach of heaven and hell, or that you do not believe one another to be cheats and impostors, and laugh at silly people in your sleeves for believing you; or that you applaud not your own wit for it; though for my part I could never conceive that very much wit was requisite for the making of a knave? And in the pulpit most of you have been a scandal to Christianity, by preaching up sedition, and crying down moral virtue. You should have preached against unjust _ambition_, _covetousness_, _gluttony_, _malice_, _disobedience to government_, _fraud_, and _hypocrisy_: but for the most part you preached your own controversies, about who should be uppermost, or other fruitless and unedifying doctrines. When did any of you preach against _hypocrisy_? You dare not in the pulpit, I think, so much as name it, lest you set the church a laughing: and you in particular, when you said in a sermon, that σοψίης was not in Homer. What edification could the people have from that, though it had been true, as it is false? For it is in his _Iliad_, XV. 412. Another I heard make half his sermon of this doctrine, that _God never sent a great deliverance, but in a great danger_: which is indeed true, because the greatness of the danger makes the greatness of the deliverance, but for the same cause ridiculous; and the other half he took to construe the Greek of his text: and yet such sermons are much applauded. But why? First, because they make not the people ashamed of any vice. Secondly, because they like the preacher, for using to find fault with the government or governors. Thirdly, for their vehemence, which they mistake for zeal. Fourthly, for their zeal to their own ends, which they mistake for zeal to God’s worship. I have heard besides divers sermons made by fanatics, young men, and whom, by that and their habit, I imagined to be apprentices; and found little difference between their sermons, and the sermons of such as you, either in respect of wisdom, or eloquence, or vehemence, or applause of common people.
Therefore, I wonder how you can pretend, as you do in your petition for a dispensation from the ceremonies of the Church, to be either better preachers than those that conform, or to have tenderer consciences than other men. You that have covered such black designs with the sacred words of Scripture, why can you not as well find in your hearts to cover a black gown with a white surplice? Or what idolatry do you find in making the sign of the cross, when the law commands it? Though I think you may conform without sin, yet I think you might have been also dispensed with without sin, if you had dispensed in like manner with other ministers that subscribed to the articles of the Church. And if tenderness of conscience be a good plea, you must give Mr. Hobbes also leave to plead tenderness of conscience to his new Divinity, as well as you. I should wonder also, how any of you should dare to speak to a multitude met together, without being limited by his Majesty what they shall say, especially now that we have felt the smart of it, but that it is a relic of the ecclesiastical policy of the Popes, that found it necessary for the disjoining of the people from their too close adherence to their Kings or other civil governors.
But it may be you will say, that the rest of the clergy, bishops, and episcopal men, no friends of yours, and against whose office Mr. Hobbes never writ anything, speak no better of his religion than you do.
It is true, he never wrote against episcopacy; and it is his private opinion, that such an episcopacy as is now in England, is the most commodious that a Christian King can use for the governing of Christ’s flock; the misgoverning whereof the King is to answer for to Christ, as the bishops are to answer for their misgovernment to the King, and to God also. Nor ever spake he ill of any of them, as to their persons: therefore I should wonder the more at the uncharitable censure of some of them, but that I see a relic still remaining of the venom of popish ambition, lurking in that seditious _distinction_ and _division_ between the power _spiritual_ and _civil_; which they that are in love with a power to hurt all those that stand in competition with them for learning, as the Roman clergy had to hurt Galileo, do not willingly forsake. All bishops are not in every point like one another. Some, it may be, are content to hold their authority from the King’s letters patents; and these have no cause to be angry with Mr. Hobbes. Others will needs have somewhat more, they know not what, of divine right, to govern by virtue of _imposition of hands_, and _consecration_, not acknowledging their power from the King, but immediately from Christ. And these perhaps are they that are displeased with him, which he cannot help, nor has deserved; but will for all that believe the King only, and without sharers, to be the head of all