Chapter VI: Front Matter (6)

_P._ I do so; nor do I see any reason to the contrary. For the subjects, when they come into the family, have no title at all to demand any part of the land, or anything else but security: to which also they are bound to contribute their whole strength, and, if need be, their whole fortunes. For it cannot be supposed that any one man can protect all the rest with his own single strength; and for the practice, it is manifest, in all conquests the land of the vanquished is in the sole power of the victor, and at his disposal. Did not Joshua and the High-priest divide the land of Canaan in such sort among the tribes of Israel as they pleased? Did not the Roman and Grecian princes and states, according to their own discretion, send out the colonies to inhabit such provinces as they had conquered? Is there at this day among the Turks, any inheritor of land besides the Sultan? And was not all the land in England once in the hands of William the Conqueror? Sir Edward Coke himself confesses it. Therefore it is an universal truth, that all conquered lands, presently after victory, are the lands of him that conquered them.

_L._ But you know that all sovereigns are said to have a double capacity, viz. a natural capacity, as he is a man; and a politic capacity, as a king. In his politic capacity, I grant you, that King William the Conqueror was the proper and only owner once of all the land in England; but not in his natural capacity.

_P._ If he had them in his politic capacity, then they were so his own, as not to dispose of any part thereof but only to the benefit of his people; and that must be either by his own, or by the people’s discretion, that is, by Act of Parliament. But where do you find that the Conqueror disposed of his lands (as he did some to Englishmen, some to Frenchmen, and some to Normans, to be holden by divers tenures, as knight-service, soccage, &c.) by Act of Parliament? Or that he ever called a Parliament, to have the assent of the Lords and Commons of England in disposing of those lands he had taken from them? Or for retaining of such and such lands in his own hands, by the name of forrests, for his own recreation or magnificence? You have heard perhaps that some lawyers, or other men reputed wise and good patriots, have given out that all the lands which the Kings of England have possessed, have been given them by the people, to the end that they should therewith defray the charges of their wars, and pay the wages of their ministers; and that those lands were gained by the people’s money. For that was pretended in the late civil war, when they took from the King his town of Kingston-upon-Hull. But I know you do not think that the pretence was just. It cannot therefore be denied but that the lands, which King William the Conqueror gave away to Englishmen and others, and which they now hold by his letters-patent and other conveyances, were properly and really his own, or else the titles of them that now hold them, must be invalid.

_L._ I assent. As you have showed me the beginning of monarchies, so let me hear your opinion concerning their growth.

_P._ Great monarchies have proceeded from small families. First, by war, wherein the victor not only enlarged his territory, but also the number and riches of his subjects. As for the other forms of commonwealths, they have been enlarged other ways. First, by a voluntary conjunction of many lords of families into one great aristocracy. Secondly, from rebellion proceeded first anarchy, and from anarchy proceeded any form that the calamities of them that lived therein did prompt them to; whether it were, that they chose an hereditary King, or an elective King for life; or that they agreed upon a council of certain persons, which is _aristocracy_; or a council of the whole people to have the sovereign power, which is _democracy_. After the first manner, which is by war, grew up all the greatest kingdoms in the world, viz. the Egyptian, Assyrian, Persian, and the Macedonian monarchy; and so did the great kingdoms of England, France, and Spain. The second manner, was the original of the Venetian Aristocracy. By the the third way, which is rebellion, grew up divers great monarchies, perpetually changing from one form to another: as in Rome, rebellion against Kings produced democracy, upon which the senate usurped under Sylla, and the people again upon the senate under Marius, and the Emperor usurped upon the people under Cæsar and his successors.

_L._ Do you think the distinction between natural and politic capacity is insignificant?

_P._ No. If the sovereign power be in an assembly of men, that assembly, whether it be _aristocratical_ or _democratical_, may possess lands; but it is in their politic capacity: because no natural man has any right to those lands, or any part of them. In the same manner, they can command an act by plurality of commands; but the command of any one of them is of no effect. But when the sovereign power is in one man, the natural and politic capacity are in the same person, and as to possession of lands, undistinguishable. But as to the acts and commands, they may be well distinguished in this manner. Whatsoever a monarch does command or do, by consent of the people of his kingdom, may properly be said to be done in his politic capacity; and whatsoever he commands by word of mouth only, or by letters signed with his hand, or sealed with any of his private seals, is done in his natural capacity. Nevertheless, his public commands, though they be made in his politic capacity, have their original from his natural capacity. For in the making of laws, which necessarily requires his assent, his assent is natural. Also those acts which are done by the King previously to the passing of them under the Great Seal of England, either by word of mouth, or warrant under his signet or private seal, are done in his natural capacity; but when they have passed the Seal of England, they are to be taken as done in his politic capacity.

_L._ I think verily your distinction is good. For natural capacity and politic capacity signify no more than private and public right. Therefore, leaving this argument, let us consider in the next place, as far as history will permit, what were the laws and customs of our ancestors.

_P._ The Saxons, as also all the rest of Germany not conquered by the Roman Emperors nor compelled to use the imperial laws, were a savage and heathen people, living only by war and rapine, and as some men learned in the Roman antiquities affirm, had their name of Germans from that their ancient trade of life, as if _Germans_ and _hommes de guerre_ were all one. Their rule over their family, servants, and subjects, was absolute; their laws, no other than natural equity; written law they had little or none; and very few there were in the time of the Caesars that could write or read. The right to the government was either paternal, or by conquest, or by marriages. Their succession to lands was determined by the pleasure of the master of the family, by gift or deed in his lifetime; and what land they disposed not of in their lifetime, descended after their death to their heirs. The heir was the eldest son. The issue of the eldest son failing, they descended to the younger sons in their order; and, for want of sons, to the daughters jointly as to one heir, or to be divided amongst them, and so to descend to their heirs in the same manner. And children failing, the uncle by the father’s or mother’s side, according as the lands had been the father’s or the mother’s, succeeded to the inheritance, and so continually to the next of blood. And this was a natural descent, because naturally the nearer in blood the nearer in kindness, and was held for the law of nature, not only amongst the Germans, but also in most nations before they had a written law. The right of government, which is called _jus regni_, descended in the same manner, except only that after the sons it came to the eldest daughter first, and her heirs; the reason whereof was, that government is indivisible. And this law continues still in England.

_L._ Seeing all the land, which any sovereign lord possessed, was his own in propriety, how came a subject to have a propriety in their lands?

_P._ There be two sorts of propriety. One is, when a man holds his land from the gift of God only, which lands civilians call _allodial_; which in a kingdom, no man can have but the King. The other is, when a man holds his land from another man, as given him in respect of service and obedience to that man, as a fee. The first kind of propriety is absolute; the other is in a manner conditional, because given for some service to be done unto the giver. The first kind of propriety excludes the right of all others; the second excludes the right of all other subjects to the same land, but not the right of the sovereign, when the common good of the people shall require the use thereof.

_L._ When those kings had thus parted with their lands, what was left them for the maintenance of their wars, either offensive or defensive; or for the maintenance of the royal family in such manner as not only becomes the dignity of a sovereign king, but is also necessary to keep his person and people from contempt?

_P._ They have means enough; and besides what they gave their subjects, had much land remaining in their own hands, afforrested for their recreation. For you know very well that a great part of the land of England was given for military service to the great men of the realm, who were for the most part of the King’s kindred or great favourites; much more land than they had need of for their own maintenance; but so charged with one or many soldiers, according to the quantity of land given, as there could be no want of soldiers at all times ready to resist an invading enemy: which soldiers those lords were bound to furnish, for a time certain, at their own charges. You know also, that the whole land was divided into hundreds, and those again into decennaries; in which decennaries all men, even to children of twelve years of age, were bound to take the oath of allegiance. And you are to believe, that those men that hold their land by the service of husbandry, were all bound with their bodies and fortunes to defend the kingdom against invaders, by the law of nature. And so also such as they called villains, and as held their land by baser drudgery, were obliged to defend the kingdom to the utmost of their power. Nay, women and children, in such a necessity, are bound to do such service as they can, that is to say, to bring weapons and victuals to them that fight, and to dig. But those that hold their land by service military, have lying upon them a greater obligation. For read and observe the form of doing homage, according as it is set down in the statute of 17 _Edw. II_, which you doubt not was in use before that time, and before the Conquest.

_L._ _I become your man for life, for member, and for worldly honour, and shall owe you my faith for the lands that I hold of you._

_P._ I pray you expound it.

_L._ I think it is as much as if you should say, I promise you to be at your command, to perform with the hazard of my life, limbs, and all my fortune, as I have charged myself in the reception of the lands you have given me, and to be ever faithful to you. This is the form of homage done to the King immediately. But when one subject holdeth land of another by the like military service, then there is an exception added, viz. _saving the faith I owe to the King_.

_P._ Did he not also take an oath?

_L._ Yes, which is called the oath of fealty: _I shall be to you both faithful, and lawfully shall do such customs and services, as my duty is to you at the terms assigned, so help me God and all his Saints_. But both these services, and the services of husbandry, were quickly after turned into rents, payable either in money, as in England, or in corn or other victuals, as in Scotland and France. When the service was military, the tenant was for the most part bound to serve the King in his wars, with one or more persons, according to the yearly value of the land he held.

_P._ Were they bound to find horsemen, or footmen?

_L._ I do not find any law that requires any man, in respect of his tenancy, to serve on horseback.

_P._ Was the tenant bound, in case he were called, to serve in person?

_L._ I think he was so in the beginning. For when lands were given for service military, and the tenant dying left his son and heir, the lord had the custody both of body and lands till the heir was twenty-one years old. And the reason thereof was, that the heir, till that age of twenty-one years, was presumed to be unable to serve the King in his wars; which reason had been insufficient, if the heir had not been bound to go to the wars in person. Which, methinks, should ever hold for law, unless by some other law it come to be altered. These services, together with other rights, as wardships, first possession of his tenants' inheritance, licenses for alienation, felons' goods, felons' lands (if they were holden of the King), and the first year’s profit of the lands, of whomsoever they were holden, forfeitures, amercements, and many other aids, could not but amount to a very great yearly revenue. Add to this all that which the King might reasonably have imposed upon artificers and tradesmen; for all men, whom the King protecteth, ought to contribute towards their own protection; and consider then whether the Kings of those times had not means enough, and to spare (if God were not their enemy), to defend their people against foreign enemies, and also to compel them to keep the peace amongst themselves.

_P._ And so had had the succeeding Kings, if they had never given their rights away, and their subjects always kept their oaths and promises. In what manner proceeded those ancient Saxons, and other nations of Germany, especially the northern parts, to the making of their laws?

_L._ Sir Edward Coke, out of divers Saxon laws, gathered and published in Saxon and Latin by Mr. Lambard, inferreth that the Saxon Kings, for the making of their laws, called together the Lords and Commons, in such manner as is used at this day in England. But by those laws of the Saxons published by Mr. Lambard, it appeareth, that the Kings called together the bishops, and a great part of the wisest and discreetest men of the realm, and made laws by their advice.

_P._ I think so. For there is no King in the world, being of ripe years and sound mind, that made any law otherwise. For it concerns them in their own interest to make such laws as the people can endure, and may keep them without impatience, and live in strength and courage to defend their King and country, against their potent neighbours. But how was it discerned, and by whom was it determined, who were those wisest and discreetest men? It is a hard matter to know who is wisest in our times. We know well enough who chooseth a knight of the shire, and what towns are to send burgesses to the Parliament. Therefore if it were determined also in those days, who those wise men should be, then I confess that the Parliaments of the old Saxons, and the Parliaments of England since, are the same thing, and Sir Edward Coke is in the right. Tell me therefore, if you can, when those towns, which now send burgesses to the Parliament, began to do so, and upon what cause one town had this privilege, and another town, though much more populous, had not.

_L._ At what time began this custom I cannot tell; but I am sure it is more ancient than the city of Salisbury. Because there come two burgesses to Parliament for a place near to it, called Old Sarum, which, as I rid in sight of it, if I should tell a stranger that knew not what the word burgess meant, he would think it were a couple of rabbits; the place looketh so like a long cony-borough. And yet a good argument may be drawn from thence, that the townsmen of every town were the electors of their own burgesses, and judges of their discretion; and that the law, whether they be discreet or not, will suppose them to be discreet, till the contrary be apparent. Therefore where it is said, that the King called together the more discreet men of his realm; it must be understood of such elections as are now in use. By which it is manifest, that those great and general moots assembled by the old Saxon Kings, were of the same nature with the Parliaments assembled since the Conquest.

_P._ I think your reason is good. For I cannot conceive, how the King, or any other but the inhabitants of the boroughs themselves, can take notice of the discretion or sufficiency of those they were to send to the Parliament. And for the antiquity of the burgess-towns, since it is not mentioned in any history or certain record now extant, it is free for any man to propound his conjecture. You know that this land was invaded by the Saxons at several times, and conquered by pieces in several wars; so that there were in England many Kings at once, and every of them had his Parliament. And therefore according as there were more, or fewer walled towns within each King’s dominion, his Parliament had the more or fewer burgesses. But when all these lesser kingdoms were joined into one, then to that one Parliament came burgesses from all the boroughs of England. And this perhaps may be the reason, why there be so many more such boroughs in the west, than in any other part of the kingdom; the west being more populous, and also more obnoxious to invaders, and for that cause having greater store of towns fortified. This I think may be the original of that privilege which some towns have, to send burgesses to the Parliament, and others have not.

_L._ The conjecture is not improbable, and for want of greater certainty, may be allowed. But seeing it is commonly received, that for the making of a law, there ought to be had the assent of the Lords spiritual and temporal; whom do you account in the Parliaments of the old Saxons for Lords temporal, and whom for Lords spiritual? For the book called _The mode of holding Parliaments_, agreeth punctually with the manner of holding them at this day, and was written, as Sir Edward Coke says, in the time of the Saxons, and before the Conquest.

_P._ Mr. Selden, a greater antiquary than Sir Edward Coke, in the last edition of his book of _Titles of Honour_, says, that that book called _The mode of holding Parliaments_, was not written till about the time of Richard II, and seems to me to prove it. But howsoever that be, it is apparent by the Saxon laws set forth by Mr. Lambard, that there were always called to the Parliament certain great persons called Aldermen, _alias_ Earls. And so you have a House of Lords, and a House of Commons. Also you will find in the same place, that after the Saxons had received the faith of Christ, those bishops that were amongst them, were always at the great moots in which they made their laws. Thus you have a perfect English Parliament, saving that the name of Barons was not amongst them, as being a French title, which came in with the Conqueror.

BEHEMOTH:

THE HISTORY OF THE CAUSES

OF

THE CIVIL WARS OF ENGLAND,

AND OF THE COUNSELS AND ARTIFICES BY WHICH

THEY WERE CARRIED ON FROM THE

YEAR 1640 TO THE YEAR 1660.

---

“Bella per Angliacos plusquam civilia campos,
Jusque datum sceleri loquimur.——”

THE BOOKSELLER TO THE READER.

My duty, as well to the public as to the memory of Mr. Hobbes, has obliged me to procure with my utmost diligence, that these tracts should come forth with the most correct exactness.[A]

I am compelled by the force of truth to declare, how much both the world and the memory of Mr. Hobbes have been abused by the several spurious editions of the _History of the Civil Wars_; wherein, by various and unskilful transcriptions, are committed above a thousand faults, and in above a hundred places whole lines left out, as I can make appear.

I must confess Mr. Hobbes, upon some considerations, was averse to the publishing thereof; but since it is impossible to suppress it, no book being more commonly sold by all booksellers, I hope I need not fear the offence of any man by doing right to the world and this work, which I now publish from the original manuscript, done by his own amanuensis, and given me by himself above twelve years since.

To this I have joined the treatise against Archbishop Bramhall, to prevent the like prejudice, which must certainly have fallen on it, there being so many false copies abroad, if not thus prevented; as also the Discourse of Heresy from a more correct copy; and have likewise annexed his Physical Problems, as they were translated by himself and presented to his Majesty, with the epistle prefixed, in the year 1662, at the same time they came forth in Latin.

These things premised, there remains nothing but to wish for myself good sale, to the buyer much pleasure and satisfaction.

Your humble servant,
WILLIAM CROOKE.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Footnote A:

This preface is prefixed to the edition of 1682, in which the
_Behemoth_ is printed along with the _Answer to Archbishop Bramhall_,
the _Discourse of Heresy_, and the _Physical Problems_.

BEHEMOTH,

OR THE EPITOME OF

THE CIVIL WARS OF ENGLAND.

==========

_A._ If in time, as in place, there were degrees of high and low, I verily believe that the highest of time would be that which passed between 1640 and 1660. For he that thence, as from the Devil’s Mountain, should have looked upon the world and observed the actions of men, especially in England, might have had a prospect of all kinds of injustice, and of all kinds of folly, that the world could afford, and how they were produced by their hypocrisy and self-conceit, whereof the one is double iniquity, and the other double folly.

_B._ I should be glad to behold that prospect. You that have lived in that time and in that part of your age, wherein men used to see best into good and evil, I pray you set me, that could not see so well, upon the same mountain, by the relation of the actions you then saw, and of their causes, pretensions, justice, order, artifice, and event.

_A._ In the year 1640, the government of England was monarchical; and the King that reigned, Charles, the first of that name, holding the sovereignty, by right of a descent continued above six hundred years, and from a much longer descent King of Scotland, and from the time of his ancestor Henry II, King of Ireland; a man that wanted no virtue, either of body or mind, nor endeavoured anything more than to discharge his duty towards God, in the well governing of his subjects.

_B._ How could he then miscarry, having in every county so many trained soldiers, as would, put together, have made an army of 60,000 men, and divers magazines of ammunition in places fortified?

_A._ If those soldiers had been, as they and all other of his subjects ought to have been, at his Majesty’s command, the peace and happiness of the three kingdoms had continued as it was left by King James. But the people were corrupted generally, and disobedient persons esteemed the best patriots.

_B._ But sure there were men enough, besides those that were ill-affected, to have made an army sufficient to have kept the people from uniting into a body able to oppose him.

_A._ Truly, I think, if the King had had money, he might have had soldiers enough in England. For there were very few of the common people that cared much for either of the causes, but would have taken any side for pay or plunder. But the King’s treasury was very low, and his enemies, that pretended the people’s ease from taxes, and other specious things, had the command of the purses of the city of London, and of most cities and corporate towns in England, and of many particular persons besides.

_B._ But how came the people to be so corrupted? And what kind of people were they that did so seduce them?

_A._ The seducers were of divers sorts. One sort were ministers; ministers, as they called themselves, of Christ; and sometimes, in their sermons to the people, God’s ambassadors; pretending to have a right from God to govern every one his parish, and their assembly the whole nation.

Secondly, there were a very great number, though not comparable to the other, which notwithstanding that the Pope’s power in England, both temporal and ecclesiastical, had been by Act of Parliament abolished, did still retain a belief that we ought to be governed by the Pope, whom they pretended to be the vicar of Christ, and, in the right of Christ, to be the governor of all Christian people. And these were known by the name of Papists; as the ministers I mentioned before, were commonly called Presbyterians.

Thirdly, there were not a few, who in the beginning of the troubles were not discovered, but shortly after declared themselves for a liberty in religion, and those of different opinions one from another. Some of them, because they would have all congregations free and independent upon one another, were called Independents. Others that held baptism to infants, and such as understood not into what they are baptized, to be ineffectual, were called therefore Anabaptists. Others that held that Christ’s kingdom was at this time to begin upon the earth, were called Fifth-monarchy-men; besides divers other sects, as Quakers, Adamites, &c., whose names and peculiar doctrines I do not well remember. And these were the enemies which arose against his Majesty from the private interpretation of the Scripture, exposed to every man’s scanning in his mother-tongue.

Fourthly, there were an exceeding great number of men of the better sort, that had been so educated, as that in their youth having read the books written by famous men of the ancient Grecian and Roman commonwealths concerning their polity and great actions; in which books the popular government was extolled by that glorious name of liberty, and monarchy disgraced by the name of tyranny; they became thereby in love with their forms of government. And out of these men were chosen the greatest part of the House of Commons, or if they were not the greatest part, yet by advantage of their eloquence, were always able to sway the rest.

Fifthly, the city of London and other great towns of trade, having in admiration the prosperity of the Low Countries after they had revolted from their monarch, the King of Spain, were inclined to think that the like change of government here, would to them produce the like prosperity.

Sixthly, there were a very great number that had either wasted their fortunes, or thought them too mean for the good parts they thought were in themselves; and more there were, that had able bodies, but saw no means how honestly to get their bread. These longed for a war, and hoped to maintain themselves hereafter by the lucky choosing of a party to side with, and consequently did for the most part serve under them that had greatest plenty of money.

Lastly, the people in general were so ignorant of their duty, as that not one perhaps of ten thousand knew what right any man had to command him, or what necessity there was of King or Commonwealth, for which he was to part with his money against his will; but thought himself to be so much master of whatsoever he possessed, that it could not be taken from him upon any pretence of common safety without his own consent. King, they thought, was but a title of the highest honour, which gentleman, knight, baron, earl, duke, were but steps to ascend to, with the help of riches; they had no rule of equity, but precedents and custom; and he was thought wisest and fittest to be chosen for a Parliament, that was most averse to the granting of subsidies or other public payments.

_B._ In such a constitution of people, methinks, the King is already ousted of his government, so as they need not have taken arms for it. For I cannot imagine how the King should come by any means to resist them.

_A._ There was indeed very great difficulty in the business. But of that point you will be better informed in the pursuit of this narration.

_B._ But I desire to know first, the several grounds of the pretences, both of the Pope and of the Presbyterians, by which they claim a right to govern us, as they do, in chief: and after that, from whence and when crept in the pretences of that Long Parliament, for a democracy.

_A._ As for the Papists, they challenge this right from a text in _Deut._ xvii. 12, and other like texts, according to the old Latin translation in these words: _And he that out of pride shall refuse to obey the commandment of that priest, which shall at that time minister before the Lord thy God, that man shall by the sentence of the judge be put to death_. And because, as the Jews were the people of God then, so is all Christendom the people of God now, they infer from thence, that the Pope, whom they pretend to be the high-priest of all Christian people, ought also to be obeyed in all his decrees by all Christians, upon pain of death. Again, whereas in the New Testament (Matth. xxviii. 18-20) Christ saith: _All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth; go therefore and teach all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and teach them to observe all these things which I have commanded you_: from thence they infer, that the command of the apostles was to be obeyed, and by consequence the nations were bound to be governed by them, and especially by the prince of the apostles, St. Peter, and by his successors the Popes of Rome.

_B._ For the text in the Old Testament, I do not see how the commandment of God to the Jews, to obey their priests, can be interpreted to have the like force in the case of other nations Christian, more than upon nations unchristian (for all the world are God’s people); unless we also grant, that a king cannot of an infidel be made Christian, without making himself subject to the laws of that apostle, or priest, or minister, that shall convert him. The Jews were a peculiar people of God, a sacerdotal kingdom, and bound to no other law but what first Moses, and afterwards every high-priest, did go and receive immediately from the mouth of God in Mount Sinai, in the tabernacle of the ark, and in the _sanctum sanctorum_ of the temple. And for the text in St. Matthew, I know the words in the Gospel are not _go teach_, but _go and make disciples_; and that there is a great difference between a subject and a disciple, and between teaching and commanding. And if such texts as these must be so interpreted, why do not Christian kings lay down their titles of majesty and sovereignty, and call themselves the Pope’s lieutenants? But the doctors of the Romish Church seem to decline that title of absolute power, in their distinction of power spiritual and temporal; but this distinction I do not very well understand.

_A._ By spiritual power they mean the power to determine points of faith, and to be judges in the inner court of conscience of moral duties, and a power to punish those men, that obey not their precepts, by ecclesiastical censure, that is, by excommunication. And this power, they say, the Pope hath immediately from Christ, without dependence upon any king or sovereign assembly, whose subjects they be that stand excommunicate. But for the power temporal, which consists in judging and punishing those actions that are done against the civil laws, they say, they do not pretend to it directly, but only indirectly, that is to say, so far forth as such actions tend to the hindrance or advancement of religion and good manners, which they mean when they say _in ordine ad spiritualia_.

_B._ What power then is left to Kings and other civil sovereigns, which the Pope may not pretend to be his _in ordine ad spiritualia_?

_A._ None, or very little. And this power not only the Pope pretends to in all Christendom; but some of his bishops also, in their several dioceses, _jure divino_, that is, immediately from Christ, without deriving it from the Pope.

_B._ But what if a man refuse obedience to this pretended power of the Pope and his bishops? What harm can excommunication do him, especially if he be the subject of another sovereign?

_A._ Very great harm. For by the Pope’s or bishop’s signification of it to the civil power, he shall be punished sufficiently.

_B._ He were in an ill case then, that adventured to write or speak in defence of the civil power, that must be punished by him whose rights he defended, like Uzza, that was slain because he would needs, unbidden, put forth his hand to keep the ark from falling. But if a whole nation should revolt from the Pope at once, what effect could excommunication have upon the nation?

_A._ Why, they should have no more mass said, at least by any of the Pope’s priests. Besides, the Pope would have no more to do with them, but cast them off, and so they would be in the same case as if a nation should be cast off by their king, and left to be governed by themselves, or whom they would.

_B._ This would not be taken so much for a punishment to the people, as to the King; and therefore when a Pope excommunicates a whole nation, methinks he rather excommunicates himself than them. But I pray you tell me, what were the rights that the Pope pretended to in the kingdoms of other princes?

_A._ First, an exemption of all priests, friars, and monks, in criminal causes, from the cognizance of civil judges. Secondly, collation of benefices on whom he pleased, native or stranger, and exaction of tenths, first fruits, and other payments. Thirdly, appeals to Rome in all causes where the Church could pretend to be concerned. Fourthly, to be the supreme judge concerning lawfulness of marriage, that is concerning the hereditary succession of Kings, and to have the cognizance of all causes concerning adultery and fornication.

_B._ Good! A monopoly of women.

_A._ Fifthly, a power of absolving subjects of their duties, and of their oaths of fidelity to their lawful sovereigns, when the Pope should think fit for the extirpation of heresy.

_B._ This power of absolving subjects of their obedience, as also that other of being judge of manners and doctrine, is as absolute a sovereignty as is possible to be; and consequently there must be two kingdoms in one and the same nation, and no man be able to know which of his masters he must obey.

_A._ For my part, I should rather obey that master that had the right of making laws and of inflicting punishments, than him that pretendeth only to a right of making canons, that is to say, rules, and no right of co-action, or otherwise punishing, but by excommunication.

_B._ But the Pope pretends also that his canons are laws; and for punishing, can there be greater than excommunication; supposing it true, as the Pope saith it is, that he that dies excommunicate is damned? Which supposition, it seems, you believe not; else you would rather have chosen to obey the Pope, that would cast your body and soul into hell, than the King, that can only kill the body.

_A._ You say true. For it were very uncharitable in me to believe that all Englishmen, except a few Papists, that have been born and called heretics ever since the Reformation of Religion in England, should be damned.

_B._ But for those that die excommunicate in the Church of England at this day, do you not think them also damned?

_A._ Doubtless, he that dies in sin without repentance is damned, and he that is excommunicate for disobedience to the King’s laws, either spiritual or temporal, is excommunicate for sin; and therefore, if he die excommunicate and without desire of reconciliation, he dies impenitent. You see what follows. But to die in disobedience to the precepts and doctrines of those men that have no authority or jurisdiction over us, is quite another case, and bringeth no such danger with it.

_B._ But what is this heresy, which the Church of Rome so cruelly persecutes, as to depose Kings that do not, when they are bidden, turn all heretics out of their dominions?

_A._ Heresy is a word which, when it is used without passion, signifies a private opinion. So the different sects of the old philosophers, Academians, Peripatetics, Epicureans, Stoics, &c., were called heresies. But in the Christian Church, there was in the signification of that word, comprehended a sinful opposition to him, that was chief judge of doctrines in order to the salvation of men’s souls; and consequently heresy may be said to bear the same relation to the power spiritual, that rebellion doth to the power temporal, and is suitable to be persecuted by him that will preserve a power spiritual and dominion over men’s consciences.

_B._ It would be very well, (because we are all of us permitted to read the Holy Scriptures, and bound to make them the rule of our actions, both public and private), that heresy were by some law defined, and the particular opinions set forth, for which a man were to be condemned and punished as a heretic; for else, not only men of mean capacity, but even the wisest and devoutest Christian, may fall into heresy without any will to oppose the Church; for the Scriptures are hard, and the interpretations different of different men.

_A._ The meaning of the word heresy, is by law declared in an Act of Parliament in the first year of Queen Elizabeth; wherein it is ordained, that the persons who had by the Queen’s letters-patent the authority spiritual, meaning the High Commission, shall not have authority to adjudge any matter or cause to be heresy, but only such as heretofore have been adjudged to be heresy by the authority of the canonical Scriptures, or by the first four general Councils, or by any other general Council, where the same was declared heresy by the express and plain words of the said canonical Scriptures, or such as hereafter shall be adjudged heresy by the high court of Parliament of this realm, with the assent of the clergy in their convocation.

_B._ It seems therefore, if there arise any new error that hath not yet been declared heresy, (and many such may arise), it cannot be judged heresy without a Parliament. For how foul soever the error be, it cannot have been declared heresy neither in the Scriptures nor in the Councils; because it was never before heard of. And consequently there can be no error, unless it fall within the compass of blasphemy against God or treason against the King, for which a man can in equity be punished. Besides, who can tell what is declared by the Scripture, which every man is allowed to read and interpret to himself? Nay more, what Protestant, either of the laity or clergy, if every general Council can be a competent judge of heresy, is not already condemned? For divers Councils have declared a great many of our doctrines to be heresy, and that, as they pretend, upon the authority of the Scriptures.

_A._ What are those points, that the first four general Councils have declared heresy?

_B._ The first general Council, held at Nicæa, declared all to be heresy which was contrary to the Nicene Creed, upon occasion of the heresy of Arius, which was the denying the divinity of Christ. The second general Council, held at Constantinople, declared heresy the doctrine of Macedonius; which was that the Holy Ghost was created. The third Council, assembled at Ephesus, condemned the doctrine of Nestorius, that there were two persons in Christ. The fourth, held at Chalcedon, condemned the error of Eutyches, that there was but one nature in Christ. I know of no other points condemned in these four Councils, but such as concern church-government, or the same doctrines taught by other men in other words. And these Councils were all called by the Emperors, and by them their decrees confirmed at the petition of the Councils themselves.

_A._ I see by this, that both the calling of the Council, and the confirmation of their doctrine and church-government, had no obligatory force but from the authority of the Emperor. How comes it then to pass, that they take upon them now a legislative power, and say their canons are laws? That text, _all power is given to me in heaven and earth_, had the same force then as it hath now, and conferred a legislative power on the Councils, not only over Christian men, but over all nations in the world.

_B._ They say no; for the power they pretend to is derived from this, that when a king was converted from Gentilism to Christianity, he did by that very submission to the bishop that converted him, submit to the bishop’s government and became one of his sheep; which right therefore he could not have over any nation that was not Christian.

_A._ Did Sylvester, which was Pope of Rome in the time of Constantine the Great, converted by him, tell the Emperor, his new disciple, beforehand, that if he became a Christian he must be the Pope’s subject?

_B._ I believe not. For it is likely enough, if he had told him so plainly, or but made him suspect it, he would either have been no Christian at all, or but a counterfeit one.

_A._ But if he did not tell him so, and that plainly, it was foul play, not only in a priest, but in any Christian. And for this derivation of their right from the Emperor’s consent, it proceeds only from this, that they dare not challenge a legislative power, nor call their canons laws in any kingdom in Christendom, further than the kings make them so. But in Peru, when Atabalipa was King, the friar told him, that Christ being King of all the world, had given the disposing of all the kingdoms therein to the Pope, and that the Pope had given Peru to the Roman Emperor Charles the Fifth, and required Atabalipa to resign it; and for refusing it, seized upon his person by the Spanish army there present, and murdered him. You see by this how much they claim, when they have power to make it good.

_B._ When began the Popes to take this authority upon them first?

_A._ After the inundation of the northern people had overflowed the western parts of the empire, and possessed themselves of Italy, the people of the city of Rome submitted themselves, as well in temporals as spirituals, to their bishop; and then first was the Pope a temporal prince, and stood no more in so great fear of the Emperors, which lived far off at Constantinople. In this time it was that the Pope began, by pretence of his power spiritual, to encroach upon the temporal rights of all other princes of the west; and so continued gaining upon them, till his power was at the highest in that three hundred years, or thereabout, which passed between the eighth and eleventh century, that is, between Pope Leo the Third and Pope Innocent the Third. For in this time Pope Zachary the First deposed Chilperic, then King of France, and gave the kingdom to one of his subjects, Pepin; and Pepin took from the Lombards a great part of their territory and gave it to the Church. Shortly after, the Lombards having recovered their estate, Charles the Great retook it, and gave it to the Church again; and Pope Leo the Third made Charles Emperor.

_B._ But what right did the Pope then pretend for the creating of an Emperor?

_A._ He pretended the right of being Christ’s vicar; and what Christ could give, his vicar might give; and you know that Christ was King of all the world.

_B._ Yes, as God; and so he gives all the kingdoms of the world, which nevertheless proceed from the consent of people, either for fear or hope.

_A._ But this gift of the empire was in a more special manner, in such a manner as Moses had the government of Israel given him; or rather as Joshua had it given him, to go in and out before the people as the high-priest should direct him. And so the empire was understood to be given him, on condition to be directed by the Pope. For when the Pope invested him with the regal ornaments, the people all cried out _Deus dat_, that is to say, it is God that gives it; and the Emperor was contented so to take it. And from that time, all or most of the Christian Kings do put into their titles the words _Dei gratia_, that is, by the gift of God; and their successors use still to receive the crown and sceptre from a bishop.

_B._ It is certainly a very good custom, for Kings to be put in mind by whose gift they reign; but it cannot from that custom be inferred that they receive the kingdom by mediation of the Pope, or by any other clergy; for the Popes themselves received the Papacy from the Emperor. The first that ever was elected Bishop of Rome after Emperors were Christians, and without the Emperor’s consent, excused himself by letters to the Emperor with this: that the people and clergy of Rome forced him to take it upon him, and prayed the Emperor to confirm it, which the Emperor did; but with reprehension of their proceedings, and the prohibition of the like for the time to come. The Emperor was Lotharius, and the Pope Calixtus the First.

_A._ You see by this the Emperor never acknowledged this gift of God was the gift of the Pope, but maintained, the Popedom was the gift of the Emperor. But in process of time, by the negligence of the Emperors, (for the greatness of Kings makes them that they cannot easily descend into the obscure and narrow mines of an ambitious clergy), they found means to make the people believe, there was a power in the Pope and clergy, which they ought to submit unto, rather than to the commands of their own Kings, whensoever it should come into controversy: and to that end devised and decreed many new articles of faith, to the diminution of the authority of kings, and to the disjunction of them and their subjects, and to a closer adherence of their subjects to the Church of Rome; articles either not at all found in, or not well founded upon the Scriptures; as first; that it should not be lawful for a priest to marry.

_B._ What influence could that have upon the power of Kings?

_A._ Do you not see, that by this the King must of necessity either want the priesthood, and therewith a great part of the reverence due to him from the most religious part of his subjects, or else want lawful heirs to succeed him: by which means, being not taken for the head of the Church, he was sure, in any controversy between him and the Pope, that his subjects would be against him?

_B._ Is not a Christian King as much a bishop now, as the heathen Kings were of old? for among them _episcopus_ was a name common to all Kings. Is not he a bishop now, to whom God hath committed the charge of all the souls of his subjects, both of the laity and the clergy? And though he be in relation to our Saviour, who is the chief pastor, but a sheep, yet, compared to his own subjects, they are all sheep, both laic and cleric, and he only shepherd. And seeing a Christian bishop is but a Christian endued with power to govern the clergy, it follows that every Christian king is not only a bishop, but an arch-bishop, and his whole dominion his diocese. And though it were granted, that imposition of hands is necessary from a priest; yet seeing Kings have the government of the clergy, that are his subjects even before baptism; the baptism itself, wherein he is received as a Christian, is a sufficient imposition of hands, so that whereas before he was a bishop, now he is a Christian bishop.

_A._ For my part I agree with you: this prohibition of marriage to priests came in about the time of Pope Gregory the Seventh, and William the First, King of England; by which means the Pope had in England, what with secular and what with regular priests, a great many lusty bachelors at his service.

Secondly, that auricular confession to a priest was necessary to salvation. It is true, that before that time, confession to a priest was usual, and performed for the most part by him that confessed, in writing. But that use was taken away about the time of King Edward III, and priests commanded to take confessions from the mouth of the confitent: and men did generally believe, that without confession and absolution before their departure out of the world, they could not be saved; and having absolution from a priest, that they could not be damned. You understand by this, how much every man would stand in awe of the Pope and clergy, more than they would of the King; and what inconvenience it is to a state for their subjects to confess their secret thoughts to spies.

_B._ Yes, as much as eternal torture is more terrible than death, so much they would fear the clergy more than the King.

_A._ And though perhaps the Roman clergy will not maintain, that a priest hath power to remit sins absolutely, but only with a condition of repentance, yet the people were never so instructed by them; but were left to believe, that whensoever they had absolution, their precedent sins were all discharged, when their penance, which they took for repentance, was performed. Within the same time began the article of transubstantiation. For it had been disputed a long time before, in what manner a man did eat the body of our Saviour Jesus Christ, as being a point very difficult for a man to conceive and imagine clearly; but now it was made very clear, that the bread was transubstantiated into Christ’s body, and so was become no more bread, but flesh.

_B._ It seems then that Christ had many bodies, and was in as many places at once, as there were communicants. I think the priests then were so wanton, as to insult upon the dulness, not only of common people, but also of kings and their councillors.

_A._ I am now in a narration, not in a disputation; and therefore I would have you at this time to consider nothing else, but what effect this doctrine would work upon kings and their subjects, in relation to the clergy, who only were able of a piece of bread to make our Saviour’s body, and thereby at the hour of death to save their souls.