choice of your youth, and employ them in his business. He shall take the tithe of your flocks; and you shall be his servants." This is absolute power, and summed up in the last words, "you shall be his servants." Again, when the people heard what power their king was to have, yet they consented thereto, and say thus (verse 10) "We will be as all other nations, and our king shall judge our causes, and go before us, to conduct our wars. "Here is confirmed the right that sovereigns have, both to the "militia,” and to all "judicature"; in which is contained as absolute power, as one man can possibly transfer to another. Again, the prayer of king Solomon to God, was this (1 Kings, iii. 9): "Give to thy servant understanding, to judge thy people, and to discern between good and evil." It belongeth therefore to the sovereign to be "judge," and to prescribe the rules of "discerning good" and "evil": which rules are laws; and therefore in him is the legislative power. Saul sought the life of David; yet when it was in his power to slay Saul, and his servants would have done it, David forbad them, saying, (1 Sam. xxiv. 6) "God forbid I should do such an act against my lord, the anointed of God." For obedience of servants St. Paul saith, (Col. iii. 22) "Servants obey your masters in all things"; and, (Col. iii. 20) "Children obey your parents in all things." There is simple obedience in those that are subject to paternal, or despotical dominion. Again, (Matt. xxiii. 2, 3) "The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' chair, and therefore all that they shall bid you observe, that observe and do." There again is simple obedience. And St. Paul, (Titus iii. 2) "Warn them that they subject themselves to princes, and to those that are in authority, and obey them." This obedience is also simple. Lastly, our Saviour himself acknowledges, that men ought to pay such taxes as are by kings imposed, where he says, "Give to Cæsar that which is Cæsar's"; and paid such taxes himself. And that the

king's word, is sufficient to take anything from any subject, when there is need; and that the king is judge of that need, for he himself, as king of the Jews, commanded his disciples to take the ass, and ass's colt to carry him into Jerusalem, saying, (Matt. xxi. 2, 3) "Go into the village over against you, and you shall find a she-ass tied, and her colt with her; untie them, and bring them to me. And if any man ask you, what you mean by it, say the Lord hath need of them and they will let them go." They will not ask whether his necessity be a sufficient title; nor whether he be judge of that necessity; but acquiesce in the will of the Lord.

:

To these places may be added also that of Genesis, (iii. 5) "Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." And (verse 11) "Who told thee that thou wast naked? hast thou eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee thou shouldest not eat?" For the cognizance or judicature of "good" and "evil," being forbidden by the name of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, as a trial of Adam's obedience; the devil to inflame the ambition of the woman, to whom that fruit already seemed beautiful, told her that by tasting it, they should be as gods, knowing "good" and "evil.” Whereupon having both eaten, they did indeed take upon them God's office, which is judicature of good and evil; but acquired no new ability to distinguish between them aright. And whereas it is said, that having eaten, they saw they were naked; no man hath so interpreted that place, as if they had been formerly blind, and saw not their own skins: the meaning is plain, that it was then they first judged their nakedness, wherein it was God's will to create them, to be uncomely; and by being ashamed, did tacitly censure God himself. And thereupon God saith; "Hast thou eaten, &c." as if he should say, doest thou that owest me obedience, take upon thee to judge of my commandments? Whereby it is clearly, though allegorically, signified, that

the commands of them that have the right to command, are not by their subjects to be censured, nor disputed.

So that it appeareth plainly, to my understanding, both from reason and Scripture, that the sovereign power, whether placed in one man, as in monarchy, or in one assembly of men, as in popular, and aristocratical commonwealths, is as great, as possibly men can be imagined to make it. And though of so unlimited a power, men may fancy many evil consequences, yet the consequences of the want of it, which is perpetual war of every man against his neighbour, are much worse. The condition of man in this life shall never be without inconveniences; but there happeneth in no commonwealth any great inconvenience, but what proceeds from the subject's disobedience, and breach of those covenants, from which the commonwealth has its being. And whosoever thinking sovereign power too great, will seek to make it less, must subject himself, to the power that can limit it; that is to say, to a greater.

The greatest objection is, that of the practice; when men ask, where, and when, such power has by subjects been acknowledged. But one may ask them again, when, or where has there been a kingdom long free from sedition and civil war. In those nations whose commonwealths have been long-lived, and not being destroyed but by foreign war, the subjects never did dispute of the sovereign power. But howsoever, an argument from the practice of men, that have not sifted to the bottom, and with exact reason weighed the causes, and nature of commonwealths, and suffer daily those miseries, that proceed from the ignorance thereof, is invalid. For though in all places of the world, men should lay the foundation of their houses on the sand, it could not thence be inferred, that so it ought to be. The skill of making, and maintaining commonwealths, consisteth in certain rules, as doth arithmetic and geometry; not, as tennis-play, on practice only: which rules, neither poor

men have the leisure, nor men that have had the leisure, have hitherto had the curiosity, or the method to find

out.

CHAPTER XXI.

Of the Liberty of Subjects.

And so

LIBERTY, or "freedom," signifieth, properly, the absence of opposition; by opposition, I mean external impediments of motion; and may be applied no less to irrational, and inanimate creatures, than to rational. For whatsoever is so tied, or environed, as it cannot move but within a certain space, which space is determined by the opposition of some external body, we say it hath not liberty to go further. of all living creatures, whilst they are imprisoned, or restrained, with walls, or chains; and of the water whilst it is kept in by banks, or vessels, that otherwise would spread itself into a larger space, we use to say, they are not at liberty, to move in such manner, as without those external impediments they would. But when the impediment of motion, is in the constitution of the thing itself, we use not to say; it wants the liberty; but the power to move; as when a stone lieth still, or a man is fastened to his bed by sickness.

And according to this proper, and generally received meaning of the word, a "freeman, is he, that in those things, which by his strength and wit he is able to do, is not hindered to do what he has a will to." But when the words "free," and "liberty," are applied to anything but "bodies," they are abused; for that which is not subject to motion, is not subject to impediment: and therefore, when if it is said, for example, the way is free, no liberty of the way is signified, but of those that walk in it without stop. And when we say a gift is free, there is not meant any liberty of the gift, but of the giver, that was not bound by any law

or covenant to give it. So when we "speak freely," it is not the liberty of voice, or pronunciation, but of the man, whom no law hath obliged to speak otherwise than he did. Lastly, from the use of the word "free-will," no liberty can be inferred of the will, desire, or inclination, but the liberty of the man ; which consisteth in this, that he finds no stop, in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination to do.

Fear and liberty are consistent; as when a man throweth his goods into the sea for "fear" the ship should sink, he doth it nevertheless very willingly, and may refuse to do it if he will: it is therefore the action of one that was "free": so a man sometimes pays his debt, only for "fear" of imprisonment, which because nobody hindered him from detaining, was the action of a man at "liberty." generally all actions which men do in commonwealths, for "fear" of the law, are actions, which the doers had "liberty" to omit.

And

"Liberty," and "necessity" are consistent: as in the water, that hath not only "liberty," but a "necessity" of descending by the channel; so likewise in the actions which men voluntarily do: which, because they proceed from their will, proceed from "liberty"; and yet, because every act of man's will, and every desire, and inclination proceedeth from some cause, and that from another cause, in a continual chain, whose first link is in the hand of God the first of all causes, proceed from "necessity." So that to him that could see the connection of those causes, the "necessity" of all men's voluntary actions, would appear manifest. And therefore God, that seeth, and disposeth all things, seeth also that the "liberty" of man in doing what he will, is accompanied with the "necessity" of doing that which God will, and no more, nor less. For though men may do many things, which God does not command, nor is therefore author of them; yet they can have no passion, nor appetite to anything, of which appetite God's will is not