Hobbes - Leviathan.pdf
Hobbes - Leviathan.pdf
Hobbes - Leviathan.pdf
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
for want of a soul to hold them together. Therefore there is nothing<br />
in this similitude from whence to infer a dependence of the laity on<br />
the clergy, or of the temporal officers on the spiritual, but of<br />
both on the civil sovereign; which ought indeed to direct his civil<br />
commands to the salvation of souls; but is not therefore subject to<br />
any but God Himself. And thus you see the laboured fallacy of the<br />
first argument, to deceive such men as distinguish not between the<br />
subordination of actions in the way to the end; and the subjection<br />
of persons one to another in the administration of the means. For to<br />
every end, the means are determined by nature, or by God Himself<br />
supernaturally: but the power to make men use the means is in every<br />
nation resigned, by the law of nature, which forbiddeth men to violate<br />
their faith given, to the civil sovereign.<br />
His second argument is this: "Every Commonwealth, because it is<br />
supposed to be perfect and sufficient in itself, may command any other<br />
Commonwealth not subject to it, and force it to change the<br />
administration of the government; nay depose the prince, and set<br />
another in his room, if it cannot otherwise defend itself against<br />
the injuries he goes about to do them: much more may a spiritual<br />
Commonwealth command a temporal one to change the administration of<br />
their government, and may depose princes, and institute others, when<br />
they cannot otherwise defend the spiritual good."<br />
That a Commonwealth, to defend itself against injuries, may lawfully<br />
do all that he hath here said is very true; and hath already in that<br />
which hath gone before been sufficiently demonstrated. And if it<br />
were also true that there is now in this world a spiritual<br />
Commonwealth, distinct from a civil Commonwealth, then might the<br />
prince thereof, upon injury done him, or upon want of caution that<br />
injury be not done him in time to come, repair and secure himself by<br />
war; which is, in sum, deposing, killing, or subduing, or doing any<br />
act of hostility. But by the same reason, it would be no less lawful<br />
for a civil sovereign, upon the like injuries done, or feared, to make<br />
war upon the spiritual sovereign; which I believe is more than<br />
Cardinal Bellarmine would have inferred from his own proposition.<br />
But spiritual Commonwealth there is none in this world: for it is<br />
the same thing with the kingdom of Christ; which he himself saith is<br />
not of this world, but shall be in the next world, at the<br />
resurrection, when they that have lived justly, and believed that he<br />
was the Christ, shall, though they died natural bodies, rise spiritual<br />
bodies; and then it is that our Saviour shall judge the world, and<br />
conquer his adversaries, and make a spiritual Commonwealth. In the<br />
meantime, seeing there are no men on earth whose bodies are spiritual,<br />
there can be no spiritual Commonwealth amongst men that are yet in the<br />
flesh; unless we call preachers, that have commission to teach and<br />
prepare men for their reception into the kingdom of Christ at the<br />
resurrection, a Commonwealth; which I have proved already to be none.<br />
The third argument is this: "It is not lawful for Christians to<br />
tolerate an infidel or heretical king, in case he endeavour to draw<br />
them to his heresy, or infidelity. But to judge whether a king draw<br />
his subjects to heresy, or not, belongeth to the Pope. Therefore<br />
hath the Pope right to determine whether the prince be to be<br />
deposed, or not deposed."<br />
To this I answer that both these assertions false. For Christians,<br />
or men of what religion soever, if they tolerate not their king,<br />
whatsoever law he maketh, though it be concerning religion, do violate<br />
their faith, contrary to the divine law, both natural and positive:<br />
nor is there any judge of heresy amongst subjects but their own