The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Volume 04 · Thomas Hobbes
SIR,
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?
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.