But for the second,how he can be bound to obey them,it is not so hard.For if the law declared be not against the law of nature,which is undoubtedly God's law,and he undertake to obey it,he is bound by his own act;bound I say to obey it,but not bound to believe it:for men's belief,and interior cogitations,are not subject to the commands,but only to the operation of God,ordinary or extraordinary.
Faith of supernatural law is not a fulfilling,but only an assenting to the same;and not a duty that we exhibit to God,but a gift which God freely giveth to whom He pleaseth;as also unbelief is not a breach of any of His laws,but a rejection of them all,except the laws natural.But this that I say will be made yet clearer by,the examples and testimonies concerning this point in Holy Scripture.
The covenant God made with Abraham in a supernatural manner was thus,"This is the covenant which thou shalt observe between me and thee and thy seed after thee."Abraham's seed had not this revelation,nor were yet in being;yet they are a party to the covenant,and bound to obey what Abraham should declare to them for God's law;which they could not be but in virtue of the obedience they owed to their parents,who (if they be subject to no other earthly power,as here in the case of Abraham)have sovereign power over their children and servants.Again,where God saith to Abraham,"In thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed:for I know thou wilt command thy children and thy house after thee to keep the way of the Lord,and to observe righteousness and judgement,"it is manifest the obedience of his family,who had no revelation,depended on their former obligation to obey their sovereign.At Mount Sinai Moses only went up to God;the people were forbidden to approach on pain of death;yet were they bound to obey all that Moses declared to them for God's law.Upon what ground,but on this submission of their own,"Speak thou to us,and we will hear thee;but let not God speak to us,lest we die"?By which two places it sufficiently appeareth that in a Commonwealth a subject that has no certain and assured revelation particularly to himself concerning the will of God is to obey for such the command of the Commonwealth:for if men were at liberty to take for God's commandments their own dreams and fancies,or the dreams and fancies of private men,scarce two men would agree upon what is God's commandment;and yet in respect of them every man would despise the commandments of the Commonwealth.Iconclude,therefore,that in all things not contrary to the moral law (that is to say,to the law of nature),all subjects are bound to obey that for divine law which is declared to be so by the laws of the Commonwealth.Which also is evident to any man's reason;for whatsoever is not against the law of nature may be made law in the name of them that have the sovereign power;there is no reason men should be the less obliged by it when it is propounded in the name of God.Besides,there is no place in the world where men are permitted to pretend other commandments of God than are declared for such by the Commonwealth.Christian states punish those that revolt from Christian religion;and all other states,those that set up any religion by them forbidden.For in whatsoever is not regulated by the Commonwealth,it is equity (which is the law of nature,and therefore an eternal law of God)that every man equally enjoy his liberty.
There is also another distinction of laws into fundamental and not fundamental:but I could never see in any author what a fundamental law signifieth.Nevertheless one may very reasonably distinguish laws in that manner.
For a fundamental law in every Commonwealth is that which,being taken away,the Commonwealth faileth and is utterly dissolved,as a building whose foundation is destroyed.And therefore a fundamental law is that by which subjects are bound to uphold whatsoever power is given to the sovereign,whether a monarch or a sovereign assembly,without which the Commonwealth cannot stand;such as is the power of war and peace,of judicature,of election of officers,and of doing whatsoever he shall think necessary for the public good.Not fundamental is that,the abrogating whereof draweth not with it the dissolution of the Commonwealth;such as are the laws concerning controversies between subject and subject.Thus much of the division of laws.
I find the words lex civilis and jus civile,that is to say,and law and right civil,promiscuously used for the same thing,even in the most learned authors;which nevertheless ought not to be so.For right is liberty,namely that liberty which the civil law leaves us:but civil law is an obligation,and takes from us the liberty which the law of nature gave us.Nature gave a right to every man to secure himself by his own strength,and to invade a suspected neighbour by way of prevention:but the civil law takes away that liberty,in all cases where the protection of the law may be safely stayed for.
Insomuch as lex and jus are as different as obligation and liberty.
Likewise laws and charters are taken promiscuously for the same thing.Yet charters are donations of the sovereign;and not laws,but exemptions from law.The phrase of a law is jubeo,injungo;Icommand and enjoin:the phrase of a charter is dedi,concessi;Ihave given,I have granted:but what is given or granted to a man is not forced upon him by a law.A law may be made to bind all the subjects of a Commonwealth:a liberty or charter is only to one man or some one part of the people.For to say all the people of a Commonwealth have liberty in any case whatsoever is to say that,in such case,there hath been no law made;or else,having been made,is now abrogated.
