1. We have already in the foregoing chapters, proved both by reason and testimonies of holy writ, that the estate of nature, that is to say, of absolute liberty, such as is theirs who neither govern nor are governed, is an anarchy or hostile state; that the precepts whereby to avoid this state, are the laws of nature; that there can be no civil government without a sovereign; and that they who have gotten this sovereign command, must be obeyed simply, that is to say, in all things which repugn not the commandments of God. There is this one thing only wanting to the complete understanding of all civil duty, and that is, to know which are the laws and commandments of God. For else we cannot tell whether that which the civil power commands us, be against the laws of God, or not; whence it must necessarily happen, that either by too much obedience to the civil authority we become stubborn against the divine Majesty; or for fear of sinning against God we run into disobedience against the civil power. To avoid both these rocks, it is necessary to know the divine laws. Now because the knowledge of the laws depends on the knowledge of the kingdom, we must in what follows speak somewhat concerning the kingdom of God.

2. The Lord is king, the earth may be glad thereof; saith the psalmist, (Psalm xcvii. 1). And again the same psalmist, (Psalm xcix. 1): The Lord is king, be the people never so impatient; he sitteth between the cherubims, be the earth never so unquiet; to wit, whether men will or not, God is the king over all the earth; nor is he moved from his throne, if there be any who deny either his existence or his providence. Now although God govern all men so by his power, that none can do anything which he would not have done: yet this, to speak properly and accurately, is not to reign. For he is said to reign, who rules not by acting, but speaking, that is to say, by precepts and threatenings. And therefore we count not inanimate nor irrational bodies for subjects in the kingdom of God, although they be subordinate to the divine power; because they understand not the commands and threats of God: nor yet the atheists, because they believe not that there is a God; nor yet those who believing there is a God, do not yet believe that he rules these inferior things: for even these, although they be governed by the power of God, yet do they not acknowledge any of his commands, nor stand in awe of his threats. Those only therefore are supposed to belong to God’s kingdom, who acknowledge him to be the governor of all things, and that he hath given his commands to men, and appointed punishments for the transgressors. The rest we must not call subjects, but enemies of God.

3. But none are said to govern by commands, but they who openly declare them to those who are governed by them. For the commands of the rulers, are the laws of the ruled; but laws they are not, if not perspicuously published, insomuch as all excuse of ignorance may be taken away. Men indeed publish their laws by word or voice; neither can they make their will universally known any other way. But God’s laws are declared after a threefold manner: first, by the tacit dictates of right reason; next, by immediate revelation, which is supposed to be done either by a supernatural voice, or by a vision or dream, or divine inspiration; thirdly, by the voice of one man, whom God recommends to the rest, as worthy of belief, by the working of true miracles. Now he whose voice God thus makes use of to signify his will unto others, is called a prophet. These three manners may be termed the threefold word of God, to wit, the rational word, the sensible word, and the word of prophecy. To which answer the three manners whereby we are said to hear God; right reasoning, sense, and faith. God’s sensible word hath come but to few; neither hath God spoken to men by revelation, except particularly to some, and to diverse diversely; neither have any laws of his kingdom been published on this manner unto any people.

4. And according to the difference which is between the rational word and the word of prophecy, we attribute a two-fold kingdom unto God: natural, in which he reigns by the dictates of right reason; and which is universal over all who acknowledge the divine power, by reason of that rational nature which is common to all: and prophetical, in which he rules also by the word of prophecy; which is peculiar, because he hath not given positive laws to all men, but to his peculiar people and some certain men elected by him.

5. God in his natural kingdom hath a right to rule, and to punish those who break his laws, from his sole irresistible power. For all right over others is either from nature, or from contract. How the right of governing springs from contract, we have already showed in chap. VI. And the same right is derived from nature, in this very thing, that it is not by nature taken away. For when by nature all men had a right over all things, every man had a right of ruling over all as ancient as nature itself. But the reason why this was abolished among men, was no other but mutual fear, as hath been declared above in chap. II. art. 3; reason, namely, dictating that they must forego that right for the preservation of mankind; because the equality of men among themselves, according to their strength and natural powers, was necessarily accompanied with war; and with war joins the destruction of mankind. Now if any man had so far exceeded the rest in power, that all of them with joined forces could not have resisted him, there had been no cause why he should part with that right, which nature had given him. The right therefore of dominion over all the rest would have remained with him, by reason of that excess of power whereby he could have preserved both himself and them. They therefore whose power cannot be resisted, and by consequence God Almighty derives his right of sovereignty from the power itself. And as oft as God punisheth or slays a sinner, although he therefore punish him because he sinned, yet may we not say that he could not justly have punished or killed him although he had not sinned. Neither, if the will of God in punishing may perhaps have regard to some sin antecedent, doth it therefore follow, that the right of afflicting and killing depends not on divine power, but on men’s sins.

6. That question made famous by the disputations of the ancients: why evil things befal the good, and good things the evil: is the same with this of ours; by what right God dispenseth good and evil things unto men; and with its difficulty it not only staggers the faith of the vulgar concerning the divine Providence, but also philosophers, and which is more, even of holy men. Psalm lxxiii. 1, 2, 3: Truly God is good to Israel, even to such as are of a clean heart; but as for me, my feet were almost gone, my steps had well nigh slipped. And why? I was grieved at the wicked; I do also see the ungodly in such prosperity. And how bitterly did Job expostulate with God, that being just he should yet be afflicted with so many calamities! God himself with open voice resolved this difficulty in the case of Job, and hath confirmed his right by arguments drawn not from Job’s sin, but from his own power. For Job and his friends had argued so among themselves; that they would needs make him guilty, because he was punished; and he would reprove their accusation by arguments fetched from his own innocence. But God, when he had heard both him and them, refutes his expostulation, not by condemning him of injustice or any sin, but by declaring his own power, (Job xxxviii. 4): Where wast thou (says he) when I laid the foundation of the earth, &c. And for his friends, God pronounces himself angry against them (Job. xlii. 7): Because they had not spoken of him the thing that is right, like his servant Job. Agreeable to this is that speech of our Saviour’s in the man’s case who was born blind: when his disciples asking him whether he or his parents had sinned, that he was born blind, he answered, (John ix. 3): Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be manifest in him. For though it be said, (Rom. v. 12), that death entered into the world by sin: it follows not but that God by his right might have made men subject to diseases and death, although they had never sinned; even as he hath made the other animals mortal and sickly, although they cannot sin.

7. Now if God have the right of sovereignty from his power, it is manifest that the obligation of yielding him obedience lies on men by reason of their weakness.^[18] For that obligation which rises from contract, of which we have spoken in chap. II. can have no place here; where the right of ruling, no covenant passing between, rises only from nature. But there are two species of natural obligation. One, when liberty is taken away by corporal impediments, according to which we say that heaven and earth, and all creatures, do obey the common laws of their creation. The other, when it is taken away by hope or fear, according to which the weaker, despairing of his own power to resist, cannot but yield to the stronger. From this last kind of obligation, that is to say, from fear or conscience of our own weakness in respect of the divine power, it comes to pass that we are obliged to obey God in his natural kingdom; reason dictating to all, acknowledging the divine power and providence, that there is no kicking against the pricks.

8. Because the word of God, ruling by nature only, is supposed to be nothing else but right reason, and the laws of kings can be known by their word only; it is manifest that the laws of God, ruling by nature alone, are only the natural laws; namely, those which we have set down in chaps. II. and III. and deduced from the dictates of reason, humility, equity, justice, mercy; and other moral virtues befriending peace, which pertain to the discharge of the duties of men one toward the other; and those which right reason shall dictate besides, concerning the honour and worship of the Divine Majesty. We need not repeat what those natural laws or moral virtues are; but we must see what honours and what divine worship, that is to say, what sacred laws the same natural reason doth dictate.

9. Honour to speak properly, is nothing else but an opinion of another’s power joined with goodness; and to honour a man, is the same with highly esteeming him: and so honour is not in the party honoured, but in the honourer. Now three passions do necessarily follow honour thus placed in opinion; love, which refers to goodness; hope and fear, which regard power. And from these arise all outward actions, wherewith the powerful are appeased and become propitious; and which are the effects, and therefore also the natural signs of honour itself. But the word honour is transferred also to those outward effects of honour; in which sense, we are said to honour him, of whose power we testify ourselves, either in word or deed, to have a very great respect; insomuch as honour is the same with worship. Now worship is an outward act, the sign of inward honour; and whom we endeavour by our homage to appease if they be angry, or howsoever to make them favourable to us, we are said to worship.

10. All signs of the mind are either words or deeds; and therefore all worship consists either in words or deeds. Now both the one and the other are referred to three kinds; whereof the first is praise, or public declaration of goodness; the second a public declaration of present power, which is to magnify, μεγάλυνειν; the third is a public declaration of happiness, or of power secure also for the future, which is called μακαρισμὸς. I say that all kinds of honour may be discerned, not in words only, but in deeds too. But we then praise and celebrate in words, when we do it by way of proposition, or dogmatically, that is to say, by attributes or titles; which may be termed praising and celebrating categorically and plainly; as when we declare him whom we honour to be liberal, strong, wise. And then in deeds, when it is done by consequence or by hypothesis or supposition; as by thanksgiving, which supposeth goodness; or by obedience, which supposeth power; or by congratulation, which supposeth happiness.

11. Now whether we desire to praise a man in words or deeds, we shall find some things which signify honour with all men: such as among attributes, are the general words of virtues and powers, which cannot be taken in ill sense; as good, fair, strong, just, and the like: and among actions, obedience, thanksgiving, prayers, and others of that kind, by which an acknowledgment of virtue and power is ever understood. Others, which signify honour but with some, and scorn with others, or else neither; such as in attributes, are those words, which, according to the diversity of opinions, are diversely referred to virtues or vices, to honest or dishonest things. As that a man slew his enemy, that he fled, that he is a philosopher, or an orator, and the like; which with some are had in honour, with others in contempt. In deeds, such as depend on the custom of the place, or prescriptions of civil laws; as in saluting to be bareheaded, to put off the shoes, to bend the body, to petition for anything standing, prostrate, kneeling, forms of ceremony, and the like. Now that worship which is always and by all men accounted honourable, may be called natural; the other, which follows places and customs, arbitrary.

12. Furthermore, worship may be enjoined, to wit, by the command of him that is worshipped, and it may be voluntary, namely, such as seems good to the worshipper. If it be enjoined, the actions expressing it do not signify honour, as they signify actions, but as they are enjoined: for they signify obedience immediately, obedience power; insomuch as worship enjoined consists in obedience. Voluntary is honourable only in the nature of the actions; which if they do signify honour to the beholders, it is worship, if not, it is reproach. Again, worship may be either public or private. But public, respecting each single worshipper, may not be voluntary; respecting the city, it may. For seeing that which is done voluntarily, depends on the will of the doer, there would not one worship be given, but as many worships as worshippers; except the will of all men were united by the command of one. But private worship may be voluntary, if it be done secretly; for what is done openly, is restrained either by laws or through modesty; which is contrary to the nature of a voluntary action.

13. Now that we may know what the scope and end of worshipping others is, we must consider the cause why men delight in worship. And we must grant what we have showed elsewhere; that joy consists in this, that a man contemplates virtue, strength, science, beauty, friends, or any power whatsoever, as being, or as though it were his own; and it is nothing else but a glory or triumph of the mind, conceiving itself honoured, that is to say, loved and feared, that is to say, having the services and assistances of men in readiness. Now because men believe him to be powerful, whom they see honoured, that is to say, esteemed powerful by others; it falls out that honour is increased by worship; and by the opinion of power true power is acquired. His end therefore, who either commands or suffers himself to be worshipped, is, that by this means he may acquire as many as he can, either through love or fear, to be obedient unto him.

14. But that we may understand what manner of worship of God natural reason doth assign us, let us begin from his attributes. Where first, it is manifest that existence is to be allowed him; for there can be no will to honour him, who, we think, hath no being. Next, those philosophers who said, that God was the world or the world’s soul, that is to say, a part of it, spake unworthily of God; for they attribute nothing to him, but wholly deny his being. For by the word God we understand the world’s cause. But in saying that the world is God, they say that it hath no cause, that is as much as there is no God. In like manner, they who maintain the world not to be created, but eternal; because there can be no cause of an eternal thing, in denying the world to have a cause, they deny also that there is a God. They also have a wretched apprehension of God, who imputing idleness to him, do take from him the government of the world and of mankind. For say, they should acknowledge him omnipotent; yet if he mind not these inferior things, that same thread-bare sentence will take place with them: quod supra nos, nihil ad nos; what is above us, doth not concern us. And seeing there is nothing for which they should either love or fear him, truly he will be to them as though he were not at all. Moreover, in attributes which signify greatness or power, those which signify some finite or limited thing, are not signs at all of an honouring mind. For we honour not God worthily, if we ascribe less power or greatness to him than possibly we can. But every finite thing is less than we can; for most easily we may always assign and attribute more to a finite thing. No shape therefore must be assigned to God, for all shape is finite; nor must he be said to be conceived or comprehended by imagination, or any other faculty of our soul; for whatsoever we conceive is finite. And although this word infinite signify a conception of the mind, yet it follows not that we have any conception of an infinite thing. For when we say that a thing is infinite, we signify nothing really, but the impotency in our own mind; as if we should say, we know not whether or where it is limited. Neither speak they honourably enough of God, who say we have an idea of him in our mind: for an idea is our conception; but conception we have none, except of a finite thing. Nor they, who say that he hath parts, or that he is some certain entire thing; which are also attributes of finite things. Nor that he is in any place; for nothing can be said to be in a place, but what hath bounds and limits of its greatness on all sides. Nor that he is moved or is at rest; for either of them suppose a being in some place. Nor that there are many Gods; because not many infinites. Furthermore, concerning attributes of happiness, those are unworthy of God which signify sorrow; (unless they be taken not for any passion, but, by a metonomy, for the effect); such as repentance, anger, pity. Or want; as appetite, hope, concupiscence, and that love which is also called lust; for they are signs of poverty; since it cannot be understood that a man should desire, hope, and wish for aught, but what he wants and stands in need of. Or any passive faculty; for suffering belongs to a limited power, and which depends upon another. When we therefore attribute a will to God, it is not to be conceived like unto ours, which is called a rational desire; (for if God desires, he wants, which for any man to say, is a contumely); but we must suppose some resemblance which we cannot conceive. In like manner when we attribute sight and other acts of the sense to him, or knowledge, or understanding, which in us are nothing else but a tumult of the mind, raised from outward objects pressing the organs; we must not think that any such thing befalls the Deity; for it is a sign of power depending upon some other, which is not the most blessed thing. He therefore who would not ascribe any other titles to God than what reason commands, must use such as are either negative, as infinite, eternal, incomprehensible, &c.; or superlative, as most good, most great, most powerful, &c.; or indefinite, as good, just, strong, creator, king, and the like; in such sense, as not desiring to declare what he is; (which were to circumscribe him within the narrow limits of our phantasy); but to confess his own admiration and obedience, which is the property of humility and of a mind yielding all the honour it possibly can do. For reason dictates one name alone which doth signify the nature of God, that is, existent, or simply, that he is; and one in order to, and in relation to us, namely God, under which is contained both King, and Lord, and Father.

15. Concerning the outward actions wherewith God is to be worshipped, as also concerning his titles; it is a most general command of reason, that they be signs of a mind yielding honour. Under which are contained in the first place, prayers.

In the seventh, that God must be worshipped not privately only, but openly and publicly in the sight of all men; because that worship is so much more acceptable, by how much it begets honour and esteem in others; as hath been declared before in art. 13. Unless others therefore see it, that which is most pleasing in our worship vanisheth.

In the last place, that we use our best endeavour to keep the laws of nature. For the undervaluing of our master’s command, exceeds all other affronts whatsoever; as on the other side, obedience is more acceptable than all other sacrifices.

And these are principally the natural laws concerning the worship of God; those, I mean, which reason dictates to every man. But to whole cities, every one whereof is one person, the same natural reason further commands an uniformity of public worship. For the actions done by particular persons, according to their private reasons, are not the city’s actions; and therefore not the city’s worship. But what is done by the city, is understood to be done by the command of him or them who have the sovereignty; wherefore also together with the consent of all the subjects, that is to say, uniformly.

16. The natural laws set down in the foregoing article concerning the divine worship, only command the giving of natural signs of honour. But we must consider that there are two kinds of signs; the one natural; the other done upon agreement, or by express or tacit composition. Now because in every language the use of words and names come by appointment, it may also by appointment be altered; for that which depends on and derives its force from the will of men, can by the will of the same men agreeing be changed again or abolished. Such names therefore as are attributed to God by the appointment of men, can by the same appointment be taken away. Now what can be done by the appointment of men, that the city may do. The city therefore by right, that is to say, they who have the power of the whole city, shall judge what names or appellations are more, what less honourable for God; that is to say, what doctrines are to be held and professed concerning the nature of God and his operations. Now actions do signify not by men’s appointment, but naturally; even as the effects are signs of their causes. Whereof some are always signs of scorn to them before whom they are committed; as those whereby the body’s uncleanness is discovered, and whatsoever men are ashamed to do before those whom they respect. Others are always signs of honour, as to draw near and discourse decently and humbly, to give way or to yield in any matter of private benefit. In these actions the city can alter nothing. But there are infinite others, which, as much as belongs to honour or reproach, are indifferent. Now these, by the institution of the city, may both be made signs of honour, and being made so, do in very deed become so. From whence we may understand, that we must obey the city in whatsoever it shall command to be used for a sign of honouring God, that is to say, for worship; provided it can be instituted for a sign of honour; because that is a sign of honour, which by the city’s command is used for such.

17. We have already declared which were the laws of God, as well sacred as secular, in his government by the way of nature only. Now because there is no man but may be deceived in reasoning, and that it so falls out that men are of different opinions concerning the most actions; it may be demanded further, whom God would have to be the interpreter of right reason, that is to say, of his laws. And as for the secular laws, (I mean those which concern justice and the carriage of men towards men), by what hath been said before of the constitution of a city, we have demonstratively showed it agreeable to reason, that all judicature belongs to the city; and that judicature is nothing else but an interpretation of the laws; and by consequence, that every where cities, that is to say, those who have the sovereign power, are the interpreters of the laws. As for the sacred laws, we must consider what hath been before demonstrated in chap. V. art. 13, that every subject hath transferred as much right as he could on him or them who had the supreme authority. But he could have transferred his right of judging the manner how God is to be honoured; and therefore also he hath done it. That he could, it appears hence; that the manner of honouring God before the constitution of a city, was to be fetched from every man’s private reason. But every man can subject his private reason to the reason of the whole city. Moreover, if each man should follow his own reason in the worshipping of God, in so great a diversity of worshippers one would be apt to judge another’s worship uncomely, or impious; neither would the one seem to the other to honour God. Even that therefore which were most consonant to reason, would not be a worship; because that the nature of worship consists in this, that it be the sign of inward honour. But there is no sign, but whereby somewhat becomes known to others; and therefore is there no sign of honour, but what seems so to others. Again, that is a true sign, which by the consent of men becomes a sign; therefore also that is honourable, which by the consent of men, that is to say, by the command of the city, becomes a sign of honour. It is not therefore against the will of God, declared by the way of reason only, to give him such signs of honour as the city shall command. Wherefore subjects can transfer their right of judging the manner of God’s worship, on him or them who have the sovereign power. Nay, they must do it; for else all manner of absurd opinions concerning the nature of God, and all ridiculous ceremonies which have been used by any nations, will be seen at once in the same city. Whence it will fall out, that every man will believe that all the rest do offer God an affront; so that it cannot be truly said of any, that he worships God; for no man worships God, that is to say, honours him outwardly, but he who doth those things, whereby he appears to others for to honour him. It may therefore be concluded, that the interpretation of all laws, as well sacred as secular, (God ruling by the way of nature only), depends on the authority of the city, that is to say, that man or counsel to whom the sovereign power is committed; and that whatsoever God commands, he commands by his voice. And on the other side, that whatsoever is commanded by them, both concerning the manner of honouring God, and concerning secular affairs, is commanded by God himself.

18. Against this, some man may demand, first, whether it doth not follow that the city must be obeyed, if it command us directly to affront God, or forbid us to worship him? I say, it does not follow, neither must we obey. For to affront, or not to worship at all, cannot by any man be understood for a manner of worshipping. Neither also had any one, before the constitution of a city, of those who acknowledge God to rule, a right to deny him the honour which was then due unto him; nor could he therefore transfer a right on the city of commanding any such things. Next, if it be demanded whether the city must be obeyed, if it command somewhat to be said or done, which is not a disgrace to God directly, but from whence by reasoning disgraceful consequences may be derived; as for example, if it were commanded to worship God in an image, before those who account that honourable: truly it is to be done.^[19] For worship is instituted in sign of honour; but to worship him thus, is a sign of honour, and increaseth God’s honour among those who do so account of it. Or if it be commanded to call God by a name, which we know not what it signifies, or how it can agree with this word God; that also must be done. For what we do for honour’s sake, (and we know no better), if it be taken for a sign of honour, it is a sign of honour; and therefore if we refuse to do it, we refuse the enlarging of God’s honour. The same judgment must be had of all the attributes and actions about the merely rational worship of God, which may be controverted and disputed. For though this kind of commands may be sometimes contrary to right reason, and therefore sins in them who command them; yet are they not against right reason, nor sins in subjects; whose right reason, in points of controversy, is that which submits itself to the reason of the city. Lastly, if that man or counsel who hath the supreme power, command himself to be worshipped with the same attributes and actions, wherewith God is to be worshipped; the question is, whether we must obey? There are many things, which may be commonly attributed both to God and men; for even men may be praised and magnified. And there are many actions, whereby God and men may be worshipped. But the significations of the attributes and actions are only to be regarded. Those attributes therefore, whereby we signify ourselves to be of an opinion, that there is any man endued with a sovereignty independent from God, or that he is immortal, or of infinite power, and the like; though commanded by princes, yet must they be abstained from. As also from those actions signifying the same; as prayer to the absent; to ask those things which God alone can give, as rain and fair weather; to offer him what God can only accept, as oblations, holocausts; or to give a worship, than which a greater cannot be given, as sacrifice. For these things seem to tend to this end, that God may not be thought to rule; contrary to what was supposed from the beginning. But genuflection, prostration, or any other act of the body whatsoever, may be lawfully used even in civil worship; for they may signify an acknowledgment of the civil power only. For divine worship is distinguished from civil, not by the motion, placing, habit, or gesture of the body, but by the declaration of our opinion of him whom we do worship. As if we cast down ourselves before any man, with intention of declaring by that sign that we esteem him as God, it is divine worship; if we do the same thing as a sign of our acknowledgment of the civil power, it is civil worship. Neither is the divine worship distinguished from civil, by any action usually understood by the words λατρεία and δουλεία; whereof the former marking out the duty of servants, the latter their destiny, they are words of the same action in degree.

19. From what hath been said may be gathered, that God reigning by the way of natural reason only, subjects do sin, first if they break the moral laws; which are unfolded in chapters II. and III. Secondly, if they break the laws or commands of the city, in those things which pertain to justice. Thirdly, if they worship not God κατὰ τὰ νόμικα Fourthly, if they confess not before men, both in words and deeds, that there is one God most good, most great, most blessed, the Supreme King of the world and of all worldly kings; that is to say, if they do not worship God. This fourth sin in the natural kingdom of God, by what hath been said in the foregoing chapter in art. 2, is the sin of treason against the Divine Majesty. For it is a denying of the Divine Power, or atheism. For sins proceed here, just as if we should suppose some man to be the sovereign king, who being himself absent, should rule by his viceroy. Against whom sure they would transgress, who should not obey his viceroy in all things; except he usurped the kingdom to himself, or would give it to some other. But they who should so absolutely obey him, as not to admit of this exception, might be said to be guilty of treason.