God’s Natural Kingdom

That the condition of meer Nature, that is to say, of absolute Liberty, such as is theirs, that neither are Soveraigns, nor Subjects, is Anarchy, and the condition of Warre: That the Praecepts, by which men are guided to avoyd that condition, are the Lawes of Nature: That a Common-wealth, without Soveraign Power, is but a word, without substance, and cannot stand: That Subjects owe to Soveraigns, simple Obedience, in all things, wherein their obedience is not repugnant to the Lawes of God, I have sufficiently proved, in that which I have already written. There wants onely, for the entire knowledge of Civill duty, to know what are those Lawes of God. For without that, a man knows not, when he is commanded any thing by the Civill Power, whether it be contrary to the Law of God, or not: and so, either by too much civill obedience, offends the Divine Majesty, or through feare of offending God, transgresses the commandements of the Common-wealth. To avoyd both these Rocks, it is necessary to know what are the Lawes Divine. And seeing the knowledge of all Law, dependeth on the knowledge of the Soveraign Power; I shall say something in that which followeth, of the KINGDOME OF GOD.

The state of pure nature is a state of absolute liberty, where people are neither sovereigns nor subjects. Such a state is anarchy and a state of war. The rules that guide people away from that condition are the laws of nature. A commonwealth without sovereign power is only a word, with no substance, and cannot survive. Subjects owe sovereigns unqualified obedience in all things where their obedience does not conflict with the laws of God. I have sufficiently proved these points in what I have already written. Only one thing remains for a complete understanding of civic duty: knowing what the laws of God are. Without that knowledge, someone receiving a command from the civil authorities cannot know whether it contradicts God's law. As a result, excessive obedience to civil authority may offend God's majesty. Or fear of offending God may lead someone to disobey the commonwealth's commands. To avoid both these dangers, we must know what the divine laws are. And since knowledge of all law depends on knowledge of sovereign power, I will next discuss the KINGDOM OF GOD.

“God is King, let the Earth rejoice,” saith the Psalmist. (Psal. 96. 1). And again, “God is King though the Nations be angry; and he that sitteth on the Cherubins, though the earth be moved.” (Psal. 98. 1). Whether men will or not, they must be subject alwayes to the Divine Power. By denying the Existence, or Providence of God, men may shake off their Ease, but not their Yoke. But to call this Power of God, which extendeth it selfe not onely to Man, but also to Beasts, and Plants, and Bodies inanimate, by the name of Kingdome, is but a metaphoricall use of the word. For he onely is properly said to Raigne, that governs his Subjects, by his Word, and by promise of Rewards to those that obey it, and by threatning them with Punishment that obey it not. Subjects therefore in the Kingdome of God, are not Bodies Inanimate, nor creatures Irrationall; because they understand no Precepts as his: Nor Atheists; nor they that believe not that God has any care of the actions of mankind; because they acknowledge no Word for his, nor have hope of his rewards, or fear of his threatnings. They therefore that believe there is a God that governeth the world, and hath given Praecepts, and propounded Rewards, and Punishments to Mankind, are Gods Subjects; all the rest, are to be understood as Enemies.

“God is King, let the Earth rejoice,” says the Psalmist. (Psal. 96. 1). And again, “God is King though the Nations are angry. He sits on the Cherubim though the earth shakes.” (Psal. 98. 1). Whether people want to or not, they must always remain subject to God’s power. By denying God’s existence or care for the world, people may lose their peace of mind, but not escape his rule. But calling God’s power a kingdom uses the word only as a metaphor. His power extends not only to human beings, but also to animals, plants, and lifeless objects. For only someone who governs his subjects through his word can properly be said to reign. He must also promise rewards to those who obey his word and threaten punishment for those who disobey. So neither lifeless objects nor creatures without reason are subjects in God’s kingdom, because neither understands any commands as his. Nor are atheists, or people who do not believe God cares about human actions, subjects in his kingdom. For these people recognize no word as his, hope for none of his rewards, and fear none of his threats. God’s subjects, then, are those who believe that God exists, governs the world, and has given commands to humanity. They also believe he has set out rewards and punishments for humanity. All others must be understood as enemies.

To rule by Words, requires that such Words be manifestly made known; for else they are no Lawes: For to the nature of Lawes belongeth a sufficient, and clear Promulgation, such as may take away the excuse of Ignorance; which in the Lawes of men is but of one onely kind, and that is, Proclamation, or Promulgation by the voyce of man. But God declareth his Lawes three wayes; by the Dictates of Naturall Reason, By Revelation, and by the Voyce of some Man, to whom by the operation of Miracles, he procureth credit with the rest. From hence there ariseth a triple Word of God, Rational, Sensible, and Prophetique: to which Correspondeth a triple Hearing; Right Reason, Sense Supernaturall, and Faith. As for Sense Supernaturall, which consisteth in Revelation, or Inspiration, there have not been any Universall Lawes so given, because God speaketh not in that manner, but to particular persons, and to divers men divers things.

To rule through words, those words must be clearly made known. Otherwise, they are not laws. For laws must be announced clearly and widely enough to remove ignorance as an excuse. Human laws are made known in only one way: through public announcements made by a human voice. But God declares his laws in three ways: through the guidance of natural reason, through revelation, and through a person's voice. In the third case, God works miracles to make others believe the person speaking. From these ways of declaring laws come three forms of God's word: rational, directly perceived, and prophetic. Three forms of hearing correspond to these: right reason, supernatural perception, and faith. Supernatural perception consists of revelation or inspiration. No universal laws have been given in this way, because God speaks this way only to particular people. And he tells different people different things.

A Twofold Kingdome Of God, Naturall And Prophetique From the difference between the other two kinds of Gods Word, Rationall, and Prophetique, there may be attributed to God, a two-fold Kingdome, Naturall, and Prophetique: Naturall, wherein he governeth as many of Mankind as acknowledge his Providence, by the naturall Dictates of Right Reason; And Prophetique, wherein having chosen out one peculiar Nation (the Jewes) for his Subjects, he governed them, and none but them, not onely by naturall Reason, but by Positive Lawes, which he gave them by the mouths of his holy Prophets. Of the Naturall Kingdome of God I intend to speak in this Chapter.

God’s Twofold Kingdom: Natural and Prophetic. The distinction between the other two kinds of God’s word, rational and prophetic, suggests two kingdoms we may attribute to God. These kingdoms are natural and prophetic. In his natural kingdom, God governs all people who acknowledge his providence through the natural guidance of right reason. In his prophetic kingdom, God chose one particular nation (the Jews) as his subjects. He governed them, and no others, not only through natural reason but also through laws he expressly laid down. He gave these laws through his holy prophets. In this chapter, I intend to discuss God’s natural kingdom.

The Right Of Gods Soveraignty Is Derived From His Omnipotence The Right of Nature, whereby God reigneth over men, and punisheth those that break his Lawes, is to be derived, not from his Creating them, as if he required obedience, as of Gratitude for his benefits; but from his Irresistible Power. I have formerly shewn, how the Soveraign Right ariseth from Pact: To shew how the same Right may arise from Nature, requires no more, but to shew in what case it is never taken away. Seeing all men by Nature had Right to All things, they had Right every one to reigne over all the rest. But because this Right could not be obtained by force, it concerned the safety of every one, laying by that Right, to set up men (with Soveraign Authority) by common consent, to rule and defend them: whereas if there had been any man of Power Irresistible; there had been no reason, why he should not by that Power have ruled, and defended both himselfe, and them, according to his own discretion. To those therefore whose Power is irresistible, the dominion of all men adhaereth naturally by their excellence of Power; and consequently it is from that Power, that the Kingdome over men, and the Right of afflicting men at his pleasure, belongeth Naturally to God Almighty; not as Creator, and Gracious; but as Omnipotent. And though Punishment be due for Sinne onely, because by that word is understood Affliction for Sinne; yet the Right of Afflicting, is not alwayes derived from mens Sinne, but from Gods Power.

God’s Right to Sovereignty Comes from His Unlimited Power God’s natural right to rule over human beings and punish those who break his laws comes from his irresistible power. This right does not come from creating them, as if they owed him obedience out of gratitude for his gifts. I have already shown how sovereign right arises from an agreement. To show how the same right can arise from nature, we need only show when that right is never surrendered. Since all people naturally had a right to all things, each had a right to rule over everyone else. But no one could enforce this right by force. So everyone’s safety required them to give up that right. By common consent, they appointed people with sovereign authority to rule and defend them. But suppose someone had possessed irresistible power. There would have been no reason why he should not have used that power to rule and defend everyone, including himself. He could have done so according to his own judgment. Those with irresistible power therefore naturally have dominion over all people because of their superior power. Consequently, God Almighty’s rule over human beings, and his right to make them suffer at his pleasure, naturally come from that power. These rights belong to him not because he is the Creator or because he is gracious, but because he is all-powerful. And although punishment is due only for sin, this is because “punishment” means suffering imposed for sin. Yet the right to impose suffering does not always come from human sin, but from God’s power.

This question, “Why Evill men often Prosper, and Good men suffer Adversity,” has been much disputed by the Antient, and is the same with this of ours, “By what Right God dispenseth the Prosperities and Adversities of this life;” and is of that difficulty, as it hath shaken the faith, not onely of the Vulgar, but of Philosophers, and which is more, of the Saints, concerning the Divine Providence. “How Good,” saith David, “is the God of Israel to those that are Upright in Heart; and yet my feet were almost gone, my treadings had well-nigh slipt; for I was grieved at the Wicked, when I saw the Ungodly in such Prosperity.” And Job, how earnestly does he expostulate with God, for the many Afflictions he suffered, notwithstanding his Righteousnesse? This question in the case of Job, is decided by God himselfe, not by arguments derived from Job’s Sinne, but his own Power. For whereas the friends of Job drew their arguments from his Affliction to his Sinne, and he defended himselfe by the conscience of his Innocence, God himselfe taketh up the matter, and having justified the Affliction by arguments drawn from his Power, such as this “Where was thou when I layd the foundations of the earth,” and the like, both approved Job’s Innocence, and reproved the Erroneous doctrine of his friends. Conformable to this doctrine is the sentence of our Saviour, concerning the man that was born Blind, in these words, “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his fathers; but that the works of God might be made manifest in him.” And though it be said “That Death entred into the world by sinne,” (by which is meant that if Adam had never sinned, he had never dyed, that is, never suffered any separation of his soule from his body,) it follows not thence, that God could not justly have Afflicted him, though he had not Sinned, as well as he afflicteth other living creatures, that cannot sinne.

The ancient thinkers often debated the question, “Why do evil people often prosper, while good people suffer hardship?” It is the same as our question, “By what right does God distribute prosperity and hardship in this life?” The question is so difficult that it has shaken people's faith in divine providence. Not only ordinary people, but philosophers and even saints have struggled with it. “How good,” says David, “is the God of Israel to those whose hearts are upright. Yet my feet had almost given way, and my steps had nearly slipped. For I was distressed by the wicked when I saw the ungodly prosper.” And how earnestly Job challenges God over his many sufferings, despite his righteousness! In Job's case, God himself settles the question by appealing not to Job's sin, but to his own power. Job's friends argued that his suffering proved he had sinned. Job defended himself because he knew he was innocent. God himself then takes up the matter and justifies Job's suffering by appealing to his own power. He asks questions such as “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth”. In doing so, God both confirms Job's innocence and condemns his friends' mistaken teaching. Our Saviour's judgment about the man born blind agrees with this teaching: “Neither this man nor his parents sinned. Rather, he was born blind so that God's works might be revealed in him.” And although we are told “That death entered the world through sin,” this does not rule out suffering without sin. The statement means that if Adam had never sinned, he would never have died. In other words, his soul would never have been separated from his body. But it does not follow that God could not justly have made Adam suffer even if Adam had not sinned. After all, God makes other living creatures suffer, although they cannot sin.

Having spoken of the Right of Gods Soveraignty, as grounded onely on Nature; we are to consider next, what are the Divine Lawes, or Dictates of Naturall Reason; which Lawes concern either the naturall Duties of one man to another, or the Honour naturally due to our Divine Soveraign. The first are the same Lawes of Nature, of which I have spoken already in the 14. and 15. Chapters of this Treatise; namely, Equity, Justice, Mercy, Humility, and the rest of the Morall Vertues. It remaineth therefore that we consider, what Praecepts are dictated to men, by their Naturall Reason onely, without other word of God, touching the Honour and Worship of the Divine Majesty.

I have discussed God’s right to rule as grounded in nature alone. Next, we must consider the divine laws, or the commands of natural reason. These laws concern either people’s natural duties to one another or the honor naturally due to our divine sovereign. The first are the same laws of nature I discussed in Chapters 14 and 15 of this work. They include fairness, justice, mercy, humility, and the other moral virtues. So we must now consider what natural reason alone commands people to do in honoring and worshiping God’s majesty. We must consider these commands without relying on any other word of God.

Honour consisteth in the inward thought, and opinion of the Power, and Goodnesse of another: and therefore to Honour God, is to think as Highly of his Power and Goodnesse, as is possible. And of that opinion, the externall signes appearing in the Words, and Actions of men, are called Worship; which is one part of that which the Latines understand by the word Cultus: For Cultus signifieth properly, and constantly, that labour which a man bestowes on any thing, with a purpose to make benefit by it. Now those things whereof we make benefit, are either subject to us, and the profit they yeeld, followeth the labour we bestow upon them, as a naturall effect; or they are not subject to us, but answer our labour, according to their own Wills. In the first sense the labour bestowed on the Earth, is called Culture; and the education of Children a Culture of their mindes. In the second sense, where mens wills are to be wrought to our purpose, not by Force, but by Compleasance, it signifieth as much as Courting, that is, a winning of favour by good offices; as by praises, by acknowledging their Power, and by whatsoever is pleasing to them from whom we look for any benefit. And this is properly Worship: in which sense Publicola, is understood for a Worshipper of the People, and Cultus Dei, for the Worship of God.

Honour consists in our inner thoughts and opinions about another’s power and goodness. So to honour God is to think as highly as possible of his power and goodness. The outward signs of this opinion, expressed in people’s words and actions, are called worship. Worship is one part of what the Latins mean by the word Cultus. For Cultus properly and consistently means the work someone puts into something to gain a benefit from it. Now, the things we benefit from are either under our control or outside our control. Things under our control yield benefits as a natural result of the work we put into them. Things outside our control respond to our work according to their own wills. In the first sense, work done on the earth is called cultivation. Educating children is likewise a cultivation of their minds. In the second sense, we seek to turn people’s wills toward our purposes, not through force, but by pleasing them. Here, Cultus means courting, or winning favour through helpful acts. We do so through praise, by acknowledging their power, and by whatever pleases those from whom we expect some benefit. This is worship in the proper sense. In this sense, Publicola means a worshipper of the people, and Cultus Dei means the worship of God.

From internall Honour, consisting in the opinion of Power and Goodnesse, arise three Passions; Love, which hath reference to Goodnesse; and Hope, and Fear, that relate to Power: And three parts of externall worship; Praise, Magnifying, and Blessing: The subject of Praise, being Goodnesse; the subject of Magnifying, and Blessing, being Power, and the effect thereof Felicity. Praise, and Magnifying are significant both by Words, and Actions: By Words, when we say a man is Good, or Great: By Actions, when we thank him for his Bounty, and obey his Power. The opinion of the Happinesse of another, can onely be expressed by words.

Inner honor consists in believing someone has power and goodness. From this belief arise three emotions: love, hope, and fear. Love relates to goodness, while hope and fear relate to power. From the same belief also arise three outward forms of worship: praise, magnifying, and blessing. Praise concerns goodness. Magnifying and blessing concern power and the happiness power produces. Praise and magnifying can be expressed through both words and actions. We express them in words when we say someone is good or great. We express them in actions when we thank someone for his generosity and obey his power. The belief that another person is happy can only be expressed in words.

There be some signes of Honour, (both in Attributes and Actions,) that be Naturally so; as amongst Attributes, Good, Just, Liberall, and the like; and amongst Actions, Prayers, Thanks, and Obedience. Others are so by Institution, or Custome of men; and in some times and places are Honourable; in others Dishonourable; in others Indifferent: such as are the Gestures in Salutation, Prayer, and Thanksgiving, in different times and places, differently used. The former is Naturall; the later Arbitrary Worship.

Some signs of honor are natural, both in the qualities attributed to someone and in actions. Such qualities include goodness, justice, generosity, and the like. Such actions include prayers, thanks, and obedience. Other signs of honor are established by human rules or customs. These signs are honorable in some times and places, dishonorable in others, and neither in still others. Examples include gestures used in greeting, prayer, and thanksgiving, which vary across times and places. The first kind is natural worship. The second is worship determined by human choice.

And of Arbitrary Worship, there bee two differences: For sometimes it is a Commanded, sometimes Voluntary Worship: Commanded, when it is such as hee requireth, who is Worshipped: Free, when it is such as the Worshipper thinks fit. When it is Commanded, not the words, or gestures, but the obedience is the Worship. But when Free, the Worship consists in the opinion of the beholders: for if to them the words, or actions by which we intend honour, seem ridiculous, and tending to contumely; they are not Worship; because a signe is not a signe to him that giveth it, but to him to whom it is made; that is, to the spectator.

Worship based on choice has two forms: commanded worship and voluntary worship. Worship is commanded when the one being worshipped requires that form of worship. Worship is voluntary when the worshipper chooses whatever form seems fitting. When worship is commanded, obedience itself is the worship, not the words or gestures. But when worship is voluntary, whether it counts as worship depends on the observers’ judgment. For if the words or actions intended to show honor seem ridiculous and insulting to the observers, they are not worship. This is because a sign's meaning depends not on the person giving it, but on the person receiving it. In this case, that person is the observer.

Again, there is a Publique, and a Private Worship. Publique, is the Worship that a Common-wealth performeth, as one Person. Private, is that which a Private person exhibiteth. Publique, in respect of the whole Common-wealth, is Free; but in respect of Particular men it is not so. Private, is in secret Free; but in the sight of the multitude, it is never without some Restraint, either from the Lawes, or from the Opinion of men; which is contrary to the nature of Liberty.

Again, there is public worship and private worship. Public worship is worship performed by a commonwealth acting as a single person. Private worship is worship performed by an individual. Public worship is free for the commonwealth as a whole, but not for individual people. Private worship is free when practiced in secret. But in public, private worship is always subject to some restraint, either from laws or from people's opinions. Such restraint is contrary to the nature of liberty.

The End of Worship amongst men, is Power. For where a man seeth another worshipped he supposeth him powerfull, and is the readier to obey him; which makes his Power greater. But God has no Ends: the worship we do him, proceeds from our duty, and is directed according to our capacity, by those rules of Honour, that Reason dictateth to be done by the weak to the more potent men, in hope of benefit, for fear of dammage, or in thankfulnesse for good already received from them.

The purpose of worship among people is power. For when someone sees another person worshipped, he assumes that person is powerful and becomes more willing to obey him. That willingness makes the worshipped person even more powerful. But God has no purposes to achieve. We worship him out of duty, and we shape our worship according to our abilities. We follow the rules of honor that reason tells weaker people to observe toward more powerful people. People show such honor in hope of benefit, fear of harm, or gratitude for good already received from them.

That we may know what worship of God is taught us by the light of Nature, I will begin with his Attributes. Where, First, it is manifest, we ought to attribute to him Existence: For no man can have the will to honour that, which he thinks not to have any Beeing.

To understand what natural reason teaches us about worshipping God, I will begin with his attributes. First, we clearly ought to recognize that God exists. For no one can wish to honor anything they believe does not exist.

Secondly, that those Philosophers, who sayd the World, or the Soule of the World was God, spake unworthily of him; and denyed his Existence: For by God, is understood the cause of the World; and to say the World is God, is to say there is no cause of it, that is, no God.

Secondly, philosophers who said the world or the soul of the world was God spoke unworthily of him. They also denied his existence. For God is understood to be the cause of the world. So saying the world is God means saying the world has no cause, and therefore that there is no God.

Thirdly, to say the World was not Created, but Eternall, (seeing that which is Eternall has no cause,) is to deny there is a God.

Thirdly, to say the world was not created but has always existed is to deny that God exists. This is because anything that has always existed has no cause.

Fourthly, that they who attributing (as they think) Ease to God, take from him the care of Mankind; take from him his Honour: for it takes away mens love, and fear of him; which is the root of Honour.

Fourthly, those who think they are sparing God effort by denying his care for humanity rob him of honour. For denying God's care takes away people's love and fear of him, the foundation of honour.

Fifthly, in those things that signifie Greatnesse, and Power; to say he is Finite, is not to Honour him: For it is not a signe of the Will to Honour God, to attribute to him lesse than we can; and Finite, is lesse than we can; because to Finite, it is easie to adde more.

Fifth, in matters of greatness and power, saying God is finite does not honor him. For giving God less than we can give him does not show a desire to honor him. And calling God finite gives him less than we can, because we can easily add more to anything finite.

Therefore to attribute Figure to him, is not Honour; for all Figure is Finite:

Therefore, giving him a shape does not honor him, because all shapes are finite:

Nor to say we conceive, and imagine, or have an Idea of him, in our mind: for whatsoever we conceive is Finite:

Nor should we say we can conceive of him, imagine him, or form an idea of him in our minds. For everything we can conceive of is finite.

Not to attribute to him Parts, or Totality; which are the Attributes onely of things Finite:

Do not describe him as having parts or being a whole. These attributes apply only to finite things:

Nor to say he is this, or that Place: for whatsoever is in Place, is bounded, and Finite:

Nor should we say he is in this or that place. For whatever is in a place has boundaries and is finite.

Nor that he is Moved, or Resteth: for both these Attributes ascribe to him Place:

Nor should we say that he moves or rests, because both descriptions place him in a location:

Nor that there be more Gods than one; because it implies them all Finite: for there cannot be more than one Infinite: Nor to ascribe to him (unlesse Metaphorically, meaning not the Passion, but the Effect) Passions that partake of Griefe; as Repentance, Anger, Mercy: or of Want; as Appetite, Hope, Desire; or of any Passive faculty: For Passion, is Power limited by somewhat else.

Nor should we say there is more than one God, because that would make all gods finite. For there cannot be more than one infinite being. Nor should we attribute to God emotions involving grief, such as repentance, anger, or mercy. We may do so only metaphorically, meaning the effect, not the emotion itself. Nor should we attribute to him emotions involving need, such as appetite, hope, or desire. Nor should we attribute to him any capacity to be acted upon. For emotion is power limited by something else.

And therefore when we ascribe to God a Will, it is not to be understood, as that of Man, for a Rationall Appetite; but as the Power, by which he effecteth every thing.

So when we speak of God’s will, we do not mean a desire guided by reason, as in humans. Instead, we mean the power by which he brings everything about.

Likewise when we attribute to him Sight, and other acts of Sense; as also Knowledge, and Understanding; which in us is nothing else, but a tumult of the mind, raised by externall things that presse the organicall parts of mans body: For there is no such thing in God; and being things that depend on naturall causes, cannot be attributed to him.

The same applies when we attribute sight and other sensory activities to him, along with knowledge and understanding. In us, these are nothing but a disturbance of the mind caused by external things pressing on our bodily organs. For no such disturbance exists in God. And because these activities depend on natural causes, they cannot be attributed to him.

Hee that will attribute to God, nothing but what is warranted by naturall Reason, must either use such Negative Attributes, as Infinite, Eternall, Incomprehensible; or Superlatives, as Most High, Most Great, and the like; or Indefinite, as Good, Just, Holy, Creator; and in such sense, as if he meant not to declare what he is, (for that were to circumscribe him within the limits of our Fancy,) but how much wee admire him, and how ready we would be to obey him; which is a signe of Humility, and of a Will to honour him as much as we can: For there is but one Name to signifie our Conception of his Nature, and that is, I AM: and but one Name of his Relation to us, and that is God; in which is contained Father, King, and Lord.

Anyone who attributes to God only what natural reason supports must use certain kinds of descriptions. These may be negative terms, such as Infinite, Eternal, and Incomprehensible. Or they may be superlatives, such as Most High, Most Great, and the like. Or they may be indefinite terms, such as Good, Just, Holy, and Creator. Such descriptions must be used as if the speaker meant not to say what God is. For that would confine God within the limits of our imagination. Instead, the speaker must use them to express how much we admire God and how ready we are to obey him. This use of language shows humility and a desire to honor him as much as we can. For there is only one name that expresses our idea of his nature: I AM. And there is only one name for his relationship to us: God. That name includes Father, King, and Lord.

Concerning the actions of Divine Worship, it is a most generall Precept of Reason, that they be signes of the Intention to Honour God; such as are, First, Prayers: For not the Carvers, when they made Images, were thought to make them Gods; but the People that Prayed to them.

Reason gives a very general rule for acts of divine worship: these acts must show an intention to honor God. First among such acts are prayers. For the sculptors who made images were not thought to make those images into gods. Rather, the people who prayed to the images were thought to make those images into gods.

Secondly, Thanksgiving; which differeth from Prayer in Divine Worship, no otherwise, than that Prayers precede, and Thanks succeed the benefit; the end both of the one, and the other, being to acknowledge God, for Author of all benefits, as well past, as future.

Secondly, thanksgiving. In worship, thanksgiving differs from prayer only in coming after a benefit, while prayer comes before it. Both aim to acknowledge God as the source of all benefits, past and future.

Thirdly, Gifts; that is to say, Sacrifices, and Oblations, (if they be of the best,) are signes of Honour: for they are Thanksgivings.

Thirdly, gifts, meaning sacrifices and offerings, are signs of honor if the gifts are of the best quality. This is because such gifts express thanks.

Fourthly, Not to swear by any but God, is naturally a signe of Honour: for it is a confession that God onely knoweth the heart; and that no mans wit, or strength can protect a man against Gods vengence on the perjured.

Fourth, swearing only by God is naturally a sign of honor. For swearing this way acknowledges that God alone knows the heart. It also acknowledges that no one's intelligence or strength can protect anyone from God's vengeance for swearing falsely.

Fifthly, it is a part of Rationall Worship, to speak Considerately of God; for it argues a Fear of him, and Fear, is a confession of his Power. Hence followeth, That the name of God is not to be used rashly, and to no purpose; for that is as much, as in Vain: And it is to no purpose; unlesse it be by way of Oath, and by order of the Common-wealth, to make Judgements certain; or between Common-wealths, to avoyd Warre. And that disputing of Gods nature is contrary to his Honour: For it is supposed, that in this naturall Kingdome of God, there is no other way to know any thing, but by naturall Reason; that is, from the Principles of naturall Science; which are so farre from teaching us any thing of Gods nature, as they cannot teach us our own nature, nor the nature of the smallest creature living. And therefore, when men out of the Principles of naturall Reason, dispute of the Attributes of God, they but dishonour him: For in the Attributes which we give to God, we are not to consider the signification of Philosophicall Truth; but the signification of Pious Intention, to do him the greatest Honour we are able. From the want of which consideration, have proceeded the volumes of disputation about the Nature of God, that tend not to his Honour, but to the honour of our own wits, and learning; and are nothing else but inconsiderate, and vain abuses of his Sacred Name.

Fifthly, rational worship includes speaking thoughtfully about God. Such speech shows fear of him, and fear acknowledges his power. So God's name must not be used carelessly or without purpose, since doing so means using his name in vain. Using God's name serves no purpose unless used in an oath ordered by the commonwealth to make judgments certain. The other exception is an oath between commonwealths to prevent war. Arguing about God's nature is also contrary to honoring him. For in this natural kingdom of God, we assume that natural reason is our only means of knowing anything. Natural reason means reasoning from the principles of natural science. Yet these principles are far from teaching us anything about God's nature. They cannot even teach us our own nature or the nature of the smallest living creature. So when people use the principles of natural reason to debate God's attributes, they only dishonor him. For the attributes we give God should not be understood as statements of philosophical truth. Instead, they should express a devout intention to give him the greatest honor we can. Failure to recognize this distinction has produced volumes of debate about God's nature. These debates seek not to honor him, but to display our own intelligence and learning. They are nothing more than thoughtless and pointless abuses of his sacred name.

Sixthly, in Prayers, Thanksgivings, Offerings and Sacrifices, it is a Dictate of naturall Reason, that they be every one in his kind the best, and most significant of Honour. As for example, that Prayers, and Thanksgiving, be made in Words and Phrases, not sudden, nor light, nor Plebeian; but beautifull and well composed; For else we do not God as much honour as we can. And therefore the Heathens did absurdly, to worship Images for Gods: But their doing it in Verse, and with Musick, both of Voyce, and Instruments, was reasonable. Also that the Beasts they offered in sacrifice, and the Gifts they offered, and their actions in Worshipping, were full of submission, and commemorative of benefits received, was according to reason, as proceeding from an intention to honour him.

Sixth, natural reason tells us that prayers, thanksgivings, offerings, and sacrifices must each be the best of their kind. Each must express the greatest honor. For example, prayers and thanksgivings should not use words and phrases that are improvised, trivial, or common. Instead, the language should be beautiful and well composed. Otherwise, we do not give God as much honor as we can. So the pagans acted absurdly in worshipping images as gods. But using verse and music, both vocal and instrumental, in their worship was reasonable. The animals and gifts the pagans offered in sacrifice, and their acts of worship, also followed reason. These offerings and acts expressed complete submission and commemorated benefits received, since they came from an intention to honor God.

Seventhly, Reason directeth not onely to worship God in Secret; but also, and especially, in Publique, and in the sight of men: For without that, (that which in honour is most acceptable) the procuring others to honour him, is lost.

Seventh, reason directs us to worship God not only in private, but especially in public, where others can see us. For without public worship, we lose the chance to encourage others to honor him. Encouraging others to honor him is the most pleasing form of honor.

Lastly, Obedience to his Lawes (that is, in this case to the Lawes of Nature,) is the greatest worship of all. For as Obedience is more acceptable to God than sacrifice; so also to set light by his Commandements, is the greatest of all contumelies. And these are the Lawes of that Divine Worship, which naturall Reason dictateth to private men.

Finally, obedience to God's laws is the greatest worship of all. In this case, his laws are the laws of nature. For just as obedience is more acceptable to God than sacrifice, treating his commandments lightly is the greatest insult of all. These are the laws of divine worship that natural reason teaches private individuals.

But seeing a Common-wealth is but one Person, it ought also to exhibite to God but one Worship; which then it doth, when it commandeth it to be exhibited by Private men, Publiquely. And this is Publique Worship; the property whereof, is to be Uniforme: For those actions that are done differently, by different men, cannot be said to be a Publique Worship. And therefore, where many sorts of Worship be allowed, proceeding from the different Religions of Private men, it cannot be said there is any Publique Worship, nor that the Common-wealth is of any Religion at all.

But since a commonwealth is a single person, it should also offer God a single form of worship. The commonwealth does so when it commands private individuals to perform that worship publicly. This is public worship, and its defining feature is uniformity. For actions performed differently by different people cannot be called public worship. Therefore, where many forms of worship are allowed because private individuals follow different religions, there is no public worship. Nor can the commonwealth be said to have any religion at all.

And because words (and consequently the Attributes of God) have their signification by agreement, and constitution of men; those Attributes are to be held significative of Honour, that men intend shall so be; and whatsoever may be done by the wills of particular men, where there is no Law but Reason, may be done by the will of the Common-wealth, by Lawes Civill. And because a Common-wealth hath no Will, nor makes no Lawes, but those that are made by the Will of him, or them that have the Soveraign Power; it followeth, that those Attributes which the Soveraign ordaineth, in the Worship of God, for signes of Honour, ought to be taken and used for such, by private men in their publique Worship.

Words get their meaning from human agreement and convention, and so do the attributes used to describe God. Therefore, attributes must be understood as expressing honor when people intend them to express honor. Where no law exists except reason, individuals may decide such matters by their own wills. So the Commonwealth may make the same decisions through civil laws. But a Commonwealth has no will and makes no laws except through the will of whoever holds sovereign power. Therefore, the attributes the sovereign prescribes as signs of honor in the worship of God must be accepted as such. Private individuals must understand and use those attributes as signs of honor in their public worship.

But because not all Actions are signes by Constitution; but some are Naturally signes of Honour, others of Contumely, these later (which are those that men are ashamed to do in the sight of them they reverence) cannot be made by humane power a part of Divine worship; nor the former (such as are decent, modest, humble Behaviour) ever be separated from it. But whereas there be an infinite number of Actions, and Gestures, of an indifferent nature; such of them as the Common-wealth shall ordain to be Publiquely and Universally in use, as signes of Honour, and part of Gods Worship, are to be taken and used for such by the Subjects. And that which is said in the Scripture, “It is better to obey God than men,” hath place in the kingdome of God by Pact, and not by Nature.

But not all actions are signs by agreement. Some are naturally signs of honor, while others are naturally signs of contempt. The latter are actions people are ashamed to perform before those they respect. Because these actions naturally express contempt, no human authority can make them part of divine worship. Nor can naturally honorable actions, such as decent, modest, humble behavior, ever be separated from divine worship. But there are countless actions and gestures that are neither naturally honorable nor naturally contemptuous. The Commonwealth may require some of these to be used publicly and universally as signs of honor and parts of God’s worship. Its subjects must then accept and use those actions and gestures for those purposes. And Scripture’s statement, “It is better to obey God than men,” applies in God’s kingdom established by covenant, not by nature.

Having thus briefly spoken of the Naturall Kingdome of God, and his Naturall Lawes, I will adde onely to this Chapter a short declaration of his Naturall Punishments. There is no action of man in this life, that is not the beginning of so long a chayn of Consequences, as no humane Providence, is high enough, to give a man a prospect to the end. And in this Chayn, there are linked together both pleasing and unpleasing events; in such manner, as he that will do any thing for his pleasure, must engage himselfe to suffer all the pains annexed to it; and these pains, are the Naturall Punishments of those actions, which are the beginning of more Harme that Good. And hereby it comes to passe, that Intemperance, is naturally punished with Diseases; Rashnesse, with Mischances; Injustice, with the Violence of Enemies; Pride, with Ruine; Cowardise, with Oppression; Negligent government of Princes, with Rebellion; and Rebellion, with Slaughter. For seeing Punishments are consequent to the breach of Lawes; Naturall Punishments must be naturally consequent to the breach of the Lawes of Nature; and therfore follow them as their naturall, not arbitrary effects.

Having briefly discussed God’s natural kingdom and his natural laws, I will add only a short explanation of his natural punishments to this chapter. Every human action in this life begins a chain of consequences too long for any human foresight to see its end. This chain links pleasant and unpleasant events together. So anyone who acts for pleasure must accept all the pains that come with that action. These pains are the natural punishments of actions that lead to more harm than good. This is why excess is naturally punished with disease, recklessness with misfortune, injustice with violence from enemies, and pride with ruin. Cowardice is naturally punished with oppression, careless government by rulers with rebellion, and rebellion with slaughter. For punishments follow the breaking of laws. Natural punishments must therefore follow naturally from breaking the laws of nature. They are the natural effects of breaking those laws, not penalties imposed by choice.

And thus farre concerning the Constitution, Nature, and Right of Soveraigns; and concerning the Duty of Subjects, derived from the Principles of Naturall Reason. And now, considering how different this Doctrine is, from the Practise of the greatest part of the world, especially of these Western parts, that have received their Morall learning from Rome, and Athens; and how much depth of Morall Philosophy is required, in them that have the Administration of the Soveraign Power; I am at the point of believing this my labour, as uselesse, and the Common-wealth of Plato; For he also is of opinion that it is impossible for the disorders of State, and change of Governments by Civill Warre, ever to be taken away, till Soveraigns be Philosophers. But when I consider again, that the Science of Naturall Justice, is the onely Science necessary for Soveraigns, and their principall Ministers; and that they need not be charged with the Sciences Mathematicall, (as by Plato they are,) further, than by good Lawes to encourage men to the study of them; and that neither Plato, nor any other Philosopher hitherto, hath put into order, and sufficiently, or probably proved all the Theoremes of Morall doctrine, that men may learn thereby, both how to govern, and how to obey; I recover some hope, that one time or other, this writing of mine, may fall into the hands of a Soveraign, who will consider it himselfe, (for it is short, and I think clear,) without the help of any interested, or envious Interpreter; and by the exercise of entire Soveraignty, in protecting the Publique teaching of it, convert this Truth of Speculation, into the Utility of Practice.

So far, I have discussed the structure, nature, and rights of sovereigns, and the duties of subjects. I have drawn these duties from the principles of natural reason. Now I consider how different this teaching is from the practice of most of the world. This is especially true of these Western regions, which have learned their moral principles from Rome and Athens. I also consider how deeply those who exercise sovereign power must understand moral philosophy. These thoughts bring me close to believing my work is as useless as Plato’s Commonwealth. For Plato also believes that political disorder and changes of government through civil war can never end until sovereigns become philosophers. But then I consider that the science of natural justice is the only science sovereigns and their chief ministers need. They need not be burdened with studying mathematics, as Plato requires. They need only encourage others to study mathematics through good laws. Moreover, neither Plato nor any other philosopher so far has systematically arranged all the principles of moral teaching. Nor has any philosopher proved all these principles adequately, or even shown them to be probable. Such teaching would enable people to learn both how to govern and how to obey. These thoughts restore some hope that, sooner or later, my writing may reach a sovereign who will consider it personally. For it is short and, I think, clear. I hope this sovereign will read it without help from any interpreter with a personal interest or envious motives. By exercising full sovereign power to protect the public teaching of my work, this sovereign may turn theoretical truth into practical benefit.