Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

12. Methinks 'tis an ignorant thing for a churchman to call himself the minister of Christ, because St. Paul, or the Apostles called themselves so. If one of them had a voice from heaven, as St. Paul had, I will grant he is a minister of Christ, and I will call him so too. Must they take upon them as the Apostles did? Can they do as the Apostles could? The Apostles had a mark to be known by, spoke tongues, cured diseases, trod upon serpents, &c. Can they do this? If a gentleman tell me he will send his man to 10 me, and I did not know his man, but he gave me this mark to know him by, he should bring in his hand a rich jewel; if a fellow came to me with a pebble-stone, had I any reason to believe that he was the gentleman's man?

LXXXIX.

MONEY.

1. MONEY makes a man laugh. A blind fiddler playing to a company, and playing but scurvily, the company laughed at him; his boy that led him, perceiving it, cried, Father, let us be gone, they do nothing but laugh at you. Hold thy peace, boy, says the fiddler, we shall have their 20 money presently, and then we will laugh at them.

2. Euclid was beaten in Boccaline, for teaching his

1. 21. Euclid was beaten, &c.] See Boccalini, I Ragguagli di Parnasso (Advertisements from Parnassus), Century II. Advert. 3; p. 201 in the Earl of Monmouth's translation.

The book is a curious medley. The scene is laid at Apollo's court on Parnassus—a great central Academy, at which news arrives, from time to time, of all dates, and from all quarters of the world (as e. g. in the text), and where various characters, ancient and modern, poets, philosophers, politicians, and historians, come up to be judged and have their proper rank assigned to them. It is a court of universal reference, open perpetually to hear complaints and to settle literary disputes. Sentence is given sometimes by Apollo in person, sometimes by his deputies. See also 'War,' sec. 11 and note.

scholars a mathematical figure in his schools, whereby he shewed that all the lives both of princes and private men tended to one centre, con gentilezza handsomely to get money out of other men's pockets, and put it into their

own.

3. The pope used heretofore to send the princes of Christendom to fight against the Turk; but prince and pope finely juggled together; the moneys were raised, and some men went out to the holy war, but commonly after they had got the money, the Turk was pretty quiet, and the prince and the pope shared it betwixt them.

4. In all times the princes in England have done something illegally, to get money. But then came a parliament, and all was well; the people and the prince kissed and were friends, and so things were quiet for a while. Afterwards there was another trick found out to get money, and after they had got it, another parliament was called to set all right, &c. But now they have so outrun the constable

ΙΟ

XC.

MORAL HONESTY.

20

THEY that cry down moral honesty, cry down that which is a great part of religion, my duty towards God, and my duty toward man. What care I to see a man run after a sermon, if he cozen and cheat me as soon as he comes home? On the other side, morality must not be without religion, for if so, it may change, as I see convenience. Religion must govern it. He that has not religion to X govern his morality, is not a dram better than my mastiffdog; so long as you stroke him, and please him, and do not pinch him, he will play with you as finely as may be, 30 he's a very good moral mastiff; but if you hurt him, he will fly in your face, and tear out your throat.

XCI.

MORTGAGE.

In case I receive a £1000, and mortgage as much land as is worth £2000 to you, if I do not pay the money at such a day. I fail; whether you may take my land and keep it in point of conscience?

Answer. If you had my land as a security only for your money, then you are not to keep it; but if we bargained so, that if I did not repay your £1000, my land should go for it, be it what it will, no doubt you may with a safe 10 conscience keep it; for in these things all the obligation is, servare fidem.

XCII.
NUMBER.

ALL those mysterious things they observe in numbers, come to nothing, upon this very ground; because number in itself is nothing, has nothing to do with nature, but is merely of human imposition, a mere sound. For example, when I cry one o'clock, two o'clock, three o'clock, that is but man's division of time, the time itself goes on; and it had been all one in nature, if those hours had been called 209, 10, and II. So when they say the seventh son is fortunate, it means nothing; for if you count from the seventh backwards, then the first is the seventh; and why is not he likewise fortunate?

1. 14. number in itself is nothing] Numbering, Hobbes says, is an act of the mind; and by division of space or of time 'I do not mean the severing or pulling asunder of one space or time from another (for does any man think that one hemisphere may be separated from the other hemisphere, or the first hour from the second?), but diversity of consideration.' Hobbes, Computation or Logic, pt. ii. ch. 7, secs. 3 and 5.

XCIII.

OATHS.

I. SWEARING was another thing with the Jews than with us, because they might not pronounce the name of the Lord Jehovah.

2. There is no oath scarcely, but we swear to things we are ignorant of: for example, the oath of supremacy: how many know how the king is king? what are his right and prerogative? So how many know what are the privileges of the parliament, and the liberty of the subject, when they take the protestation? But the meaning is, they will defend 10 them when they know them. As if I should swear I would take part with all that wear red ribbons in their hats; it may be I do not know which colour is red; but when I do know, and see a red ribbon in a man's hat, then will I take his part.

3. I cannot conceive how an oath is imposed, where there is a parity, viz. in the House of Commons; they are all pares inter se, only one brings a paper, and shews it the rest, they look upon it, and in their own sense take it. Now they are but pares to me, who am one of the house 1, 20 for I do not acknowledge myself their subject; if I did, then, no question, I was bound by oath of their imposing. 'Tis to me but reading a paper in my own sense.

4. There is a great difference between an assertory oath

1 One of the house] none of the house, MSS.

1. 9. when they take the protestation] The form of oath agreed upon, and taken by the members of the House of Commons, was as follows: 'I, A. B., do, in the Presence of Almighty God, promise, vow, and protest, to maintain and defend. . . . the Power and Privileges of Parliament, the lawful rights and liberties of the Subject, and every person that maketh this protestation, in whatsoever he shall do in the lawful pursuance of the same' (May 3, 1641). Commons Journals,

ii. 132.

REESE

BRARY

OF THE

UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA

ΙΟ

and a promissory oath. An assertory oath is made to man before God, and I must swear so, as man may know what I mean. But a promissory oath is made to God only, and I am sure he knows my meaning. So in the new oath it runs [Whereas I believe in my conscience, &c. I will assist thus and thus]; that whereas gives me an outloose, for if I do not believe so, for aught I know, I swear not at all.

5. In a promissory oath, the mind I am in is a good interpretation; for if there be enough happened to change my Io mind, I do not know why I should not. If I promise to go to Oxford tomorrow, and mean it when I say it, and afterwards it appears to me that 'twill be my undoing, will you say I have broken my promise if I stay at home? Certainly I must not go.

6. The Jews had this way with them concerning a promissory oath or vow; if one of them had vowed a vow, which afterwards appeared to him to be very prejudicial, by reason of something he either did not foresee, or did not think of, when he made his vow; if he made it known 20 to three of his countrymen, they had power to absolve him, though he could not absolve himself; and that they picked out of some words of the text. Perjury has only to do

1. 3. a promissory oath is made to God only] There seems no reason for this limitation, nor does it agree with what Selden says elsewhere. See 'All oaths are either promissory or assentatory (assertatory?); the first being that which binds to a future performance of trust; the second that which is taken for the discovery of a past or present truth. The first kind they . . . . used in taking the oath of all the Barons for the maintenance of the great charter,' &c. &c. Works, iii. p. 1533.

The statement in the text must be understood, therefore, as part and parcel of the argument in sec. 3, which, so helped out, seems to run thus—that since the oaths imposed by Parliament are promissory oaths, and since only a superior can rightfully impose such oaths or can give his own sense to them, it follows that any member of Parliament taking a Parliamentary promissory oath, takes it to God only, and in any non-natural sense which he himself chooses mentally to put upon it.

« PoprzedniaDalej »