hurch of England, though anxious both to support the king and
suppress the Dissenters, could not stomach Hobbes; but if it could not,
how was it to deal with Hobbes's question, "if it is _ever_ right to
disobey your lawful prince, who is to determine _when_ it is right?"

Parker seeks to grapple with this difficulty. He disowns Hobbes.

"When men have once swallowed this principle, that Mankind is free
from all obligations antecedent to the laws of the Commonwealth, and
that the Will of the Sovereign Power is the only measure of Good and
Evil, they proceed suitably to its consequences to believe that no
Religion can obtain the force of law till it is established as such
by supreme authority, that the Holy Scriptures were not laws to any
man till they were enjoyn'd by the Christian Magistrate, and that if
the Sovereign Power would declare the Alcoran to be Canonical
Scripture, it would be as much the Word of God as the Four Gospels.
(See _Hobbes_, vol. iii. p. 366.) So that all Religions are in
reality nothing but Cheats and impostures to awe the common people to
obedience. And therefore although Princes may wisely make use of the
foibles of Religion to serve their own turns upon the silly
multitude, yet 'tis below their wisdom to be seriously concerned
themselves for such fooleries." (Parker's _Ecc. Politie_, p. 137.)

As against this fashionable Hobbism, Parker pleads Conscience.

"When anything that is apparently and intrinsically evil is the
Matter of a Human Law, whether it be of a Civil or Ecclesiastical
concern, here God is to be obeyed rather than Man."

He forcibly adds:--

"Those who would take off from the Consciences of Men all obligations
antecedent to those of Human Laws, instead of making the power of
Princes Supreme, Absolute and Uncontrollable, they utterly enervate
all their authority, and set their subjects at perfect liberty from
all their commands. For if we once remove all the antecedent
obligations of Conscience and Religion, Men will no further be bound
to submit to their laws than only as themselves shall see convenient,
and if they are under no other restraint it will be their wisdom to
rebel as oft as it is their interest." (_Ecc. Politie_, pp. 112-113.)

But though when dealing with Hobbes, Parker thinks fit to assert the
claims of conscience so strongly, when he has to grapple with those who,
like the immor