 This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Chapter 40 of Leviathan. Recorded by Nissel Droll. Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, Chapter 40. Of the Rites of the Kingdom of God in Abraham, Moses, the High Priests and the Kings of Judah, the Father of the Faithful and First in the Kingdom of God by Covenant was Abraham, for with him was the Covenant first made, wherein he obliged himself and his seed after him to acknowledge and obey the commandments of God, not only as such as he could take notice of as moral laws, by the light of nature, but also such as God should in special manner deliver to him by dreams and visions. For as to the moral law they were already obliged and needed not have been contracted with all by promise of the land of Canaan. Nor was there any contract that could add to or strengthen the obligation by which both they and all men else were bound naturally to obey God Almighty. And therefore the Covenant with Abraham made with God was to take for the commandment of God that which in the name of God was commanded him, in a dream or vision, and to deliver it to his family and cause them to observe the same. In this contract of God with Abraham we may observe three points of important consequence in the government of God's people. First that at the making of this Covenant God spoke only to Abraham and therefore contracted not only with any of his family or seed otherwise than as their wills, which make the essence of all Covenants, were before the contract involved in the will of Abraham, who was therefore supposed to have had a lawful power to make them perform all that he covenanted for them. Being wherein to God's saith, all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him, for I know him that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord. Genesis, chapter 18, verses 18 and 19. From once may be concluded this first point, that they to whom God hath not spoken immediately are to receive the positive commandments of God from their sovereign as the family and seed of Abraham did from Abraham their father and lord and civil sovereign, and consequently in every commonwealth they who have no supernatural revelation to the contrary ought to obey the laws of their own sovereign in the external acts and profession of religion as for the inward thought and belief of men, which human governors can take no notice of, for God only knoweth the heart. They are not voluntary, nor the effect of the laws, but of the unrevealed will, and of the power of God, and consequently fall not under obligation. From whence proceedeth another point, that it was not unlawful for Abraham when any of his subjects should pretend private vision or spirit, or other revelation from God, for the countenancing of any doctrine which Abraham should forbid, or when they followed or adhered to any such pretender to punish them, and consequently that it is lawful now for the sovereign to punish any man that shall oppose his private spirit against the laws, for he hath the same place in the commonwealth that Abraham had in his own family. There arises also from the same a third point, that as none but Abraham in his family, so none but the sovereign in a Christian commonwealth, can take notice what is or what is not the word of God, for God spoke only to Abraham, and it was he only that was able to know what God said, and to interpret the same to his family, and therefore also they that have the place of Abraham in a commonwealth are the only interpreters of what God hath spoken. The same covenant was renewed with Isaac and afterwards with Jacob, but afterwards no more till the Israelites were freed from the Egyptians and arrived at the foot of Mount Sinai, and then it was renewed by Moses, as I have said before, Chapter 35. In such manner as they became from that time forward the peculiar kingdom of God whose lieutenant was Moses for his own time, and the succession to that office was settled upon Aaron and his heirs after him, a sacerdotal kingdom for ever. By this constitution a kingdom is acquired to God. Seeing Moses had no authority to govern the Israelites as a successor to the right of Abraham, because he could not claim it by inheritance, it appeared not as yet that the people were obliged to take him for God's lieutenant longer than they believed that God spoke unto him, and therefore his authority, not withstanding the covenant they made with God, depended yet merely upon the opinion they had of his sanctity and of the reality of his conferences with God, and the verity of his miracles, which opinion, coming to change, they were no more obliged to take anything for the law of God which he propounded to them in God's name. We are therefore to consider what other ground there was of their obligation to obey him, for it could not be the commandment of God that could oblige them, because God spoke not to them immediately, but by the mediation of Moses himself, and our Saviour, saith of himself. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. CHAPTER V verse 31 Much less if Moses bear witness of himself, especially in a claim of kingly power over God's people, ought his testimony to be received. His authority therefore, as the authority of all other princes, must be grounded on the consent of the people and their promise to obey him, and so it was, for the people, when they saw the thunderings and the lightnings and the noise of the trumpet and the mountain smoking removed and stood afar off, and they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear, but let not God speak with us lest we die. Exodus chapter 20 verse 18 and 19 Here was their promise of obedience, and by this it was they obliged themselves to obey whatsoever he should deliver unto them for the commandment of God. And notwithstanding the covenant constituted a sacerdotal kingdom, that is to say, a kingdom hereditary to Aaron, yet that is to be understood of the succession after Moses should be dead, for whosoever ordereth and establisheth the policy as first founder of a commonwealth, be it monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy, must needs have sovereign power over the people all the while he is doing of it, and that Moses had that power all his own time is evidently affirmed in the scripture. First in the text last before cited, because the people promised obedience not to Aaron, but to him. And God said unto Moses, Come up unto the Lord, thou and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and Moses alone shall come near the Lord, but they shall not come nigh, neither shall the people go up with him. By which it is plain that Moses, who was alone called up to God, and not Aaron, nor the other priests, nor the seventy elders, nor the people who were forbidden to come up, was alone, he that represented to the Israelites the person of God. What is to say was their sole sovereign under God, and though afterwards it be said, then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel, and there was under his feet, as it were, a paved work of sapphire stone, Exodus, chapter twenty-four, verse nine, etc. But this was not till after Moses had been with God before, and had brought to the people the words which God had said to him. He only went for the business of the people. The others, as the nobles of his retinue, were admitted for honor to that special grace which was not allowed to the people, which was, as in the verse after a pierith, to see God and live. God laid down his hand upon them, they saw God and did eat and drink, that is, they did live, but did not carry any commandment from him to the people. Again, it is everywhere said, the Lord spake unto Moses, and as in all other occasions of government, so also in the ordering of the ceremonies of religion contained in the twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth, twenty-seventh, twenty-eighth, twenty-ninth, thirtieth, and thirty-first chapters of Exodus, and throughout Leviticus, to Aaron seldom the calf that Aaron made Moses threw into the fire. Lastly, the question of the authority of Aaron, by occasion of his and Miriam's mutiny against Moses, was judged by God himself for Moses, Numbers chapter twelve. So also in the question between Moses and the people who had the right of governing the people, when Korah, Dathan, and Abram, and two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is amongst them, why lift you up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord? Numbers chapter sixteen, verse three. God caused the earth to swallow Korah, Dathan, and Abram, with their wives and children alive, and consumed those two hundred and fifty princes with fire. Therefore, neither Aaron, nor the people, nor any aristocracy of the chief princes of the people, but Moses alone had next under God the sovereignty over the Israelites. And that not only in causes of civil policy, but also of religion, for Moses only spoke with God, and therefore only could tell the people what it was that God required at their hands. No man upon pain of death might be so presumptuous as to approach the mountain where God talked with Moses. Thou shalt set bounds, saith the Lord, to the people around about, and say, Take heed to yourselves that you go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it, whosoever toucheth the mount shall surely be put to death. Exodus chapter nineteen, verse twelve. And again, go down, charge the people lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze. Exodus chapter nineteen, verse twenty-one. Out of which we may conclude that whosoever in Christian commonwealth holdeth the place of Moses is the soul messenger of God and interpreter of his commandments. And according hereon too no man ought in the interpretation of the scripture to proceed further than the bounds which are set by their several sovereigns, for the scriptures, since God now speaketh in them, are the Mount Sinai. The bounds whereof are the laws of them that represent God's person on earth. To look upon them, and therein to behold the wondrous works of God, and learn to fear him is allowed, but to interpret them, that is, to pry into what God saith to him whom he appointeth to govern under him, and make themselves judges, rather he govern as God commandeth him or not, is to transgress the bounds God hath set us, and to gaze upon God irreverently. There was no prophet in the time of Moses, nor pretender to the Spirit of God, but such as Moses had approved and authorized. For there were in his time but seventy men that are said to prophesy by the Spirit of God, and these were all of Moses's election. Gather to me seventy of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, Numbers chapter eleven, verse sixteen. To these God imparted his Spirit, but it was not a different Spirit from that of Moses. God came down in a cloud, and took of the Spirit that was upon Moses, and gave it to the seventy elders. Numbers chapter eleven, verse twenty-five. But as I have shown before, chapter thirty-six by spirits is understood the mind, so that the sense of the place is no other than this. That God endued them with a mind conformable and subordinate to that of Moses. That they might prophesy, that is, to say, that they might say, that they might to say, speak to the people in God's name in such manner as to set forward as ministers of Moses and by his authority, such doctrine as was agreeable to Moses his doctrine, for they were but ministers. And when two of them prophesied in the camp it was thought a new and unlawful thing, and as it is in the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth verses of the same chapter, they were accused of it. Joshua advised Moses to forbid them as not knowing that it was by Moses his Spirit that they prophesied, by which it is manifest that no subject ought to pretend to prophesy or to the Spirit in opposition to the doctrine established by him whom God hath set in the place of Moses. When being dead, and after him also Moses, the kingdom, as being a sacerdotal kingdom, descended by virtue of the covenant to Aaron's son, Eleazar, the High Priest, and God declared him next under himself for sovereign. At the same time he appointed Joshua for the general of their army. For thus God saith expressly concerning Joshua, He shall stand before Eleazar the Priest, who shall ask counsel for him before the Lord. At his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he and all the children of Israel with him. Numbers Chapter Twenty-seven, Verse Twenty-One. Therefore the supreme power of making war and peace was in the Priest. The supreme power of Judicature belonged also to the High Priest. For the Book of the Law was in their keeping, and the priests and the Levites only were the subordinate judges in causes civil, as appears in Deuteronomy Chapters 17, 8, 9, and 10. And for the manner of God's worship there was never doubt made, but that the High Priest till the time of Saul had the supreme authority. Therefore the civil and ecclesiastical power were both joined together in one and the same person, the High Priest, and ought to be so, in whosoever governeth by divine right that is, by authority immediate from God. After the death of Joshua till the time of Saul, the time between is noted frequently in the Book of Judges, that there was in those days no king in Israel, and sometimes with this addition that every man did that which was right in his own eyes, by which is to be understood that where it is said there was no king is meant there was no sovereign power in Israel, and so it was if we consider the act and exercise of such power. For after the death of Joshua and Eleazar there arose another generation that knew not the Lord, nor the works which he had done for Israel, but did evil in the sight of the Lord and served Balaam, Judges Chapter 2, Verse 10. And the Jews had that quality which St. Paul noteth to look for a sign. Not only before they would submit themselves to the government of Moses, but also after they had obliged themselves by their submission. Whereas signs and miracles had for end to procure faith, not to keep men from violating it when they have once given it, for to that men are obliged by the law of nature. But if we consider not the exercise, but the right of governing, the sovereign power was still in the high priest. Therefore whatsoever obedience was yielded to any of the judges who were men chosen by God extraordinarily to save his rebellious subjects out of the hands of the enemy, it cannot be drawn into argument against the right the high priest had to the sovereign power in all matters, both of policy and religion, and neither the judges nor Samuel himself had an ordinary, but extraordinary, calling to the government, and were obeyed by the Israelites not out of duty, but out of reverence to their favor with God, appearing in their wisdom, courage, or felicity. Hitherto therefore the right of regulating both the policy and the religion were inseparable. Through the judges succeeded kings, and whereas before all authority, both in religion and policy, was in the high priest. So now it was all in the king, for the sovereignty over the people which was, before, not only by virtue of the divine power, but also by a particular pact of the Israelites in God, next under him in the high priest, as his vice-agreent on earth was cast off by the people with the consent of God himself. For when they said to Samuel, Make us a king to judge us, like all nations, 1 Samuel chapter 8 verse 5, they signified that they would no more be governed by the commands that should be laid upon them by the priest in the name of God, but by one that should command them in the same manner that all other nations were commanded, and consequently in disposing the high priest of royal authority, they deposed that peculiar government of God, and yet God consented to it, saying to Samuel, Harken unto the voice of the people in all that they shall say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. Having therefore rejected God, in whose right the priests governed, there was no authority left to the priests, but such as the king was pleased to allow them, which was more or less according as the kings were good or evil, and for the government of civil affairs it is manifest, it was all in the hands of the king. For in the same chapter they say they will be like all the nations, that their king shall be their judge, and go before them and fight their battles. 1 Samuel chapter 8 verse 20. That is, he shall have the whole authority, both in peace and war, in which is continued also the ordering of religion, for there was no other word of God in that time by which to regulate religion, but the law of Moses, which was their civil law. Besides, we read that Solomon thrust out a beathar from being priests before the Lord. 1 Kings chapter 2 verse 27. He had therefore authority over the high priest, as over any other subject, which is a great mark of supremacy in religion. And we read also that he dedicated the temple, that he blessed the people, and that he himself in person made that excellent prayer used in the consecrations of all churches and houses of prayer, which is another great mark of supremacy in religion. Again we read that when there was question concerning the book of the law found in the temple, the same was not decided by the high priest, but Josiah sent both and others to inquire concerning it of Holda, the prophetess, 2 Kings chapter 22, which is another mark of the supremacy in religion. Lastly we read that David made Hashabiah and his brethren Hebronites officers of Israel among them westward in all business of the Lord and in the service of the King. 1 Chronicles chapter 26 verse 30 Likewise that he made other Hebronites rulers over the Rubonites, the Gadites, and the Half-Tribe of Manasseh. These were the rest of Israel that dwelt beyond Jordan. For every matter pertaining to God and affairs of the King, 1 Chronicles chapter 26 verse 32, is not this full power, both temporal and spiritual, as they call it, that would divide it? To conclude, from the first institution of God's kingdom to the captivity, the supremacy of religion was in the same hand with that of the civil sovereignty and the priest's office after the election of Saul was not magistral but ministeral. Notwithstanding, the government both in policy and religion were joined, first in the High Priests and afterwards in the Kings. So far forth as concerned the right, yet it appeared by the same holy history that the people understood it not, but there being amongst them a great part, and probably the greatest part, that no longer than they saw great miracles or which is equivalent to a miracle. Great abilities or great felicity in the enterprises of their governors have sufficient credit either to the fame of Moses or to the colloquies between God and the priests. They took occasion, as oft as their governors displeased them, by blaming sometimes the policy, sometimes the religion, to change the government or revolt from their obedience at their pleasure, and from thence proceeded from time to time the civil troubles, divisions, and calamities of the nation. As for example, after the death of Eliezer and Joshua, the next generation which had not seen the wonders of God, but were left to their own weak reason, not knowing themselves, obliged by the covenant of a sacerdotal kingdom, regarded no more the commandment of the priest nor any law of Moses, but did every man that which was right in his own eyes, and obeyed in civil affairs such men, as from time to time they thought able to deliver them from the neighbor nations that oppressed them, and consulted not with God as they ought to do, but with such men or women as they guessed to be prophets by their predictions of things to come, and though they had an idol in their chapel, yet if they had a Levite for their chaplain, they made account they worshipped the God of Israel. And afterwards, when they commanded a king, after the manner of the nations, yet it was not with a design to depart from the worship of God their king, but despairing of the justice of the sons of Samuel, they would have a king to judge them in civil actions, but not that they would allow their king to change the religion which they thought was recommended to them by Moses, so that they always kept in store a pretext, either of justice or religion, to discharge themselves of their obedience whensoever they had hoped to prevail. Samuel was displeased with the people, for that they desired a king, for God was their king already, and Samuel had but an authority under him. Yet did Samuel, when Saul observed not his counsel in destroying a gag, as God had commanded, anoint another king, namely David, to take the succession from his heirs. Rehoboam was no idolater, but when the people thought him an oppressor, that civil pretense carried from him ten tribes to Jeroboam and idolater. And generally, through the whole history of the kings, as well of Judah, as of Israel, there were prophets that always controlled the kings for transgressing the religion, and sometimes also for errors of state, as Jehoshaphat was reproved by the prophet Jehu for aiding the king of Israel against the Syrians, 2 Chronicles 19 verse 2, and Hezekiah, by Isaiah, for showing his treasures to the ambassadors of Babylon, by all which it appeared that though the power both of state and religion were in the kings, yet none of them were uncontrolled in the use of it, but such as were gracious for their own natural abilities or felicities, so that from the practice of those times there can no argument be drawn that the right of supremacy in religion was not in the kings, unless we place it in the prophets and conclude that because Hezekiah, praying to the Lord before the cherubim, was not answered from thence, nor then, but afterwards by the prophet Isaiah. Therefore Isaiah was supreme head of the church, or because Josiah consulted Holda, the prophetess, concerning the book of the law, that therefore neither he, nor the high priest, but Holda the prophetess, had the supreme authority in matter of religion, which I think is not the opinion of any doctor. During the captivity the Jews had no commonwealth at all, and after their return, though they renewed their covenant with God, yet there was no promise made of obedience, neither to Esdras nor to any other, and presently after they became subjects to the Greeks, from whose customs and demonology, and from the doctrine of the Kabbalists, their religion became much corrupted, in such sort as nothing can be gathered from their confusion, both in state and religion concerning the supremacy in either. And therefore, so far forth as concerned with the Old Testament, we may conclude that whosoever had the sovereignty of the commonwealth among the Jews, the same had also the supreme authority in matter of God's external worship, and represented God's person, that is, the person of God, the Father, though he were not called by the name of Father, till such time as he sent into the world his son, Jesus Christ, to redeem mankind from their sins, and bring them into his everlasting kingdom to be saved for evermore, of which we are to speak in the chapter following. End of Chapter 40 Recorded by Nacelle Drull, an anagram of the real recordist's name, the recorder resides in a very small country town in New York state. We find in holy scripture three parts of the office of the Messiah, the first of a redeemer or a savior, the second of a pastor, counselor or teacher, that is, of a prophet sent from God to convert such as God had elected to salvation, the third of a king, an eternal king, but under his father, as Moses and the high priests were in there several times, into these three parts corresponded three times. For redemption, he wrought at his first coming, by the sacrifice wherein he offered up himself for our sins upon the cross, our conversion he wrought partly than his own person, and partly worketh now by his ministers, and will continue to work till his coming again, and after his coming again shall begin at his glorious reign over his elect which is to last eternally, to the office of a redeemer, that is, of one that batheth the ransom of sin, which ransom is death, it appartaineth that he was sacrificed, and thereby bore upon his own head, and carried away from us our inequities, in such sort as God had required, not that the death of one man, though without sin, can satisfy for the offenses of all men, in the rigor of justice, but in the mercy of God, that ordains sacrifices for sin as he was pleased in his mercy to accept. In the whole law, as we may read in Levitical 16, the law required that they should, every year once, be made an atonement for the sins of all Israel, both priests and others. For the doing whereof Aaron alone was to sacrifice for himself, and the priests a young bullock, and for the rest of the people he was to receive from them two young goats, of which he was to sacrifice one, but as for the other, which was the scapegoat, he was to lay his hands on the head thereof, and by a confession of the inequities of the people, to lay them all on that head, and then by some opportune man to cause the goat to be led into the wilderness, and there to escape and carry away with him the inequities of the people, as the sacrifice of the one goat was a sufficient, because an acceptable price for the ransom of all Israel, so the death of the Messiah is a sufficient price for the sins of all mankind, because there was no more required. Our Savior Christ's sufferings seem to be hair-figured as clearly as in the operation of Isaac, or in any other type of him in the Old Testament. He was both the sacrifice goat and the scapegoat. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted. He opened not his mouth, he's brought as a lamp to the slaughter, and the sheep is dumb before the shearer, so he opened not his mouth, he's a year 53.7. Here, this sacrifice goat, he had borne our griefs and carried our sorrows, i.e. 53.6, and so he's the scapegoat. He was cut off from the land, the living, from the transgression of my people, i.e. 53.8. There again, he is the sacrifice goat, and again, he shall bear the sins, i.e. 53.11. He is the scapegoat. Thus is the Lamb of God equivalent to both those courts, sacrificed in that he died, and escaping in his desurrection, being raised opportunity by his father, and removed from the habitation of men in his ascension. For as much therefore as he that redeemed had no title of the thing redeemed, before the redemption and ransom paid, and this ransom was the death of the Redeemer. It is manifest that our Savior, as man, was not king of those that he redeemed, before he suffered death, i.e. during that time he converged bodily on the earth. I say that he was not then king in present, by virtue of the pact with the faithful make with him in baptism. Nevertheless, by renewing of their pact with God in baptism, they were obliged to obey him for king, and that his father, whensoever he should be pleased to take the kingdom upon him. According where into, our Savior himself expressly said, my kingdom is not of this world. John 18.36. Now seeing the scripture make it mention but of two worlds, this that is now, I shall remain to the day of judgment, which is therefore also called the last day, and that we shall be after the day of judgment, when there shall be a new heaven and a new earth. The kingdom of Christ is not to begin till the general resurrection, and that is it which our Savior said, the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels, and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Matthew 16.27. To reward every man according to his works is to execute the office of a king, and this is not to be till he come in the glory of his Father, with his angels. When our Savior said, the scribes and Pharisees said in the Moses seat, and therefore whatsoever they bid you do, that observe and do. I read 23.2. He declared it plainly that he extributes kingly power for that time, not to himself, but to them, and so he doth also, where he said, who made me a judge or divider over you, Luke 12.14, and I came not to judge the world, but to save the world, John 12.47. And yet our Savior came into this world, that he might be a king and a judge in the world to come, for he was the Messiah, that is the Christ, that is the Anointed Priest and the Sovereign Prophet of God, that is to say he was to have all the power that was in Moses the Prophet, in the High Priest that succeeded Moses, and in the Kings that succeeded the priests. And Saint John says expressly, the Father judges no man, yet committed all judgment to the Son, and this is not repugnant to that other place. I came not to judge the world, for the spoken of the world present, the other of the world to come, as also where it is said at the second coming of Christ, yet that have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory, he shall also sit on 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Matthew 19.28. If then Christ, whilst he was on earth, had no kingdom in this world, to what end was his first coming? It was to restore unto God, by a new covenant, the kingdom which, being his by the old covenant, had been cut off by the rebellion of the Israelites in the election of Saul, which to do he was to preach unto them that he was the Messiah, that is the king promised to them by the prophets, and to offer himself in sacrifice for the sins of them that should by faith submit themselves there too, and in case the nation generally should refuse him to call to his obedience that should believe in him amongst the Gentiles, so that there are two parts of a Saviour's office during his abode upon the earth, one to proclaim himself the Christ, and another by teaching, and by working of miracles to persuade and prepare men to live so as to be worthy of the immortality believers were to enjoy. At such time as he should come in the majesty to take possession of his father's kingdom, and therefore it is that the time of his preaching is often by himself called the regeneration, which is not properly a kingdom, and thereby a warrant to deny obedience to the magistrates that then were, for he commanded to obey those that sat then in Moses' cheer and to pay tribute to Caesar, but only an earnest of the kingdom of God that was to come to those to whom God had given the grace to be his disciples, and to believe in him, for which cause the godly are said to be already in the kingdom of grace, and naturalized in that heavenly kingdom. He that though their force there is nothing done or taught by Christ that tended to the diminution of the civil right of the Jews or of Caesar. For his touching the commonwealth which then was amongst the Jews, both they that bore rule amongst them and that they were governed did all expect the messiah and kingdom of God, which they could not have done if their laws had forbidden him, when he came to manifest and declare himself. Seeing therefore he did nothing, but by preaching and miracles go about to prove himself to be that messiah, he did there is nothing against their laws. The kingdom he claimed was to be in another world. He taught all men to obey in the meantime them that sat in Moses' seat. He allowed them to give Caesar his tribute and refused to take upon himself to be a judge. How then could his words or actions be seditious or tend to the overthrow of their then civil government? But God having determined his sacrifice for the reduction of his elect to the former covenantate obedience, for the means whereby he would bring the same effect made use of their malice and ingratitude. Nor it was contrary to the laws of Caesar. For though Pilate himself to gratify the Jews delivered him to be crucified, yet before he did so he pronounced openly that he found a fault in him and put for his title of his condemnation, not as the Jews required that he pretended to be king but simply that he was the king of the Jews and not withstanding the clamour refused to alter it saying, but I have written, I have written. As for the third part of his office which was to be king, I have already shown that his kingdom was not to begin till the resurrection but then he shall be king not only as God in which he is the king already and ever shall be of all the earth in virtue of his omnipotence but also peculiarly of his own elect by virtue of the act they make with him in the baptism and therefore it is that our Savior said that his apostle should sit upon 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel when the son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory loxate whereby he signified that he should reign then in his human nature and the son of man shall come in the glory of his father with his angels and then he shall reward every man according to his works i.e. 16.27 the same we may read mark 13.26 and 14.62 and more expressly for the time live 22.2930 I appoint unto you a kingdom as my father had appointed to me that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel by which it is manifest that the kingdom of Christ appointed to him by his father is not to be before the son of man shall come in glory and make his apostles judges of the 12 tribes of Israel but a man may hear ask seeing there is no manage in the kingdom of heaven with the men shall then eat and drink what eating therefore is meant in this place this is expounded by our Savior where is said labor not for the meat which perished but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life with the son of man shall give you so that by eating at Christ's table is meant the eating of the tree of life that is to say the enjoying of immortality in the kingdom of the son of man by which places and many more it is evident that our Savior's kingdom is to be exercised by him in his human nature again he used to be king then no otherwise than as subordinate or vestilent of God the Father as Moses was in the wilderness and the high priests were before the reign of Saul and as the kings were after it for it is one of the prophecies concerning Christ that he be like in office to Moses I will raise them up a prophet said the Lord from amongst their brethren like unto thee and will put my words into his mouth Neutronomy 18 point 18 and this similitude with Moses is also apparent in the actions of our Savior himself whilst he was convergent on earth for as Moses chose 12 princes of the tribes to govern under him so read our Savior chose 12 apostles who shall sit on 12 thrones and judge the 12 tribes of Israel and as Moses authorized 70 elders to receive the spirit of God and to prophecy to the people that is as said before to speak unto them in the name of God so our Savior also ordained 70 disciples to preach his kingdom and salvation to all nations and as when a complaint was made to Moses against those of the 70 that prophesied in the camp of Israel he justified them in it as being subservient there into his government so also our Savior when Saint John complained to him of a certain man had cast out devils in his name justified him there in saying forbid him not for he that is not against us is on our part Luke 9.50 again our Savior resembled Moses in the institution of sacraments both of admission into the kingdom of God and of commemoration of his deliverance of his elect from their miserable condition as the children of Israel had for sacrament of their reception into the kingdom of God before the time of Moses the right of circumcision which right having been omitted in the wilderness was again restored as soon as they came into the land of promise so also the Jews before the coming of our Savior had a right of baptizing that is of washing with water all those that with Gentiles embraced the God of Israel this right Saint John the Baptist used in the reception of all them that gave their names to the Christ whom we preach to be already come into the world and our Savior instituted the same for a sacrament to be taken by all that believed in him or what caused the right of baptism was proceeded is not expressed formally in the scripture but may be probably thought to be an imitation of the law of Moses concerning leprosy wherein the lepros man was commanded to be kept out of the camp of Israel for a certain time after which time being judged by the priest to be clean he was admitted into the camp after a solemn washing and this may therefore be a type of the washing in baptism wherein such men as a cleansed of the leprosy of sin by faith are received into the church with a solemnity of baptism there is another conjecture drawn from the ceremonies of the Gentiles in a certain case that really happens and that is when a man that was taught debt chance to recover other men made scruples to converse with him as they would do converse with a ghost unless he were received into the number of men by washing as children newborns were washed from the uncleanness of the nativity which was a kind of new birth this ceremony of the Greeks in the name that Judah was under the dominion of Alexander and the Greeks in his successors they probably enough have crept into the religion of the Jews by seeing it not likely our savior would countenance a heathen rite it is most likely proceeded from the legal ceremony of washing after leprosy and for the sacrament of eating the partial lamb it is manifestly imitated in the sacrament of the Lord supper in which the breaking of the bread and the pouring of the wine to keep in our memory the deliverance from the mystery of sin by Christ's passion as the eating of the partial lamb kept in memory the deliverance of the Jews out of the bondage of Egypt seeing therefore the authority of Moses was but subordinate and he but a lieutenant to God it followed that Christ whose authority as man was to be like that of Moses was no more but subordinate to the authority of his father the same is more expressly signified by that he teaches us to pray our father let thy kingdom come and for thine is the kingdom the power and the glory and by that it is said that he shall come in the glory of his father and by that we saint Paul said then comets the end which he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God even the father I Corinthians 15.24 and by many other most express places our savior therefore both in teaching and reigning represented as Moses did a person God which God from that time forward but not before is called the father and being still one and the same substance is one person as represented by Moses and another person as represented by his son that Christ for a person being a relative to a representative it is consequent to plurality of representatives that there be a plurality of persons though of one and the same substance end of chapter 41 recording by Ashwin Jain chapter 42 part 1 of Leviathan this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org recording by Jeffrey Edwards Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes chapter 42 part 1 of power ecclesiastical for the understanding of power ecclesiastical what and in whom it is we are to distinguish the time from the ascension of our savior into two parts one before the conversion of kings and men endued with sovereign civil power the other after their conversion for it was long after the ascension before any king or civil sovereign embraced and publicly allowed the teaching of christian religion and for the time between it is manifest that the power ecclesiastical was in the apostles and after them in such as were by them ordained to preach the gospel and to convert men to christianity and to direct them that were converted in the way of salvation and after these the power was delivered again to others by these ordained and this was done by imposition of hands upon such as were ordained by which was signified the giving of the holy spirit or spirit of god to those whom they ordained ministers of god to advance his kingdom so that imposition of hands was nothing else but the seal of their commission to preach christ and to teach his doctrine and the giving of the holy ghost by that ceremony of imposition of hands was an imitation of that which moses did for moses used the same ceremony to his minister joshua as we read deuteronomy chapter 34 verse 9 and joshua the son of none was full of the spirit of wisdom for moses had laid his hands upon him our savior therefore between his resurrection and ascension gave his spirit to the apostles first by breathing on them and saying receive ye the holy spirit john chapter 20 verse 22 and after his ascension by sending down upon them a mighty wind and cloven tongues of fire acts chapter 2 verses 2 and 3 and not by imposition of hands as neither did god lay his hands on moses and his apostles afterward transmitted the same spirit by imposition of hands as moses did to joshua so that it is manifest hereby in whom the power ecclesiastical continually remained in those first times where there was not any christian commonwealth namely in them that received the same from the apostles by successive laying on of hands here we have the person of god born now the third time for moses and the high priests were gods representatives in the old testament and our savior himself as man during his abode on earth so the holy ghost that is to say the apostles and their successors in the office of preaching and teaching that had received the holy spirit have represented him ever since but a person as i have shown before chapter 13 is he that is represented as of as he is represented and therefore god who has been represented that is personated thrice may properly enough be said to be three persons of neither the word person nor trinity be ascribed to him in the bible st john indeed says there be three that bear witness in heaven the father the word and the holy spirit and these three are one luke chapter five verse 11 but this disagreeeth not but accordeth fitly with three persons in the proper signification of persons which is that which is represented by another for so god the father as represented by moses is one person and as represented by his son another person and as represented by the apostles and by the doctors that taught by authority from them derived is a third person and yet every person here is the person of one and the same god but a man may here ask what it was whereof these three bore witness st john therefore tells us that they bear witness that god hath given us eternal life in his son again if it should be asked where in that testimony appeareth the answer is easy for he hath testified the same by the miracles he wrought first by moses secondly by his son himself and lastly by his apostles that had received the holy spirit all which in their times represented the person of god in either prophesied or preached jesus christ and as for the apostles it was the character of the apostleship in the twelve first and great apostles to bear witness of his resurrection as appeareth expressly where st peter when a new apostle was to be chosen in the place of judicious cariat useth these words of these men which have accompanied with us all the time that the lord jesus went in and out amongst us beginning at the baptism of john until that same day that he was taken up from us must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection acts chapter one verse 21 22 which words interpret the bearing of witness mentioned by st john there is in the same place mentioned another trinity of witnesses in earth for he says there are three that bear witness in earth the spirit and the water and the blood and these three agree in one ibbid chapter one verse eight that is to say the graces of god's spirit and the two sacraments baptism and the lord's supper which all agree in one testimony to assure the consciences of believers of eternal life of which testimony he saith he that believeth on the son of man hath the witness in himself ibbid chapter one verse 10 in this trinity on earth the unity is not of the thing for the spirit the water and the blood are not the same substance though they give the same testimony but in the trinity of heaven the persons are the persons of one in the same god they're represented in three different times and occasions to conclude the doctrine of the trinity as far as can be gathered directly from the scriptures is in substance this that god who is always one in the same was the person represented by moses the person represented by his son incarnate and the person represented by the apostles as represented by the apostles the holy spirit by which they spoke is god as represented by his son that was god and man the son is that god as represented by moses the high priests the father that is to say the father of our lord jesus christ is that god from whence we may gather the reason those names father son and holy spirit in the signification of godhead are never used in the old testament for they are persons that is they have their names from representing which could not be till diverse men had represented god's person in ruling or directing under him thus we see how the power ecclesiastical was left by our savior to the apostles and how they were to the end they might the better exercise that power and dude with the holy spirit which is therefore called sometimes in the new testament paracletus which signifies an assister or one called to for help though it be commonly translated a comforter let us now consider the power itself and what it was and over whom cardinal bellarmine in his third general controversy has handled a great many questions concerning the ecclesiastical power of the pope of rome and begins with this whether it ought to be monarchical aristocratical or democratical all of which sorts of power are sovereign and coercive if now it should appear that there is no coercive power left them by our savior but only a power to proclaim the kingdom of christ and to persuade men to submit themselves there and to and by precepts and good council teach them that i've submitted what they are to do that they may be received into the kingdom of god when it comes and that the apostles and other ministers of the gospel are our school masters and not our commanders and their precepts not laws but wholesome councils then we're all that dispute in vain i have shown already in the last chapter that the kingdom of christ is not of this world therefore neither can his ministers unless they be kings require obedience in his name for if the supreme king have not his regal power in this world but what authority can obedience be required of his officers as my father sent me so sayeth our savior i send you john chapter 20 verse 21 but our savior was sent to persuade the jews to return and to invite the Gentiles to receive the kingdom of his father and not to reign in majesty no not as his father's lieutenant till the day of judgment the time between the ascension and the general resurrection is called not a reigning but a regeneration that is a preparation of men for the second and glorious coming of christ at the day of judgment as appeareth by the words of our savior you that have followed me in the regeneration when the son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory you shall also sit upon twelve thrones matthew chapter 19 verse 28 land of st paul having your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace aphesians chapter 6 verse 15 and is compared by our savior to fishing that is to winning men to obedience not by coercion and punishing but by persuasion and therefore he said not to his apostles he would make them so many nimrods hunters of men but fishers of men it is compared also to leaven the sowing of seed and the multiplication of a grain of mustard seed by all which compulsion is excluded and consequently there can in that time be no actual reigning the work of christ's ministers is evangelization that is a proclamation of christ and a preparation for his second coming as the evangelization of john the baptist was a preparation to his first coming again the office of christ's ministers in this world is to make men believe and have faith in christ but faith has no relation to nor dependence at all upon compulsion or commandment but only upon certainty or probability of arguments drawn from reason or for something men believe already therefore the ministers of christ in this world have no power by that title to punish any man for not believing or for contradicting what they say they have I say no power by that title of christ's ministers to punish such but if they have sovereign civil power by political institution then they may indeed lawfully punish any contradiction to their laws whatsoever and saint paul of himself and other the then preachers of the gospel sayeth in express words we have no dominion over your faith but our helpers of your joy second Corinthians chapter 1 verse 24 another argument that the ministers of christ in this present world have no right of commanding may be drawn from the lawful authority which christ hath left to all princes as well christians as infidels saint paul sayeth children obey your parents in all things for this is well pleasing to the lord collosions chapter 3 verse 20 and servants obey in all things your masters according to the flesh not with eye service as men pleasers but in singleness of heart as viewing the lord ibbid chapter 3 verse 22 this is spoken to them whose masters were infidels and yet they are bitten to obey them in all things and again concerning obedience to princes exhorting to be subject to the higher powers he sayeth that all power is ordained of god and that we ought to subject to them not only for fear of incurring their wrath but also for conscience's sake romans chapter 13 verse 1 through 6 and saint peter submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the lord's sake whether it be to the king as supreme or unto the governors as to them that be sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of them that do well for so is the will of god first peter chapter 2 verse 13 14 and 15 and again saint paul put men in mind to be subject to principalities and powers and to obey magistrates titus chapter 3 verse 1 these princes and powers where of saint peter and saint paul here speak were all infidels much more therefore we are to obey those christians whom god hath ordained to have sovereign power over us how then can we be obliged to obey any minister of christ if he should command us to do anything contrary to the command of the king or other sovereign representant of the commonwealth where of we are members and by whom we look to be protected it is therefore manifest that christ has not left to his ministers in this world unless they be also endued with civil authority any authority to command other men but what may some object if a king or a senate or other sovereign person forbid us to believe in christ to this i answer that such forbidding is of no effect because belief and unbelief never follow men's commands faith is a gift of god which man can neither give nor take away by promise of rewards nor menaces of torture and if it be further asked what if we be commanded by our lawful prince to say with our tongue we believe not must we obey such command profession with the tongue is but an external thing and no more than any other gesture whereby we signify our obedience and wherein a christian holding firmly in his heart the faith of christ at the same liberty which the prophet elisha allowed to neyman the syrian neyman was converted in his heart to the god of israel for he says nice servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods but unto the lord in this thing the lord part of nice servant that when my master goes into the house of reman to worship there and he leaneth on my hand and i bow myself in the house of reman the lord pardon thy servant in this thing second kings chapter five verse seventeen eighteen this the prophet approved and bid him go in peace here neyman believing in his heart but by bowing before the idle reman he denied the true god in effect as much as if he had done it with his lips but then what shall we answer to our savior saying whosoever denies me before men i will deny him before my father which is in heaven matthew chapter 10 verse 33 this we may say that whosoever a subject as neyman was is compelled to an obedience to his sovereign and does it not in order to his own mind but in order to the laws of his country that action is not his but his sovereigns nor is it he that in this case denies christ before men his governor and the law of his country if any man shall accuse this doctrine as repugnant to true and unfeigned christianity i ask him in case that there should be a subject in any christian commonwealth that should be inwardly in his heart of the muhammadin religion whether if his sovereign command him to be present at the divine service of the christian church and that on pain of death he thinks the muhammadin obliged in conscience to suffer death for that cause rather than to obey that command of his lawful prince if he say he ought rather to suffer death when he authorizes all private men to disobey their princes in maintenance of their religion true or false if he say he ought to be obedient then he allows to himself at which he denies to another contrary to the words of our savior whatsoever you would that men should do unto you that do ye unto them luke chapter 6 verse 31 and contrary to the law of nature which is the indubitable everlasting law of god do not to another that which thou wouldst not he should do unto thee but what then shall we say of all those martyrs we read of in the history of the church that may have needlessly cast away their lives prance are herein too we are to distinguish the persons that have been for that cause put to death where have some have received a calling to preach and profess the kingdom of christ openly others have had no such calling nor more has been required of them than their own faith a former sort if they have been put to death for bearing witness to this point that jesus christ is risen from the dead or true martyrs for a martyr is to give the true definition of the word a witness of the resurrection of jesus the messiah which none can be but those conversed with him on earth and saw him after he was risen for a witness must have seen what he testifies or else his testimony is not good and that none but such can properly be called martyrs of christ is manifest out of the words of st peter wherefore of these men which have accompanied with us all the time that the lord jesus went in and out amongst us beginning from the baptism of john until that same day he was taken up from us must one be ordained to be a martyr that is a witness with us of his resurrection ax chapter 1 verse 21 22 where we may observe that he which is to be a witness of truths of the resurrection of christ that is to say of the truth of this fundamental article of christian religion that jesus was the christ must be some disciple that conversed with him and saw him before and after his resurrection and consequently must be one of his original disciples whereas they which were not so can witness no more but that their antecessor said it and are therefore but witnesses of other men's testimony and are about second martyrs or martyrs of christ's witnesses he that to maintain every doctrine which he himself droth out of the history of our savior's life and of the acts or epistles of the apostles or which he believeth upon the authority of a private man will oppose the laws and authority of the civil state is very far from being a martyr of christ or a martyr of his martyrs it is one article only which to die for merit is so honorable a name and that article is this that jesus is the christ that is to say he that hath redeemed us and shall come again to give us salvation and eternal life in his glorious kingdom to die for every tenet that serveth the ambition or profit of the clergy is not required nor is it the death of the witness for the testimony itself that makes a martyr for the word signifies nothing else but the man that beareth witness whether he be put to death for his testimony or not also he that is not sent to preach this fundamental article but taketh it upon him of his private authority though he be a witness and consequently a martyr either primary of christ or secondary of his apostles disciples or their successors yet is he not obliged to suffer death for that cause because being not called there to it is not required at his hands nor are he to complain if he loses the reward he expects us from those that never set him on work none therefore can be a martyr neither of the first nor second degree that have not a warrant to preach christ come in the flesh that is to say none but such as are sent to the conversion of infidels for no man is witness to him that already believeth and therefore needs no witness but to them that deny or doubt or have not heard it christ sent his apostles and his 70 disciples with authority to preach he sent not all that believed and he sent them to unbelievers i send you saith he as sheep amongst the wolves matthew chapter 10 verse 16 not as sheep to other sheep lastly the points of their commission as they are expressly set down in the gospel contain none of them any authority over the congregation we have first that the 12 apostles were sent to the lost sheep of the house of israel and commanded to preach that the kingdom of god was at hand matthew chapter 10 verse 6 7 now preaching in the original is that act which a crier harold or other officer uses to do publicly in proclaiming of a king but a crier hath not right to command any man and the 70 disciples are sent out as laborers not as lords of the harvest luke chapter 10 verse 2 and are bidden to say the kingdom of god is come nigh unto you ebid chapter 10 verse 9 and by kingdom here is meant not the kingdom of grace but the kingdom of glory for they are bidden to denounce it to those cities which shall not receive them as a threatening that it shall be more tolerable in that day for sodom than for such a city ebid chapter 10 verse 11 and our savior telleth his disciples that sought priority of place their office was to minister even as the son of man came not to be ministered unto but to minister preachers therefore have not magisterial but ministerial power be not called masters sayeth our savior for one is your master even christ ebid chapter 23 verse 10 another point of their commission is to teach all nations as it is in matthew chapter 28 verse 19 or as in saint mark chapter 16 verse 15 go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature teaching therefore and preaching is the same thing for they that proclaim the coming of a king must with all make known by what right he cometh if they mean men shall submit themselves unto him as st paul did to the jews of thessalonica when three Sabbath days he reasoned with them out of the scriptures opening and alleging that christ must indeed have suffered and risen again from the dead and that this jesus is christ acts chapter 17 verse 2 3 but to teach out of the old testament that jesus was christ that is to say king and risen from the dead is not to say that men are bound after they believe it to obey those that tell them so against the laws and commands of their sovereigns but that they shall do wisely to expect the coming of christ hereafter in patience and faith with obedience to their present magistrates another point of their commission is to baptize in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy ghost what is baptism dipping into water but what is it to dip a man into the water in the name of anything the meaning of these words of baptism is this he that is baptized is dipped or washed as a sign of becoming a new man and a loyal subject to that god whose person was represented in old times by moses and the high priests when he reigned over the jews into jesus christ his son god and man that hath redeemed us and shall in his human nature represent his father's person in his eternal kingdom after the resurrection and to acknowledge the doctrine of the apostles who assisted by the spirit of the father and of the son were left for guides to bring us into that kingdom to be the only and assured way there unto this being our promise in baptism and the authority of earthly sovereigns being not to be put down until the day of judgment for that is expressly firm by saint paul where he says as in adam all die so in christ shall all be made alive but every man in his own order christ the first fruits afterwards they that are christ's at his coming then come as the end when he shall have delivered up to the kingdom of god even the father when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power first Corinthians chapter 15 verse 22 23 24 it is manifest that we do not in baptism constitute over us another authority by which our external actions are to govern in this life but promise to take the doctrine of the apostles for our direction in the way to life eternal the power of remission and retention of sins called also the power of loosing and binding and sometimes the keys of the kingdom of heaven is a consequence of the authority to baptize or to refuse to baptize for baptism is the sacrament of allegiance of them that are to be received into the kingdom of god that is to say into eternal life that is to say to remission of sin for as eternal life was lost by the committing so it is recovered by the remitting of men's sins the end of baptism is remission of sins therefore st peter when they that were converted by his sermon on the day of pentecost asked what they were to do advised them to repent and be baptized in the name of jesus for the remission of sins acts chapter 2 verse 38 and therefore seeing to baptize is to declare the reception of men into god's kingdom and to refuse to baptize is to declare their exclusion it follows that the power to declare them cast out or retained in it was given to the same apostles and their substitutes and successors and therefore after our savior has breezed upon them saying receive the holy ghost john chapter 20 verse 22 he added them next verse whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained by which words is not granted an authority to forgive or retain sins simply and absolutely as god forgiveth or retaineth them who knoweth the heart of man and truth of his penitence and conversion but conditionally to the penitent and this forgiveness or absolution in case the absolved have but a feigned repentance is thereby without other act or sentence of the absolved made void and has no effect at all to salvation but on the contrary to the aggravation of his sin therefore the apostles and their successors are to follow but the outward marks of repentance which appearing they have no authority to deny absolution and if they appear not they have no authority to absolve the same also is to be observed in baptism for to a converted Jew or Gentile the apostles had not the authority to deny baptism nor to grant it to the unpenitent but seeing no man is able to discern the truth of another man's repentance further than by external marks taken from his words and actions which are not subject to hypocrisy another question will arise who is it that is constituted judge of those marks and this question is decided by our savior himself if thy brother sayeth he shall trespass against thee go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone if he shall hear thee thou hast gained thy brother but if he will not hear thee then take with thee one or two more and if he shall neglect to hear them tell it unto the church but if he neglect to hear the church let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican Matthew chapter 18 verse 15 16 17 by which it is manifest that the judgment concerning the truth of repentance belonged not to any one man but to the church that is to the assembly of the faithful or to them that have authority to be their representant but besides the judgment there is necessary also the pronouncing of sentence and this belong always to the apostle or some pastor of the church as prolocutor and of his savior speakers in the eighth verse whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven and conformable here on two was the practice of st paul where he sayeth for I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have determined already as though I were present concerning him that hath so done this deed in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when you are gathered together in my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such a one to satan first Corinthians chapter five verse three four and five that is to say to cast him out of the church as a man whose sins are not forgiven paul here pronounces the sentence but the assembly was first to hear the cause or st paul was absent and by consequence to condemn him but in the same chapter the judgment in such a case is more expressly attributed to the assembly but now I have written unto you not to keep company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator etc with such a one know not to eat for what have I to do to judge them that are without do not you judge them that are within ebid chapter five verse eleven twelve the sentence therefore by which a man was put out of the church was pronounced by the apostle or pastor but the judgment concerning the merit of the cause was in the church that is to say as the times were before the conversion of kings and men that had sovereign authority in the commonwealth the assembly of the Christians dwelling in the same city as in Corinth in the assembly of the Christians of Corinth end of chapter 42 part 1 recording by jeffrey edwards chapter 42 part 2 of leviathan this is a liber vox recording all liber vox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit liber vox.org recording by jeffrey edwards leviathan by thomas hobs chapter 42 part 2 of power ecclesiastical this part of the power of the keys by which men were thrust out from the kingdom of god is that which is called excommunication and to excommunicate is in the original a poson agogon poin to cast out of the synagogue that is out of the place of divine service a word drawn from the custom of the jews to cast out of their synagogues such as they thought in manners or doctrine contagious as lepers were by the law of moses separated from the congregation of israel till such time as they should be by the priest pronounced clean the use and effect of excommunication whilst it was not yet strengthened with the civil power was no more than that they who were not excommunicate were to avoid the company of them that were it was not enough to repute them as heathen that never had been christians or with such they might eat and drink with excommunicate persons they might not do as appeareth by the words of st paul where he telleth them he had formerly forbidden them to company with fornicators first carinthians chapter five verse nine and ten but because that could not be without going out of the world he restrained it to such fornicators and otherwise vicious persons as were of the brezren with such a one he sayeth they ought not to keep company no not to eat and this is no more than our savior sayeth let him be to thee as a heathen and as a publican matthew chapter 18 verse 17 for publicans which signifyeth farmers and receivers of the revenue of the commonwealth were so hated and detested by the jews that were to pay it as that publican and sinner were taken amongst them for the same thing in so much as when our savior accepted the invitation of zakius a publican though it were to convert him yet it was objected to him as a crime and therefore when our savior to heathen added publican he did forbid them to eat with a man excommunicate as for keeping them out of their synagogues or places of assembly they had no power to do it but that of the owner of the place whether he were christian or heathen and because all places are by right in the dominion of the commonwealth as well he that was excommunicated as he that never was baptized might enter into them by commission from the civil magistrate as paul before his conversion entered into their synagogues at damascus to apprehend christians men and women and to carry them bound to droslem by commission from the high priest acts chapter nine verse two by which it appears that upon a christian that should become an apostate in a place where the civil power did persecute or not assist the church the effect of excommunication had nothing in it neither of damage in this world nor of terror not of terror because of their unbelief nor of damage because they returned thereby into the favor of the world and in the world to come were to be in no worse estate than they which never had believed the damage redounded rather to the church by provocation of them they cast out to a freer execution of their malice excommunication therefore had its effect only upon those that believed that jesus christ was to come again in glory to reign over and to judge both the quick and the dead and should therefore refuse entrance into his kingdom to those whose sins were retained that is to those that were excommunicated by the church and hence it is that st paul call of excommunication a delivery of the excommunicated person to satan for without the kingdom of christ all other kingdoms after judgment are comprehended in the kingdom of satan this is it that the faithful stood in fear of as long as they stood excommunicate that is to say in an estate wherein their sins were not forgiven whereby we may understand that excommunication in the time that christian religion was not authorized by the civil power was used only for a correction of manners not of errors in opinion for it is a punishment where of none could be sensible but such as believed and expected the coming again of our savior to judge the world and they who so believed needed no other opinion but only uprightness of life to be saved their lieth excommunication for injustice as if thy brother offended me tell him privately then with witnesses lastly tell the church and then if he obey not let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican matthew chapter 18 verses 15 16 and 17 and their lieth excommunication for a scandalous life as if a man that is called a brother be a fornicator or covetuous or an idolater or a drunkard or an extortioner with such a one you are not to eat first Corinthians chapter five versus three four and five but to excommunicate a man that held this foundation that Jesus was the christ for difference of opinion and other points by which that foundation was not destroyed there appear no authority in the scripture nor example in the apostles there is indeed in saint paul a text that seemeth to be to the contrary a man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject ibbid chapter five verses 11 and 12 for a heretic is he that being a member of the church teaches nevertheless some private opinion which the church has forbidden and such a one saint paul advised us titus after the first and second admonition to reject but to reject in this place is not to excommunicate the man but to give over admonishing him to let him alone to sit by disputing with him as one that is to be convinced only by himself the same apostle sayeth foolish and unlearned questions avoid second timothy chapter two verse twenty three the word avoid in this place and reject in the former is the same in the original paraito but foolish questions may be set by without excommunication and again avoid foolish questions titus chapter three verse nine where the original paristasso set them by is equivalent to the former word reject there is no other place that can so much as colorably be drawn to countenance the casting out of the church faithful men such as believed to the foundation only for a singular superstructure of their own proceeding perhaps from a good and pious conscience but on the contrary all such places as command avoiding such disputes are written for a lesson to pastors such as timothy and titus were not to make new articles of faith by determining every small controversy which obliged men to a needless burden of conscience or provoke them to break the union of the church which lesson the apostles themselves observed well saint peter and saint paul through their controversy were great as we may read in galatians chapter two verse eleven yet they did not cast one another out of the church nevertheless during the apostles time there were other pastors that observed it not as diotrephes who cast out of the church such as saint john himself thought fit to be received into it out of a pride he took in preeminence third john chapter nine etc so early it was that bane glory and ambition had found entrance into the church of christ that a man be liable to excommunication there be many conditions requisite as first that he be a member of some commonality that is to say of some lawful assembly that is to say of some christian church that has power to judge of the cause for which he is to be excommunicated for where there is no community there can be no excommunication nor where there is no power to judge can there be any power to give sentence from hence it follows that one church cannot be excommunicated by another for either they have equal power to excommunicate each other in which case excommunication is not disciplined nor an act of authority but schism and dissolution of charity or one is so subordinate to the other as that they both have but one voice and then they be but one church and the part excommunicated is no more a church but a dissolute number of individual persons and because the sentence of excommunication imported an advice not to keep company nor so much as to eat with him that is excommunicate if a sovereign prince or assembly be excommunicate the sentence is of no effect for all subjects are bound to be in the company and presence of their own sovereign when he requires it by the law of nature nor can they lawfully either expel him from any place of his own dominion whether profane or holy nor go out of his dominion without his leave much less if he called them to that honor refuse to eat with him and as to other princes and states because they are not parts of one in the same congregation they need not any other sentence to keep them from keeping company with the state excommunicate for the very institution as it united many men into one community so it dissociated one community from another so that excommunication is not needful for keeping kings and states ascender nor has any further effect than is in the nature of policy itself unless it be to instigate princes to war upon one another nor is the excommunication of a christian subject that obeys the laws of his own sovereign whether christian or heathen of any effect for if he believes that Jesus is the christ he has the spirit of god john chapter 5 verse 1 and god dwelleth in him and he and god chapter 4 verse 15 but he that hath the spirit of god he that dwelleth in god he in whom god dwelleth can receive no harm by the excommunication of men therefore he that believe with Jesus to be the christ is free from all the danger threatened to persons excommunicate he that believe with it not is no christian therefore a true and unfeigned christian is not liable to excommunication nor he also that is a professed christian till his hypocrisy appear in his manners that is till his behavior be contrary to the law of his sovereign which is the rule of manners and which christ and his apostles have commanded us to be subject to for the church cannot judge of manners but by external actions which actions can never be unlawful but when they are against the law of commonwealth if a man's father or mother or master be excommunicate yet are not the children forbidden to keep them company nor to eat with them for that were for the most part to oblige them not to eat at all for want of means to get food and to authorize them to disobey their parents and masters contrary to the precept of the apostles in some the power of excommunication cannot be extended further than to the end for which the apostles and pastors of the church have their commission from our savior which is not to rule by command and coercion but by teaching and direction of men in the way of salvation in the world to come and as a master in any science may abandon his scholar when he obstinately neglect us the practice of his rules but not accuse him of injustice because he was never bound to obey him so a teacher of christian doctrine may abandon his disciples that obstinately continue in an unchristian life but he cannot say they do him wrong because they are not obliged to obey him for to a teacher that shall so complain may be applied the answer of god to samuel in the like place they have not rejected the but me first samuel chapter 8 verse 7 excommunication therefore when it want us the assistance of the civil power as it does when a christian state or prince is excommunicate by a foreign authority is without effect and consequently ought to be without terror the name of fulman excommunicate onus that is the thunderbolt of excommunication proceeded from an imagination of the bishop of Rome which first used it that he was king of kings as the heathen made jupiter king of the gods and assigned him in their poems and pictures a thunderbolt where was to subdue and punish the giants that should dare to deny his power which imagination was grounded on two errors one that the kingdom of christ is of this world contrary to our savior's own words my kingdom is not of this world john chapter 18 verse 36 the other that he is christ's vicar not only over his own subjects but over all the christians of the world whereof there is no ground in scripture and the contrary shall be proved in its due place saint paul coming to thessalonica where was a synagogue of the jews as his manner was went in unto them and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures opening and alleging that christ must needs have suffered and risen again from the dead and that this jesus whom he preached was the christ ax chapter 17 verse 2 3 the scriptures here mentioned were the scriptures of the jews that is the old testament the men to whom he was to prove that jesus was the christ and risen again from the dead were also jews and did believe already that they were the word of god hereupon as it is in the fourth verse some of them believed and as it is in the fifth verse some believe not what was the reason when they all believed the scripture that they did not all believe alike but that some approved others disapproved the interpretation of saint paul that cited them and everyone interpreted them to himself it was this saint paul came to them without any legal commission in the manner of one that would not command but persuade which he must needs do either by miracles as moses did to the israelites in egypt that they might see his authority in god's works or by reasoning from the already received scripture that they might see the truth of his doctrine in god's word but whosoever persuaded by reasoning from principle written maketh him to whom he speaketh judge both of the meaning of those principles and also of the force of his inferences upon them if these jews of the salonika were not who else was the judge of what saint paul alleged out of the scripture if saint paul what need he to quote any places to prove his doctrine it had been enough to have said i find it so in the scripture that is to say in your laws of which i am interpreter as sent by christ the interpreter therefore of the scripture to whose interpretation the jews of the salonika were bound to stand could be none everyone might believe or not believe according as the allegation seemed to himself to be agreeable or not agreeable to the meaning of the places alleged and generally in all cases of the world he that pretendeth any proof maketh judge of his proof him to whom he addresses his speech and as to the case of the jews in particular they were bound by express words to receive the determination of all hard questions from the priests and judges of israel for the time being deuteronomy 17 but this is to be understood of the jews that were yet unconverted for the conversion of the gentiles there was no use of alleging the scriptures which they believed not the apostles therefore labored by reason to confute their idolatry and not then to persuade them to the faith of christ by their testimony of his life and resurrection so that there could not yet be any controversy concerning the authority to interpret scripture seeing no man was obliged during his infidelity to follow any man's interpretation of any scripture except his sovereign's interpretation of the laws of his country let us now consider the conversion itself and see what there was therein that could be cause of such an obligation man were converted to no other thing than to the belief of that which the apostles preached and the apostles preached nothing but that jesus was the christ that is to say the king that was to save them and reign over them eternally in the world to come and consequently that he was not dead but risen again from the dead and gone up into heaven and should come again one day to judge the world which also should rise again to be judged and reward every man according to his works none of them preached that himself or any other apostle was such an interpreter of the scripture as all that became christians ought to take their interpretation for law for to interpret the laws is part of the administration of a present kingdom which the apostles had not they prayed then and all other pastors since let thy kingdom come and exhorted their converts to obey their then ethnic princes the new testament was not yet published in one body every of the evangelists was interpreter of his own gospel and every apostle of his own epistle and of the old testament our savior himself saith to the jews search the scriptures for in them you think to have eternal life and they are they that testify of me john chapter 5 verse 39 if he had not meant that they should interpret them he would not have bitten them to take thence the proof of his being the christ he would have either interpreted them himself or referred them to the interpretation of the priests when a difficulty arose the apostles and elders of the church assembled themselves together and determined what should be preached and taught and how they should interpret the scriptures to the people but took not from the people of liberty to read and interpret them to themselves the apostles sent diverse letters to the churches and other writings for their instruction which had been in vain if they had not allowed them to interpret that is to consider the meaning of them and as it was in the apostles time it must be till such time as there should be pastors that could authorize an interpreter whose interpretation should generally be stood to but that could not be till kings were pastors or pastors kings there are two senses wherein a writing may be said to be canonical for canon signify at the rule and a rule is a precept by which a man is guided and directed in any action whatsoever such precepts though given by a teacher to his disciple or a counselor to his friend without power to compel them to observe them are nevertheless canons because they are rules but when they are given by one whom he that receive with them is bound to obey there are those canons not only rules but laws the question therefore here is of the power to make the scriptures which are the rules of christian faith laws that part of the scripture which was first law was the ten commandments written in two tables of stone and delivered by god himself to moses and by moses may known to the people before that time there was no written law of god who as yet having not chosen any people to be his peculiar kingdom had given no law to men but the law of nature that is to say the precepts of natural reason written in every man's own heart of these two tables the first contain the law of sovereignty one that they should not obey nor honor the gods of other nations in other words non-hebeus deus alienus quorum me that is thou shalt not have for gods the gods that other nations worship but only me whereby they were forbidden to obey or honor as their king and governor any god than him that's bacon to them by moses and afterwards by the high priest two that they should not make any image to represent him that is to say they were not to choose to themselves neither in heaven nor in earth any representative of their own fancying but obey moses and erin whom he had appointed to that office three that they should not take the name of god in vain that is they should not speak rashly of their king nor dispute his right nor the commissions of moses and erin his lieutenants four that they should every seventh day abstain from their ordinary labor and employ that time in doing him public honor the second table contains the duty of one man toward another as to honor parents not to kill not to commit adultery not to steal not to corrupt judgment by false witness and finally not so much as design in their heart the doing of any injury one to another the question now is who was the gave these written tables the obligatory force of laws there is no doubt but they were made laws by god himself but because the law obliges not nor is law to any but to them that acknowledge it to be the act of the sovereign how could the people of israel they were forbidden to approach the mountain to hear what god said to moses be obliged to obedience to all those laws which moses propounded to them some of them were indeed the laws of nature as all the second table and therefore to be acknowledged for god's laws not to the israelites alone but to all people but of those that were peculiar to the israelites as those of the first table the question remains saving that they had obliged themselves presently after the propounding of them to obey moses in these words speak thou to us and we will hear thee well let not god speak to us lest we die exodus chapter 20 verse 19 it was therefore only moses then and after him the high priest whom by moses god declared should administer this his peculiar kingdom that had on earth the power to make his short scripture of the decalogue to be law in the commonwealth of israel but moses and erin and the succeeding high priests were the civil sovereigns therefore hitherto the canonizing or making of the scripture law belonged to the civil sovereign the judicial law that is to say the laws that god prescribed to the magistrates of israel for the rule of their administration of justice and of the sentence or judgments they should pronounce in pleas between man and man and the levitical law that is to say the rule that god prescribed touching the rites and ceremonies of the priests and levites were all delivered to them by moses only and therefore also became laws by virtue of the same promise of obedience to moses whether these laws were then written or not written but dictated to the people by moses after his 40 days being with god in the mount by word of mouth is not expressed in the text but they were all positive laws and equivalent to holy scriptures and made canonical by moses the civil sovereign after the israelites were come into the plains of moab over against jericho and ready to enter into the land of promise moses to the former laws added diverse others which therefore are called deuteronomy that is second laws and are as it is written the word of a covenant which the lord commanded moses to make with the children of israel besides the covenant which he made with them in horrib deuteronomy chapter 29 verse 1 for having explained those former laws in the beginning of the book of deuteronomy he added others and begin at the 12th chapter and continued to the end of 26th of the same book this law they were commanded to write upon great stones plastered over at their passing over jordan ibbid chapter 27 this law also was written by moses himself in a book and delivered into the hands of the priests and to the elders of israel ibbid chapter 31 verse 9 and commanded to be put in the side of the ark ibbid chapter 31 verse 26 for in the ark itself was nothing but the 10 commandments this was the law which moses commanded the kings of israel should keep a copy of ibbid chapter 17 verse 18 and this is the law which having been long time lost was found again in the temple in the time of josiah and by his authority received for the law of god but both moses at the writing and josiah at the recovery thereof had both of them the civil sovereignty hitherto therefore the power of making scripture canonical was in the civil sovereign besides this book of the law there was no other book from the time of moses till after the captivity received amongst the jews for the law of god for the prophets except a few lived in the time of the captivity itself and the rest lived but a little before it and were so far from having their prophecies generally received for laws as their persons were persecuted partly by false prophets and partly by the kings who were seduced by them and this book itself which was confirmed by josiah for the law of god and with it all the history of the works of god was lost in the captivity and sack of the city of josem as appears by that of second estrus chapter 14 verse 21 that law is burnt therefore no man knoweth the things that are done of thee or the works that shall begin and before the captivity between the time when the law was lost which is not mentioned in the scripture but may probably be thought to be the time of rehoboam when shishak king of egypt took the spoil of the temple first kings chapter 14 verse 26 and the time of josiah when it was found again they had no written word of god but ruled according to their own discretion or by the discretion of such as each of them esteemed prophets from hence we may infer that the scriptures of the old testament which we have at this day were not canonical nor a law unto the jews till the renovation of their covenant with god at the return from the captivity and restoration of their commonwealth under estrus but from that time forward they were accounted the law of the jews and for such translated into greek by seventy elders of judaea and put into the library of tolamy at alexandria and approved for the word of god now seen estrus was the high priest and the high priest was their civil sovereign it is manifest that the scriptures were never made laws but by the sovereign civil power by the writings of the fathers that lived in the time before the christian religion was received and authorized by constantine the emperor we may find that the books we now have of the new testament were held by the christians of that time except a few in respect of whose paucity the rest were called the catholic church and others heretics for the dictates of the holy ghost and consequently for the canon or rule of faith such was the reverence and opinion they had of their teachers as generally the reverence that the disciples bear to their first masters in all manner of doctrine they receive from them is not small therefore there is no doubt but when saint paul wrote to the churches he had converted or any other apostle or disciple of christ to those which had been embraced christ they received those their writings for the true christian doctrine but in that time when not the power and authority of the teacher but the faith of the hearer caused them to receive it it was not the apostle that made their own writings canonical but every convert made them so to himself but the question here is not what any christian made a law or canon to himself which he might again reject by the same right he received it but what was so made a canon to them as without injustice they could not do anything contrary there unto that the new testament should in this sense be canonical that is to say a law in any place where the law of the commonwealth had not made it so is contrary to the nature of a law for a law as hath been already shown is the commandment of that man or assembly to whom we have given sovereign authority to make such rules for the direction of our actions as he shall think fit and to punish us when we do anything contrary to the same and therefore any other man shall offer unto us any other rules which the sovereign ruler hath not prescribed they are but counsel and advice which whether good or bad he that is counseled may without injustice refuse to observe and when contrary to the laws already established without injustice cannot observe how good whoever he conceiveth it to be I say he cannot in this case observe the same in his actions nor in his discourse with other men though he may without blame believe his private teachers and wish he had the liberty to practice their advice and that it were publicly received for law for internal faith is in its own nature invisible and consequently exempted from all human jurisdiction whereas the words and actions that proceed from it as breaches of our civil obedience are injustice both before God and man seeing then our savior hath denied his kingdom to be in this world seeing he hath said he came not to judge but to save the world he hath not subjected us to other laws than those of the commonwealth that is the Jews to the law of moses which he saith he came not to destroy but to fulfill Matthew chapter five and other nations to the laws of their several sovereigns and all men to the laws of nature the observing whereof both he himself and his apostles have in their teaching recommended to us as a necessary condition of being admitted by him in the last day into his eternal kingdom wherein shall be protection and life everlasting seeing that our savior and his apostles left not new laws to oblige us in this world but new doctrine to prepare us for the next the books of the new testament which contain that doctrine until obedience to them was commanded by them that God had given power to unearthed to be legislators we're not obligatory canons that is laws but only good and safe advice for the direction of sinners in the way to salvation which every man might take and refuse at his own peril without injustice again our savior christ's commission to his apostles and disciples was to proclaim his kingdom not present but to come and to teach all nations and to baptize them that should believe and to enter into the houses of them that should receive them and where they were not received to shake off the dust of their feet against them but not to call for fire from heaven to destroy them nor to compel them to obedience by the sword in all which there is nothing of power but of persuasion he sent them out as sheep and wolves not as kings to their subjects they had not in commission to make laws but to obey and teach obedience to laws made and consequently they could not make their writings obligatory canons without the help of the sovereign civil power and therefore the scripture of the new testament is their only law when the lawful civil power hath made it so and there also the king or sovereign maketh it a law to himself at which he subjected himself not to the doctor or apostle that converted him but to god himself and his son jesus christ as immediately as did the apostles themselves that which may seem to give the new testament in respect of those that have embraced christian doctrine the force of laws in the times and places of persecution is the decrees they made amongst themselves in their synods for we read the style of the council of the apostles the elders and the whole church in this manner it seemed good to the holy ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things acts chapter 15 verse 28 etc which is a style that signified a power to lay a burden on them that had received their doctrine now to lay a burden on another seemeth the same as to oblige and therefore the acts of that council were laws to the then christians nevertheless they were no more laws than are these other precepts repent be baptized keep the commandments believe the gospel come unto me sell all that thou hast give it to the poor and follow me which are not commands but invitations and callings of men to christianity like that of aizea oh every man that thirsteth come ye to the waters come and buy wine and milk without money aizea chapter 55 first one for first the apostles power was no other than that of our savior to invite men to embrace the kingdom of god which they themselves acknowledged for a kingdom not present but to come and they that have no kingdom can make no laws and secondly if their acts of council were laws they could not without sin be disobeyed but we read not anywhere that they who received not the doctrine of christ did they're in sin but that they died in their sins that is that their sins against the laws to which they owed obedience were not pardoned and those laws were the laws of nature and the civil laws of the state where to every christian man had by pact submitted himself and therefore by the burden which the apostles might lay on such as they had converted are not to be understood laws but conditions proposed to those who sought salvation which they might accept or refuse at their own peril without a new sin though not without the hazard of being condemned and excluded out of the kingdom of god for their sins past and therefore of infidels saint john sayeth not the wrath of god shall come upon them but the wrath of god remaineth upon them john chapter 3 verse 36 and not that they shall be condemned but that they are condemned already ebid chapter 3 verse 18 nor can it be conceived that the benefit of faith is remission of sins unless we conceive with all that the damage of infidelity is the retention of the same sins but to what end is it may some man ask that the apostles and other pastors of the church after their time should meet together to agree upon what doctrine should be taught both for faith and manners if no men were obliged to observe their decrees to this may be answered that the apostles and elders of that council were obliged even by their entrance into it to teach the doctrine they're inconcluded and decreed to be taught so far forth as no precedent law to which they were obliged to yield obedience was to the contrary but not that all other Christians should be obliged to observe what they taught for though they might deliberate what each of them should teach yet they could not deliberate what others should do unless their assembly had a legislative power which none could have but civil sovereigns for though god be the sovereign of all the world we are not bound to take for his law whatsoever is propounded by every man in his name nor anything contrary to the civil law which god hath expressly commanded us to obey end of chapter 42 part 2 recording by jeffrey edwards