Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	king_n	prophet_n	samuel_n	2,676	5	9.8228	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86417	Philosophicall rudiments concerning government and society. Or, A dissertation concerning man in his severall habitudes and respects, as the member of a society, first secular, and then sacred. Containing the elements of civill politie in the agreement which it hath both with naturall and divine lawes. In which is demonstrated, both what the origine of justice is, and wherein the essence of Christian religion doth consist. Together with the nature, limits, and qualifications both of regiment and subjection. / By Tho: Hobbes.; De cive. English	Hobbes, Thomas, 1588-1679.; Vaughan, Robert, engraver.	1651 (1651)	Wing H2253; Thomason E1262_1; ESTC R202404	220,568	406

submitted themselves to be protected and judged by reason of the great esteem they had of Prophecies The Reason of this thing was because that though penalties were set and Judges appointed in the institution of Gods priestly Kingdome yet the Right of inflicting punishment depended wholly on private judgement and it belonged to a dissolute multitude and each single Person to punish or not to punish according as their private zeale should stirre them up And therefore Moyses by his own command punisht no man with death but when any man was to be put to death one or many stirred up the multitude against him or them by divine authority and saying Thus saith the Lord. Now this was conformable to the nature of Gods peculiar Kingdome For there God reignes indeed where his Lawes are obeyed not for fear of men but for fear of himselfe and truly if men were such as they should be this were an excellent state of civill government but as men are there is a coercive power in which I comprehend both right and might necessary to rule them and therefore also God from the beginning prescribed Lawes by Moyses for the future Kings Deut. 17. vers 14. and Moyses foretold this in his last words to the people saying I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt your selves and turn aside from the way that I have commanded you c. Deut. 31. 29. when therefore according to this prediction there arose another generation who knew not the Lord nor yet the works which he had done for Ispael the children of Israel did evill in the sight of the Lord and served B●laam Iud. 2. 10 11. to wit they cast off Gods government that is to say that of the Priest by whom God ruled and afterward when they were overcome by their enemies and opprest with bondage they looked for Gods will not at the hands of the Priest any more but of the Prophets These therefore actually judged Israel but their obedience was rightly due to the High Priest Although therefore the Priestly Kingdome after the death of Moyses Ioshuah was without power yet was it not without Right Now that the interpretation of Gods word did belong to the same High Priest is manifest by this That God after the Tabernacle the Ark of the Covenant was consecrated spake no more in mount Sinai but in the Tabernacle of the Covenant from the propitiatory which was between the Cherubims whether it was not lawfull for any to aproach except the High Priest If therefore regard be had to the Right of the Kingdome the supreme civill power and the authority of interpreting Gods word were joyned in the High Priest If we consider the fact they were united in the Prophets who judged Israel For as Iudges they had the civill authority as Prophets they interpreted Gods word and thus every way hitherto these two powers continued inseparable XVI Kings being once constituted it s no doubt but the civill authority belonged to them for the Kingdome of God by the way of Priesthood God consenting to the request of the Israelites was ended which Hierom also marks speaking of the books of Samuel Samuel sayes he Eli being dead and Saul slain declares the old Law abolisht Furthermore the Oaths of the new Priesthood and new Soveraignty in Zadok and David do testifie that the Right whereby the Kings did rule was founded in the very concession of the People The Priest could Rightly doe whatsoever every man could rightly doe himselfe for the Israelites granted him a Right to judge of all things and to wage warre for all men in which two are contained all Right whatsoever can be conceived from man to man Our King say they shall judge us and goe out before us and fight our battails 1. Sam. 8. 20. Iudicature therefore belonged to the Kings but to judge is nothing else then by interpreting to apply the facts to the Lawes to them therefore belonged the interpretation of Lawes too and because there was no other written word of God acknowledged beside the Law of Moyses untill the Captivity the authority of interpreting Gods word did also belong to the Kings Nay forasmuch as the word of God must be taken for a Law if there had been another written word beside the Mosaicall Law seeing the interpretation of Lawes belonged to the Kings the interpretation of it must also have belonged to them When the book of Deuteronomie in which the whole Mosaicall Law was contained being a long time lost was found again the Priests indeed asked Counsell of God concerning that book but not by their own authority but by the Commandement of Iosiah and not immediately neither but by the meanes of Holda the Prophetesse whence it appears that the authority of admitting books for the word of God belonged not to the Priest neither yet followes it that that authority belonged to the Prophetesse because others did judge of the Prophets whether they were to be held for true or not for to what end did God give signes and tokens to all the People whereby the true Prophets might be discerned from the false namely the event of predictions and conformity with the Religion ●stablisht by Moyses if they might not use those marks The authority therefore of admitting books for the word of God belonged to the King thus that book of the Law was approved and received again by the authority of King Iosiah as appears by the fourth book of the Kings 22. 23. Chap. where it is reported that he gathered together all the severall degrees of his Kingdome the Elders Priests Prophets and all the people and he read in their cares all the words of the Covenant that is to say he caused that Covenant to be acknowledged for the Mosaicall Covenant● that is to say for the word of God and to be again received and confirmed by the Israclites The civill power therefore and the power of discerning Gods word from the word of men and of interpreting Gods word even in the dayes of the Kings was wholly belonging to themselves Prophets were sent not with authority but in the form and by the Right of Proclaimers and Preachers of whom the hearers did judge and if perhaps these were punisht who did not listen to them plainly teaching easie things it doth not thence follow that the Kings were obliged to follow all things which they in Gods name did declare were to be followed for though Iosiab the good King of Iudah were slain because he obeyed not the word of the Lord from the mouth of Neobo King of Aegypt that is to say because he rejected good Counsell though it seemed to come from an enemy yet no man I hope will say that Iosiah was by any bond either of divine or humane Lawes obliged to beleeve Pharoah Neobo King of Aegypt because he said that God had spoken to him But what some man may object against Kings that for want of learning they are seldome

him that commands the government is upheld by a double obligation from the Citizens first that which is due to their fellow citizens next that which they owe to their Prince Wherefore no subjects how many soever they be ●an with any Right despoyle him who bears the chiefe Rule of his authority even without his own consent CHAP. VII Of the three kindes of Government Democraty Aristocraty Monarchie I. That there are three kindes of Government onely Democraty Ariristocraty Monarchie II. That Oligarchy is not a diverse form of government distinct from Aristocraty nor Anarchy any Forme at all III. That a Tyranny is not a diverse state from a legitimate Monarchy IV. That there cannot be a mixt state fashioned out of these severall species V. That Democraty except there be certain times and places of meeting prefixt is dissolv'd VI. In a Democraty the intervalls of the times of meeting must be short or the administration of Government during the intervall committed to some one VII In a Democraty particulars Contract with particulars to obey the People the People is oblig'd to no man VIII By what acts Aristocraty is constituted IX In an Aristocraty the Nobles make no Compact neither are they oblig'd to any Citizen or to the whole People X. The Nobles must necessarily have their set meetings XI By what acts Monarchy is constituted XII Monarchy is by Compact oblig'd to none for the Authority it hath receiv'd XIII Monarchy is ever in the readiest capacity to exercise all those acts which are requisite to good Government XIV What kind of sin that is and what sort of men are guilty of it when the City performes not its office towards the Citizens nor the Citizens towards the City XV. A Monarch made without limitation of time hath power to elect his successor XVI Of limited Monarchs XVII A Monarch retaining his Right of Government cannot by any promise whatsoever be conceived to have parted with his Right to the meanes necessary to the exercise of his Authority XVIII How a Citizen is freed from subjection I. VVE have already spoken of a City by institution in its Genus we will now say somewhat of its species As for the difference of Cities it is taken from the difference of the Persons to whom the Supreme Power is committed this power is committed either to one Man or Councell or some one Court consisting of many men Furthermore a Councell of many men consists either of all the Citizens insomuch as every man of them hath a Right to Vote and an interest in the ordering of the greatest affaires if he will himselfe or of a part onely from whence there arise three sorts of Government The one when the Power is in a Councell where every Citizen hath a right to Vote and it is call'd a DEMOCRATY The other when it is in a Councell where not all but some part onely have their suffrages and we call it an ARISTOCRATY The third is that when the Supreme Authority rests onely in one and it is stiled a MONARCHY In the first he that governes is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The PEOPLE In the second the NOBLES In the third the MONARCH II. Now although Ancient Writers of Politiques have introduc'd three other kindes of Government opposite to these to wit Anarchy or confusion to Democraty Oligarchy that is the command of some few to Aristocracy and Tyranny to Monarchy yet are not these three distinct formes of Government but three diverse Titles given by those who were either displeas'd with that present Government or those that bare Rule For men by giving names doe usually not onely signifie the things themselves but also their own affections as love hatred anger and the like whence it happens that what one man calls a Democraty another calls an Anarchy what one counts an Aristocraty another esteemes an Oligarchie and whom one titles a King another stiles him a Tyrant so as we see these names betoken not a diverse kinde of Government but the diverse opinions of the Subjects concerning him who hath the Supreme Power For first who sees not that Anarchy is equally opposite to all the forenam'd Formes For that word signifies that there is no Government at all that is not any City But how is it possible that no City should be the species of a City Farthermore what difference is there between an Oligarchie which signifies the Command of a few or Grand●●s or an Aristocraty which is that of the Prime or Chief Heads more then that men differ so among themselves that the same things seeme not good to all men whence it happens that those persons who by some are look'd on as the best are dy others esteem'd to be the worst of all men III. But men by reason of their passions will very hardly be perswaded that a Kingdome and Tyranny are not diverse kindes of Cities who though they would rather have the City subject to one then many yet doe they not beleeve it to be well govern'd unlesse it accord with their judgements But we must discover by Reason and not by Passion what the difference is between a King and a Tyrant but first they differ not in this That a Tyrant hath the greater power for greater then the Supreme cannot be granted nor in this That one hath a limited power the other not for he whose authority is limited is no King but his Subject that limits him Lastly neither differ they in their manner of acquisition for if in a Democraticall or Aristocraticall Government some one Citizen should by force possesse himself of the Supreme Power if he gain the consent of all the Citizens he becomes a legitimate Monarch if not he is an Enemy not a Tyrant They differ therefore in the sole exercise of their command insomuch as he is said to be a King who governs wel and he a●… Tyrant that doth otherwise The case therefore is brought to this passe That a King legitimately constituted in his Government if he seeme to his Subjects to Rule well and to their liking they afford him the appellation of a King if not they count him a Tyrant Wherefore we see a Kingdome and Tyranny are not diverse Formes of Government but one and the self-same Monarch hath the name of a King given him in point of Honour and Reverence to him and of a Tyrant in way of contumely and reproach But what we frequently finde in bookes said against Tyrants took its originall from Greek and Roman Writers whose Government was partly Democraticall and partly Aristocraticall and therefore not Tyrants onely but even Kings were odious to them IV. There are who indeed doe think it necessarily That a Suprem● Command should be somewhere extant in a City but if it should be in any one either Man or Councell it would follow they say that all the Citizens must be slaves Avoiding this condition they imagine that there may be a certaine Form of Government

after him and they shall keep the way of the Lord to doe justice and judgement unlesse his children and his houshold were supposed to be obliged to yeeld obedience unto his Commands VII Hence it followes that Abrahams subjects could not sinne in obeying him provided that Abraham commanded them not to deny Gods Existence or Providence or to doe somewhat expresly contrary to the honour of God In all other things the word of God was to be fetcht from his lips only as being the Interpreter of all the Lawes and words of God For Abraham alone could teach them who was the God of Abraham and in what manner he was to be worshipped And they who after Abrahams death were subject to the Soveraignty of Isaac or Iacob did by the same reason obey them in all things without sin as long as they acknowledged and profest the God of Abraham to be their God for they had submitted themselves to God simply before they did it to Abraham and to Abraham before they did it to the God of Abraham againe to the God of Abraham before they did it to Isaac In Abrahams subjects therefore To deny God was the only Treason against the Divine Majesty but in their posterity it was also Treason to deny the God of Abraham that is to say to worship God otherwise then was instituted by Abraham to wit in Images * made with hands as other Nations did which for that reason were called Idolators And hitherto subjects might easily enough discern what was to be observed what avoyded in the Commands of their Princes In Images made with hands In the 15. Chap. 14. Article There wee have shewed such a kinde of worship to be irrationall but if it be done by the command of a City to whom the written word of God is not known nor received we have then shewed this worship in the 15. Chap. art 18. to be rationall But where God reigns by way of Covenant in which it is expresly warned not to worship thus as in the Covenant made with Abraham there whether it be with or without the Command of the City it is ill done VIII To goe on now following the guidance of the holy Scripture The same Covenant was renewed Gen. 26. vers 3 4. with Isaac and Gen. 28. vers 14. with Iacob whote God stiles himselfe not simply God whom nature doth dictate him to be but distinctly the God of Abraham and Isaac afterward being about to renew the same Covenant by Moysos with the whole People of Israel Exod. 3. v. 6. I am saith h● the God of thy Father the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Afterward when that People not only the freest but also the greatest enemy to humane subjection by reason of the fresh memory of their Ae gyptian bondage abode in the wildernesse near mount Si●ai that anti●●t Covenant was propounded to them all to be renewed in this manner Exod. 19. ver 5. Therefore if yee will obey my voice indeed and keep my Covenant to wit that Covenant which was made with Abraham Isaac and Iacob then shall yee be a peculiar Treasure unto me above all People for all the earth is mine and yee shall be to me a Kingdome of Priests and an holy Nation And all the People answered together and said All that the Lord hath spoken will we doe vers 8. IX In this Covenant among other things we must consider well the appellation of Kingdom not used before for although God both by nature by Covenant made with Abraham was their King yet owed they him an obedience and worship only naturall as being his subjects religious such as Abraham instituted as being the Subjects of Abraham Isaac Iacob their naturall Princes For they had received no word of God beside the naturall word of right reason neither had any Covenant past between God and them otherwise then as their wils were included in the will of Abraham as their Prince But now by the Covenant made at mount Sinai the consent of each man being had there becomes an institutive Kingdome of God over them That Kingdom of God so renowned in Scriptures and writings of Divines took its beginning from this time and hither tends that which God said to Samuel when the Israelites asked a King 1. Sam. 8. 7. Yhey have not rejected thee but they have rejected me that I should not reign over them and that which Samuel told the Israelites 1. Sam. 12. 12. Yee said unto me nay but a King shall reign over us when the Lord your God was your King and that which is said Jer. 31. vers 31. I will make a new Covenant c. Although I was an husband unto them And the doctrine also of Judas Galil●us where mention is made in Ioseph Antiq. of the Iewes 18. Book 2. Chap. in these words But Judas Galilaeus was the first authour of this fourth way of those who followed the study of wisdome These agree in all the rest with the Pharisees excepting that they burn with a most constant desire of liberty beleeving God alone to be held for their Lord and Prince and will sooner endure even the most exquisite kinds of torments together with their kins folks and dearest friends then call any mortall man their Lord. X. The Right of the Kingdome being thus constituted by way of Covenant let us see in the next place what lawes God propounded to them now those are knowne to all to wit the Decalogue and those other as well judiciall as ceremoniall lawes which we find from the 20. Chap. of Exodus to the end of Deuteronomie and the death of Moyses Now of those lawes deliver'd in generall by the hand of Moyses some there are which oblige naturally being made by God as the God of nature and had their force ever before Abrahams time others there are which oblige by vertue of the Covenant made with Abraham being made by God as the God of Abraham which had their force even before Moyses his time by reason of the former Covenant but there are others which oblige by vertue of that Covenant onely which was made last with the people themselves being made by God as being the Peculiar King of the Israelites Of the first so●t are all the Precepts of the Decalogue which pertaine unto manners such as Honour thy Parents thou shalt not Kill thou shalt not commit Adultery thou shalt not Steale thou shalt not ●eare false witnesse thou shalt not Covet For they are the Lawes of n●…e Also the precept of not taking Gods name in vaine for it is a part of naturall worship as hath beene declar'd in the foregoing Chap. Art 15. In like manner the second Commandement of not worshipping by way of any Image made by themselves for this also is a part of naturall Religion as hath beene shewed in the same Article Of the second sort is the first Commandment of the Decalogue Of

not having any other Gods for in that consists the essence of the Covenant made with Abraham by which God requires nothing else but that he should be his God and the God of his seede Also the Precept of keeping holy the Sabbath for the Sanctification of the seventh day is instituted in memoriall of the six dayes Creation as appeares out of these words Exod. 31. ver 16 17. It is a perpetuall Covenant meaning the Sabbath and a signe betweene me and the Children of Israel for ever for in sixe dayes the Lord made Heaven and Earth and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed Of the third kind are the Politique judiciall and Ceremoniall lawes which onely belong'd to the Jewes The lawes of the fi●st and second sort written in Tables of stone to wit the Decalogue was kept in the Ark it selfe The rest written in the volume of the whole Law were laid up in the side of the Arke Deut. 3. ver 26 For these retaining the faith of Abraham might be chang'd those could not XI All Gods Lawes are Gods Word but all Gods Word is not his Law I am the Lord th● God which brought thee out of the Land of Aegypt is the word of God 〈…〉 is no Law Neither is all that which for the better deolaring of Gods Word is pronounc't or written together with it instantly to be taken for Gods Word For Thus saith the Lord is not the voice of God but of the Preacher or Prophet All that and onely that is the word of God which a true Prophet hath declar'd God to have spoken Now the writings of the Prophets comprehendng as well those things which God as which the Prophet himselfe speaks are therefore called the word of God because they containe the word of God Now because all that and that alone is the Word of God which is recommended to us for such by a true Prophet it cannot be knowne what Gods Word is before we know who is the true Prophet nor can we beleeve Gods Word before we beleeve the Prophet Moyses was beleev'd by the People of Israel for two things His Miracles and his Faith for how great and most evident Miracles soever he had wrought yet would they not have trusted him at least he was not to have beene trusted if he had call'd them out of Aegypt to any other worship then the worship of the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob their Fathers For it had beene contrary to the Covenant made by themselves with God In like manner two things there are to wit supernaturall Praediction of things to come which is a mighty miracle and Faith in the God of Abraham their deliverer out of Aegypt which God propos'd to all the Jews to be kept for marks of a true Prophet He that wants either of these is no Prophet nor is it to be receiv'd for Gods word which he obtrudes for such If Faith be wanting he is rejectin these words Deut. 13. ver 1 2 3 4 5. If there arise among you a Prophet or a dreamer of dreams and giveth thee a signe or a wonder and the signe or the wonder come to passe whereof he spake unto thee saying Let us goe after other Gods c. That Prophet or that dreamer of dreames shall be put to death If Praediction of events be wanting he is condemn'd by these Deut. 18. ver 21 22. And if thou say in thine heart how shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken When a Prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord if the thing follow not nor come to passe that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken but the Prophet hath spoken it presumptuously Now that that is the word of God which is publisht for such by a true Prophet and that he was held to be a true Prophet among the Jewes whose faith was true and to whose praedictions the events answer'd is without controversie but what it is to follow other Gods and whether the events which are affirm'd to answer their praedictions doe truly answer them or not may admit many controversies specially in praedictions which obscurely aenigmatically foretell the Event such as the praedictions of almost all the Prophets are as who saw not God apparently like unto Moyses but in darke speech●s and in figures Numb 12. ver 8. But of these we cannot judge otherwise then by the way of naturall reason because that Judgment depends on the Prophets interpretation and on its proportion with the Event XII The Jewes did hold the booke of the whole Law which was called Deuteronomie for the written word of God and that onely forasmuch as can be collected out of sacred history untill the Captivity for this booke was deliver'd by Moyses himselfe to the Priests to be kept and layd up in the side of the Ark of the Covenant and to be copyed out by the Kings and the same a long time after by the authority of King Josiah acknowledg'd againe for the Word of God 2 Kings 23. ver 2. But it is not manifest when the rest of the books of the Old Testament were first receiv'd into Canon but what concernes the Prophets Isaiah and the rest since they foretold no other things then what were to come to passe either in or after the Captivity their writings could not at that time be held for Prophetique by reason of the Law cited above Deut. 18. ver 21 22. Whereby the Israelites were commanded not to account any man for a true Prophet but him whose Prophecies were answer'd by the events And hence peradventure it is that the Jew● esteem'd the writings of those whom they slew when they Prophesied for Prophetique afterward that is to say for the word of God XIII It being known what Lawes there were under the old Covenant and that Word of God receiv'd from the beginning we must farthermore consider with whom the authority of judging whether the writings of the Prophets arising afterward were to be receiv'd for the Word of God that is to say whether the Events did answer their praedictions or not and with whom also the authority of interpreting the Lawes already receiv'd and the written Word of God did reside which thing is to be trac't through all the times and severall changes of the Commonwealth of Israel But it is manifest that this power during the life of Moyses was intirely in himselfe for if he had not been the Interpreter of the Lawes and Word that office must have belong'd either to every private person or to a congregation or Synagogue of many or to the High-Priest or to other Prophets First that that office belong'd not to private men or any Congregation made of them appeares hence that they were not admitted nay they were prohibited with most heavy threats to heare God speake otherwise then by the means of Moyses for it is written Let not the Priests and the people break through to come up unto the Lord lest

able enough to interpret those books of antiquity in the which Gods word is contained and that for this cause it is not reasonable that this office should depend on their authority he may object as much against the Priests and all mortall men for they may erre and although Priests were better instructed in nature and arts then other men yet Kings are able enough to appoint such interpreters under them and so though Kings did not themselves interpret the word of God yet the office of interpreting them might depend on their authority and they who therefore refuse to yeeld up this authority to Kings because they cannot practise the office it selfe doe as much as if they should say that the authority of teaching Geometry must not depend upon Kings except they themselves were Geometricians We read that Kings have prayed for the People that they have blest the people that they have consecrated the Temple that they have commanded the Priests that they have removed Priests from their office that they have constituted others Sacrifices indeed they have not offered for that was hereditary to Aaron and his sonnes but it is manifest as in Moyses his life time so throughout all ages from King Saul to the captivity of Babylon that the Priesthood was not a Maistry but a Ministry XVII After their returne from Babylonian bondage the Covenant being renewed and sign'd the Priestly Kingdome was restor'd to the same manner it was in from the death of Ioshuah to the beginning of the Kings excepting that it is not expresly set downe that the return'd Jewes did give up the Right of Soveraignty either to Esdras by whose directions they ordred their State or to any other beside God himselfe That reformation seemes rather to be nothing else then the bare promises and vowes of every man to observe those things which were written in the booke of the Law notwithstanding perhaps not by the Peoples intention by virtue of the Covenant which they then renewed for the Covenant was the same with that which was made at Mount Sinai that same state was a Priestly Kingdome that is to say the supreme civill authority and the sacred were united in the Priests Now howsoever through the ambition of those who strove for the Priesthood and by the interposition of forraigne Princes it was so troubled till our Saviour Iesus Christs time that it cannot be understood out of the histories of those times where that authority resided yet it 's plaine that in those times the power of interpreting Gods Word was not severed from the supreme civill power XVIII Out of all this we may easily know how the ●ewes in all times ●om Abraham unto Christ were to behave themselves in the Commands of their Princes for as in Kingdomes meerly humane men must obey a subordinate Magistrate in all things excepting when his Commands containe in them some Treason so in the Kingdome of God the I●we● were bound to obey their Princes Abraham Isaac Jacob Moyses the Priest the King every one du●…ng ●heir time in all things except when their commands did containe some treason against the Divine Majesty Now treason against the Divine Majesty was first the deniall of ●is divine providence for this was to deny God to be a King by nature next Idolatry or the worship not of other for there is but one God but of strange Gods that is to say a worship though of one God yet under other Titles Attributes and Rites then what were establisht by Abraham and Moyses for this was to deny the God of Abraham to be their King by Covenant made with Abraham and themselves in all other things they were to obey and if a King or Priest having the Soveraign authority had commanded somewhat else to be done which was against the Lawes that had been his sinne and not his subjects whose duty it is not to dispute but to obey the Commands of his superiours Of the Kingdome of God by the new Covenant I. The Prophesies concerning Christs Dignity II. The Prophesies coneerning his Humility and Passion III. That Jesus was THAT CHRIST IV. That the Kingdome of God by the new Covenant was not the Kingdome of Christ as Christ but as God V. That the Kingdome by the new Covenant is heavenly and shall beginne from the day of Judgment VI. That the government of Christ in this world was not a Soveraignty but Counsell or a government by the way of doctrine and perswasion VII What the promises of the new Covenant are on both parts VIII That no Lawes are added by Christ beside the institution of the Sacraments IX Repent ye be baptized keep the Commandements and the like forms of speech are not Lawes X. It pertains to the civill authority to define what the sinne of injustice is XI It pertains to the civill authority to define what conduces to the Peace and defence of the City XII It pertains to the civill authority to judge when need requires what definitions and what inferences are true XIII It belongs to the Office of Christ to teach morally not by the way of speculation but as a Law to forgive sinnes and to teach all things whereof there is no science properly so called XIV A distinction of things temporall from spirituall XV. In how many seveverall sorts the word of God may be taken XVI That all which is contained in holy Scripture belongs not to the Canon of Christian Faith XVII That the word of a lawfull Interpreter of holy Scriptures is the word of God XVIII That the authority of interpreting Scriptures is the same with that of determining controversies of Faith XIX Divers significations of a Church XX. What a Church is to which we attribute Rights Actions and the like personall Capacites XXI A Christian City is the same with a Christian Church XXII Many Cities do not constitute one Church XXIII Who are Ecclesiasticall Persons XXIV That the Election of Ecclesiasticall Persons belongs to the Church their consecration to Pastors XXV That the power of remitting the sinnes of the penitent and retaining those of the impenitent belongs to the Pastors but that of judging concerning repentance belongs to the Church XXVI What Excommunication is and on whom it cannot passe XXVII That the Interpretation of Scripture depends on the authority of the City XXVIII That a Christian city ought to interpret Scriptures by Ecclesiasticall Pastors I. THere are many cleare prophesies exta●…t in the old Testament concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ who was to restore the Kingdome of God by a new Covenan● partly foretelling his regall Dignity partly his Humility and Passion Among others concerning his Dignity these God blessing Abraham ●akes him a promise of his sonne Isaac and ●ddes And Kings of People shall be of him Gen 17. vers 15. Jacob blessing his sonne Judah The Scepter quoth be shall not depart from Judah Gen. 49. vers 10. G●d to Moyses A Prophet saith he will I raise them up from